![]()
|
|
||||||||
J Biol Chem, Vol. 275, Issue 11, 7870-7877, March 17, 2000
From the Neurotrophins are important for the development
and maintenance of the vertebrate nervous system, mediating their
signal into the cell by specific interaction with tyrosine kinase
receptors of the Trk family. The extracellular portion of the Trk
receptors has been previously proposed to consist of a cysteine-rich
motif, a leucine-rich motif, a second cysteine-rich motif followed by two immunoglobulin-like domains. Earlier studies have shown that a
major neurotrophin-binding site in the Trk receptors resides in the
second immunoglobulin-like domain. Although the individual amino acids
in TrkA involved in binding to nerve growth factor (NGF) and those in
TrkC involved in binding to neurotrophin-3 have been mapped in this
domain, the Trk amino acids that provide specificity remained unclear.
In this study, a minimum set of residues in the human TrkC second
immunoglobulin-like domain, which does not bind nerve growth factor
(NGF), were substituted with those from human TrkA. The resulting Trk
variant recruited binding of NGF equivalent to TrkA, maintained
neurotrophin-3 binding equivalent to TrkC, and also bound brain-derived
neurotrophin, although with lower affinity compared with TrkB. This
implies that the amino acids in the second immunoglobulin-like domain that determine Trk specificity are distinct for each Trk.
The neurotrophins form a highly homologous family of growth
factors responsible for differentiation, survival, and function of
neurons sensitive to their presence (reviewed in Refs. 1-5). These
molecules may also play a role outside the nervous system (6, 7). The
mammalian members of this family include nerve growth factor
(NGF),1 brain-derived
neurotrophic factor (BDNF), neurotrophin-3 (NT-3), and neurotrophin-4/5
(NT4/5) (reviewed in Ref. 8). Neurotrophins bind to two classes of
receptors, tyrosine kinases encoded by the Trk gene family
and p75NTR (1-4, 9). Neurotrophin binding induces
autophosphorylation of the Trk receptors that triggers the subsequent
steps in the signal transduction cascade (reviewed in Ref. 4). Each Trk receptor can discriminate between the different neurotrophins as
follows: TrkC interacts with NT-3 (10), TrkB interacts primarily with
BDNF and NT-4/5 (11, 12), and TrkA interacts primarily with NGF (13),
although TrkB and TrkA can bind NT-3 (12, 14).
The domain organization of the extracellular portion of the Trk
receptors has been proposed based on sequence information (15).
According to this proposal, the extracellular portion of the Trk
receptors is comprised of a cysteine cluster, a leucine-rich motif, a
second cysteine cluster followed by two immunoglobulin-like domains.
Previous studies have shown that the second immunoglobulin-like domain
of the Trk receptors is involved in binding to their respective neurotrophins. Deletion of the second immunoglobulin-like domain in
TrkA (16, 17) and TrkC (16) abrogates neurotrophin binding. Exchanging
the second immunoglobulin-like domain from TrkA or TrkB into TrkC
resulted in high affinity NGF and BDNF binding, respectively (16), and
exchanging the two immunoglobulin-like domains from TrkA into TrkB also
transferred NGF binding (18). In cells transfected with receptors
comprising only the two immunoglobulin-like domains of TrkA (17) or
TrkC (16) or only the second immunoglobulin-like domain of TrkC (16),
these truncated receptors bound neurotrophin and exhibited
autophosphorylation. In addition, a fragment of TrkA comprising the two
immunoglobulin-like domains has been shown to bind NGF and inhibit
neurite outgrowth (19, 20).
A second neurotrophin-binding site on Trk receptors, the leucine-rich
motif (LRM) domain, has also been implicated in binding neurotrophins
(21-25). Peptides corresponding to segments of the LRM domain can bind
to neurotrophins and inhibit neurotrophin binding to Trk receptors,
although only with a Ki value in the micromolar
range (24). In contrast to the studies showing that transferring the
second immunoglobulin-like domain among Trk receptors also transfers
neurotrophin binding specificity (16, 18), no BDNF binding was observed
when the TrkB LRM domain was substituted into TrkC (16) nor was NGF
binding recruited when the TrkA LRM domain was substituted into TrkC
(26) or TrkB (18). Although the role of the LRM domain in binding
neurotrophins remains unclear, the function of this domain was
suggested in a study in which cells were transfected with TrkA
receptors in which the LRM domain was deleted. These cells bound NGF,
showed autophosphorylation of the Trk receptor, and activation of the Shc-dependent Ras pathway, but they failed to fasciculate
and showed delayed aborization (17).
The amino acids in the second immunoglobulin-like domain of TrkA
involved in binding NGF and those in TrkC involved in binding NT-3 have
been previously mapped (26), although the amino acids that controlled
specificity were not elucidated. In order to determine the residues
that control specificity of TrkA for NGF, a TrkC-based variant was
generated by replacing TrkC residues with the minimum set of TrkA
residues necessary to recruit NGF binding equivalent to native TrkA.
Unexpectedly, this TrkC-based variant maintained NT-3 binding
equivalent to native TrkC and also bound BDNF, although less well than
native TrkB. This implies that the amino acids in the Trk receptors
that determine specificity for their respective neurotrophins occupy
distinct, separate positions in the second immunoglobulin-like domain sequence.
Plasmid and Protein Preparation--
Plasmids encoding the
native human TrkA-immunoadhesin and native human TrkC-immunoadhesin
were used as the template for site-directed mutagenesis to generate
plasmids coding for the variants, as described previously (26).
Plasmids were transfected into human embryonic kidney 293 cells,
and Trk proteins were expressed, purified, and quantified as
described previously (26).
Binding of NT-3 to TrkC Variants--
The binding of TrkC
variants to NT3 was evaluated using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay method analogous to one previously described (26). Microtiter
plates (NUNC, Denmark) were coated overnight at 4 °C with 100 µl
per well of a 5 µg/ml solution of goat F(ab')2 anti-human IgG (Fc)
(Cappel-ICN Immunobiologicals, Costa Mesa, CA) in 50 mM
carbonate buffer, pH 9.6. The plates were then washed with wash buffer
(phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), 0.05% Tween 20), and excess binding
sites were blocked with 200 µl/well of PBS containing 0.5% bovine
serum albumin + 0.05% Tween 20 (PBS/BSA/T) for 1-2 h at ambient
temperature. Stock solutions of TrkC wild type or variant
immunoadhesins in PBS/BSA/T (1 or 16 µg/ml, respectively) were
serially diluted with PBS/BSA/T; 100 µl/well was added to the
appropriate wells on the plate and incubated for 1 h at ambient
temperature. The plates were then washed, and 100 µl/well of a 100 ng/ml solution of biotinylated human NT-3 (Genentech, Inc.) in
PBS/BSA/T was added and incubated for 1 h at ambient temperature.
After washing, 100 µl/well of a 1:1000 dilution of 2.5 µg/ml
streptavidin/horseradish peroxidase conjugate (Sigma) in PBS/BSA/T was
added and incubated at ambient temperature for 1 h. Binding of the
conjugate was detected with 5 mg of o-phenylenediamine
tablets (Sigma) dissolved in PBS containing 4 mM
H2O2 (100 µl/well; 1 tablet/12.5 ml of
substrate solution). Following a 5-15-min incubation period at ambient
temperature, the substrate reaction was terminated with 100 µl/well
of 2.5 N H2SO4, and the plates were
read with an automated platereader (UVMax Kinetic Platereader,
Molecular Devices, Palo Alto, CA), using a 490 nm filter for absorbance
and 405 nm reference filter.
Binding of NGF to TrkC Variants--
The binding of TrkC
variants to NGF was evaluated using an immunosorbent assay analogous to
the method described above. Plates were coated overnight at 4 °C
with human NGF (100 µl/well of a 1 µg/ml solution) (Genentech,
Inc.), washed, and excess binding sites blocked as described above.
Serial dilutions of wild type TrkA (4 µg/ml to 31.3 ng/ml) and TrkC
variants (64 µg/ml to 3.9 ng/ml) were added (100 µl/well) and
incubated for 1 h at ambient temperature. The plates were washed,
and bound immunoadhesin was then detected with goat anti-human IgG
(Fc)-horseradish peroxidase conjugate (1:1000 dilution; 100 µl/well;
Cappel-ICN Immunobiologicals) and o-phenylenediamine
substrate as described above.
Construction of Stable, Transfected NIH3T3 Cells--
The
extracellular domains for variants C13 and CR1 were amplified using
polymerase chain reaction, fused to DNA coding for the TrkA
transmembrane and cytosolic domains, and subcloned into the mammalian
expression vector, pMEXneo (27), using SalI and ClaI sites. Subconfluent NIH3T3 cells were transfected with
the plasmids using the Lipofectin
N[1-(2,3-dioleoyloxy)propyl]-N,N,N-trimethyl ammonium methylsulfate method (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) according to manufacturer's instructions. At least 24 single colonies for each
of the constructs were selected for G418 resistance, expanded, and
assayed for receptor expression by binding to wheat germ agglutinin with pan-Trk antibody 45 (a gift of Dr. Barbara Hempstead) as described
previously (28).
Autophosphorylation of Trk Variants on NIH3T3 Cell
Lines--
Approximately 1 × 107 cells were treated
at 37 °C for 5 min with the appropriate neurotrophin at
concentrations indicated in the figures. Cells were then lysed with 1%
Nonidet P-40 (Sigma) lysis buffer, immunoprecipitated with pan-Trk 45 or with Trk C-14 (Santa Cruz Biochemical, Santa Cruz, CA), and
phosphotyrosine content determined by Western blot using mAb 4G10
(Upstate Biotechnology, Lake Placid, NY) as described previously
(28).
Infection and Differentiation of PC12 Cells with Trk-EGFP
Chimeras--
The cDNA plasmids for rat TrkC, human TrkB, variant
C13, and variant CR1 (containing the TrkA transmembrane and cytosolic domains) were fused at their C terminus with the enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP; CLONTECH, Palo Alto, CA)
using polymerase chain reaction. The plasmids were then subcloned into
the LZRSpMN-X vector (29) for production of high titer retrovirus.
These vectors were transfected into an ectopic virus packaging cell
line, Fluorescence Microscopy of Tagged Receptors--
Infected PC12
cells were fixed for 10 min in 4% paraformaldehyde. Cells were then
washed in PBS and incubated for 1 h with a 1:300 dilution of stock
anti-EGFP antibody (Quantum, Montreal, Canada). Secondary antibody used
for staining was 1:200 dilution of stock Cy3-conjugated donkey
anti-mouse IgG mAb (Jackson ImmunoResearch, West Grove, PA). Images
were acquired using a CCD camera (Optronics Engineering, Goleta, CA)
coupled to a PowerMacIntosh (Apple) with a CG-7 frame grabber (Scion,
Frederick, MD) running Image Pro-Plus software (Media Cybernetics,
Silver Spring, MD). Single images were assembled with Adobe
Photoshop/Illustrator.
A previously described TrkA/TrkC chimera, S5A (16), was used as
the initial template to generate the variants in this study; S5A has
TrkC domain 5 (second immunoglobulin-like domain) exchanged with that
from TrkA (i.e. domains 1-4 from TrkC and domain 5 from TrkA). S5A bound NGF approximately 6-fold reduced compared with full-length TrkA (EC50 S5A/EC50 TrkA = 6.22 ± 1.7, n = 8). This contrasts to equivalent
binding of S5A and TrkA found in a previous study (16); however, the
studies differ in the assay used to measure NGF binding.
Initially, groups of residues in S5A domain 5 that differed from human
TrkC were exchanged for their TrkC counterparts. For each group
exchanged, the new variant was evaluated for NGF binding. Exchanging
amino acids at positions 305, 306, 308, 312, 313, 328, 330, 332, 337, 364, and 365 (residue numbers in the text refer to human TrkC as noted
in Fig. 1) did not affect NGF binding
(data not shown). In addition, when all of these positions were
simultaneously changed to the TrkC sequence
(variant C13), NGF binding remained equivalent to wild type TrkA (Table I and Fig.
2A). Variant C13 functioned as
the template for a "TrkA-to-TrkC" scan, i.e. all residues in C13 domain 5 that differed between TrkA and TrkC were individually converted from TrkA to TrkC.
All five residues in loop AB (Val314-His318)
were required to be the TrkA amino acid in order to retain NGF binding
equivalent to C13; individually changing these residues to their TrkC
counterpart reduced NGF binding by 2-4-fold (Table I). Other residues
that affected binding when changed to their TrkC counterparts were Pro322, Ser324, Asp326,
His360, Met396, Asp397,
Phe402, Glu405, and Asp406 (Table
I). Note that no individual changes were made in the segment connecting
Based on the results in Table I, all TrkA residues that did not have an
effect on binding were simultaneously changed from TrkA to TrkC
sequence, except at position 371. The resulting variant CR1 bound NGF
2.5-fold better than C13 (Fig. 1 and Table
II). Position 371 is part of domain 5 loop EF, and most of this loop is conserved among TrkA, TrkB, and TrkC,
although position 371 varies. Since it had been previously shown that
loop EF plays a major role in neurotrophin binding to TrkA and TrkC and
that Val371 was a major determinant in NGF binding to TrkA
(26), Val371 was retained in further variants.
TrkA Amino Acids Controlling Specificity for Nerve Growth
Factor*
§,
§
, and
Departments of Immunology and
¶ Antibody Technology, Genentech Inc.,
South San Francisco, California 94080 and ** Department of
Neurological Surgery and The Miami Project, University of Miami School
of Medicine, Miami, Florida 33135
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
NX-eco, that produces infectious retrovirus up to 2 × 106 infectious units/ml (29). PC12 cells were plated at a
density of 1 × 104 in 6-cm collagen-coated dishes and
infected with retroviral supernatant in the presence of 5 µg/ml
Polybrene (Sigma). After 24 h, media were replaced with fresh
media containing neurotrophins at the indicated concentration. Percent
infection ranged from 30 to 50% as determined by counting
epifluorescent live cells using an Olympus inverted microscope model
IX-70 fitted with a filter set for EGFP: exciter HQ470/40, emitter
HQ525/50, beam splitter Q495PLP (Chroma Technology Corp., Brattleboro,
VT). Cells were allowed to differentiate for 2 days and fixed, and then
150 cells were counted per dish. Cells with neurites three times longer
than the diameter of the cell body were scored as positive for
differentiation. To confirm that cells that had neurites were also
positive for EGFP, some dishes were counted under epifluorescent light.
In addition to the neurite outgrowth assays, several other biochemical
and biological assays with the EGFP-linked receptors, not related to
this study, were used to ensure that their differentiation properties
as well as their ability to stimulate the known Trk signaling pathways were similar to native receptors (data not shown).
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (50K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Sequence alignment of domain 5 (second
immunoglobulin-like domain) of human TrkA, human TrkC, and TrkC-based
variants. Residue numbers for TrkA and TrkC precede each sequence
and dots mark each 10.
-Strands in domain 5 are
overlined and labeled A-G;
-strands were
determined from the crystal structure of human TrkC domain 5 (30). For
TrkC-based variants, differences from TrkC are shaded. For
variant C13, residues that were determined to be important for binding
NGF (Table I) are noted with a +; those that were not are noted with
a
below the C13 sequence.
Binding of C13-based variants

View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Binding of NGF and NT-3 to wild type and
variant TrkA and TrkC. A, binding of human NGF to TrkA
(open square, large dashed line), TrkC (open
triangle), variant C13 (filled circle, solid line), and
variant CR1 (filled square, small dashed line).
B, binding of human NT-3 to TrkA (open square),
TrkC (open triangle, solid line), variant C13 (filled
circle, large dashed line), and variant CR1 (filled square,
small dashed line).
-strands C and E (TrkC residues 340-360). The crystal structures of
domain 5 of TrkA and TrkC (30) show that this segment differs between
TrkC and TrkA not only in the nature of the amino acids but also in its
size and conformation; therefore, changing residues in this segment in
a one-to-one correspondence was not possible.
Binding of NGF and NT-3 to TrkC variants
Two sections that differ in length and sequence between TrkA and TrkC
are segment C-E and the C-terminal half (i.e. residues 408-419) of the juxtamembrane segment connecting the end of domain 5 with the transmembrane segment (Fig. 1). When segment C-E was changed
from TrkA to TrkC sequence, NGF binding was reduced 9-fold (CR2, Table
II) and when the C-terminal half of the juxtamembrane segment was
changed to TrkC sequence, NGF binding was reduced by almost 4-fold
(CR3, Table II). The role of the amino acid at position 319 was also
evaluated; when changed from TrkA Trp319 to TrkC
His319, NGF binding was reduced 2-fold (CR4, Table II). In
the Trk domain 5, crystal structures residue 319 is buried between loop
AB and the N-terminal portion of the juxtamembrane segment (Fig.
3) (30).
|
The variant with optimal binding, CR1, bound NGF better than native
TrkA (Table II and Fig. 2A). This variant included the entire TrkA segment C-E, most of TrkA loop AB, and the entire TrkA
C-terminal half of the juxtamembrane segment (residues 408-419). Additional residues required were as follows: three in
-strand B
(Pro322, Ser324, and Asp326), one
in loop EF (Val371), and three in the N-terminal half of
the juxtamembrane segment (Met396, Asp397, and
Phe402). Comparing the sequence of CR1 with that of TrkC, a
total of 37 TrkC residues was replaced with TrkA sequence (33%) in
domain 5, of which almost half (17) were in segment C-E.
Unexpectedly, variant CR1 maintained binding to NT-3 that was equivalent to native TrkC (Table II and Fig. 2B). Variant C13, however, showed reduced NT-3 binding compared with native TrkC (Table II and Fig. 2B). Replacing the TrkA sequence with TrkC sequence at residue 319 (CR4) or in segment C-E (CR2) did not improve NT-3 binding (Table II). In contrast, changing the juxtamembrane segment to TrkC reduced NT-3 binding (CR3).
Domain 5 from C13 and CR1 were substituted for domain 5 in native TrkA (variants C13A and CR1A; Table II). Having domains 1-4 from TrkA (instead of TrkC) did not improve binding or specificity. Hence the amino acids most important for NGF and NT-3 binding and specificity seem to reside in domain 5, in agreement with previous studies (18-20). If amino acids outside of domain 5 are important for binding and/or specificity, they must have a minimal effect.
The ability of C13 and CR1 to bind NGF and NT-3 and elicit a biological
response was evaluated by fusing the extracellular domains of these
variants to the transmembrane/intracellular domain of TrkA. After
generation of stable, transfected NIH3T3 cells expressing the chimeric
proteins, the cells were evaluated for protein expression level (Fig.
4). Three cell lines of each variant were
then pulsed for 5 min with NGF or NT-3, followed by lysis, immunoprecipitation, and detection of tyrosine phosphorylation of the
intracellular domain (Fig. 5). All three
C13 cell lines expressed equivalent amounts of protein (Fig. 4) and
exhibited NGF-induced phosphorylation levels similar to TrkA (Fig.
5A). NT-3-induced phosphorylation of C13 was reduced
compared with NGF but was more pronounced than that of TrkA (Fig.
5A). For the three CR1 cell lines, different levels of
expression were found (Fig. 4). As with C13, CR1 cells showed tyrosine
phosphorylation induced by both NGF and NT-3 and the higher expressing
cell line exhibited the most phosphorylation (Fig. 5B). A
cell line expressing TrkC responded to NT-3 but not NGF, as expected
(Fig. 5C).
|
|
One cell line from the C13 and CR1 variants was chosen to evaluate dose
dependence. The C13-9 cell line showed dose dependence for both NGF
and NT-3 with NGF eliciting a stronger response at a given neurotrophin
concentration (e.g. compare 10 ng/ml neurotrophin in Fig.
6A). In contrast, BDNF at 200 ng/ml did not elicit phosphorylation of C13-9 (Fig. 6A).
Cell line CR1-5 also showed a dose dependence for NGF and NT-3 (Fig.
6B). However, in contrast to C13, the CR1-5 cell line also
responded to BDNF, although a higher concentration of neurotrophin was
required to elicit the same level of phosphorylation (Fig.
6C).
|
The ability of the various neurotrophins to induce neurite outgrowth in
transfected PC12 cells was also evaluated (Fig.
7). Whereas PC12 cells naturally possess
TrkA, it has been shown previously that in PC12 cells transfected with
TrkC, NT-3 leads to a significant induction of neurites during the
first 3 days after application of neurotrophin, whereas NGF does not;
however, at 10 days NGF and NT-3 induce similar neurite outgrowth (32).
Hence all transfected PC12 cells were evaluated for neurites after only
2 days. Neurite outgrowth in C13-PC12 and CR1-PC12, but not TrkB-PC12
and TrkC-PC12, cells could be induced by NGF (Table
III); if NGF binding to native TrkA on
the PC12 cells was responsible for neurite extension, then the
TrkC-PC12 and TrkB-PC12 cells should have exhibited neurite induction
similar to C13-PC12 and CR1-PC12. In contrast, only TrkC-PC12 and
CR1-PC12 cells were induced by NT-3 (Table III), in agreement with NT-3
binding better to CR1 than to CR13 (Table II). BDNF elicited neurite
outgrowth in CR1-PC12 and TrkB-PC12 cells but required a 5-fold
increase in BDNF concentration (100 ng/ml) to elicit a response
equivalent to BDNF for TrkB-PC12 cells (20 ng/ml) (Table III).
|
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Normally, NGF binds only to its cognate Trk receptor, TrkA (13),
whereas NT-3 can bind not only to TrkC but also to TrkA and TrkB (10,
14, 31). TrkA and TrkC domain 5 have only 37% homology (44 residues
out of 119), and one might expect that the differences affect the
specificity of these two receptors. In order to determine the TrkA
residues governing its specificity, a variant of TrkC was generated
that bound NGF equivalent to (or slightly better than) TrkA. This was
accomplished by exchanging TrkC residues for TrkA residues in most of
loop AB, all of segment C-E, and the C-terminal half of the
juxtamembrane segment. Additional exchanged residues required were as
follows: three in
-strand B (Pro322, Ser324,
and Asp326), one in loop EF (Val371), and three in the
N-terminal half of the juxtamembrane segment (Met396,
Asp397, and Phe402) (CR1, Table II and Fig.
1).
In conjunction with data that the N terminus of NGF plays an important
role in TrkA binding and specificity whereas it does not for NT-3/TrkC
(31, 33-35), it was previously suggested that the central
-strand
residues (including the conserved Arg103) of neurotrophins
interact with Trk loop EF, whereas the N-terminal residues of NGF
interact with loop AB and/or
-strand B (26). Recently the crystal
structures of domain 5 of TrkA, TrkB, and TrkC have been published
(30). Even more recently, the crystal structure of NGF bound to TrkA
domain 5 has been reported (36). Based on these crystal structures,
mapping of the residues important in TrkA and TrkC for binding their
respective ligands (26), and on the set of residues transferred in this
study, several areas in TrkA domain 5 seem to be important for binding
and specificity as follows: loop AB,
-strand B, segment C-E, loop
EF, and the juxtamembrane segment.
In loop AB and
-strand B all exposed residues were required to
recruit NGF binding in the TrkC variant (Table I and Figs. 1 and 3). In
the NGF/TrkA domain 5 crystal structure (36), the NGF N terminus indeed
interacts with loop AB and
-strand B. However, in
-strand B only
Pro322 makes direct contact with NGF although
Ser324 and Asp326 were also required for NGF
binding (Table I). In the NGF/TrkA (36) and TrkA (30) crystal
structures, the side chains of Ser324 and
Asp326 form intramolecular hydrogen bonds to side chains in
segment C-E suggesting that Ser324 and Asp326
may play an indirect role in TrkA specificity for NGF by influencing the conformation of segment C-E (which itself directly interacts with
NGF). In addition, the buried residue at position 319 (Trp in TrkA and
His in TrkC) was found to be important; it may influence the
conformation of loop AB, loop EF (via Pro368), and the
juxtamembrane segment (via Phe395 and other residues) (Fig.
3). Replacement of TrkC residues in loop AB and
-strand B with those
of TrkA were required to recruit NGF binding but, notably, did not
prevent NT-3 binding. This suggests that 1) loop AB and
-strand B
provide for binding and specificity in the NGF/TrkA interaction but not
in the NT-3/TrkC interaction and 2) NGF may be prevented from binding
to TrkC due to the lack of appropriate residues in loop AB and
-strand B; indeed the TrkC residues in these segments might actually
repulse NGF.
Since segment C-E differs in length and sequence among the Trks, the
entire segment was exchanged instead of individual residues. NGF
binding was optimal when segment C-E had the TrkA sequence (compare
variants CR1 and CR2, Table II). In the crystal structure of the
complex, residues in the C-terminal third of TrkA segment C-E interact
with the NGF N terminus (36). As with loop AB and
-strand B, the
presence of TrkA sequence in segment C-E did not hamper NT-3 binding
(compare CR1 and CR2, Table II). This supports the contention that the
NT-3 N-terminal residues are not important for interaction with TrkC.
The role of the juxtamembrane segment for Trk specificity has previously been noted from studies on natural variants of Trks in different cell types. One natural TrkA variant has an insert of six amino acids in the juxtamembrane segment (37), and a similar variant has been detected in TrkC (38). In fibroblasts, the presence of the TrkA insert did not affect ligand specificity; however, in PC12nnr5 cells the insert did affect specificity (39). Likewise, TrkB isoforms with differences in the juxtamembrane segment affect specificity (40, 41).
In this study, five residues in the N-terminal portion of the juxtamembrane segment were found to be required for NGF binding as follows: Met396, Asp397, Phe402, Glu405, and Asp406 (Table I and Fig. 1). The C-terminal residues, 408-419 (Fig. 1) were also required to be the TrkA sequence. In the crystal structure the methionine side chain is wedged between TrkA loop EF and NGF, interacting with hydrophobic side chains of the NGF. The interactions of residues beyond Pro399 (382 in TrkA numbering) cannot be assessed since these were disordered in the NGF/TrkA crystal structure (36). As noted in the crystal structure report, the Trk juxtamembrane segment may interact with neurotrophin loops 40-49 and 93-98; this is supported by previous data showing that exchanging these loop sequences between neurotrophins altered specificity (42-44).
Unexpectedly, both NGF and NT-3 preferred the TrkA sequence in the C-terminal portion of the juxtamembrane segment (compare CR1 and CR3, Table II). One possible explanation for this is that the TrkA residues present in CR3, including those in the N-terminal portion of the juxtamembrane segment, prevent the introduced TrkC sequence from adopting its native conformation. Alternatively, the presence of the TrkC sequence may disrupt the conformation of nearby segments, preventing binding of either NGF or NT-3.
Not only could NGF binding be recruited into a TrkC-based variant, but
NT-3 binding was maintained. This implies that the residues dictating
the specificity of TrkC for NT-3 and of TrkA for NGF are separate. A
previous study mapped the TrkC-binding site for NT-3 to loop EF, one
residue in loop AB (Glu318) and residue in
-strand G
(His394), although the latter had only a minimal effect on
binding (26). The same study, now substantiated by the crystal
structure of the complex (36), showed that the TrkA-binding site for
NGF is much larger and comprises loop EF and loop AB, as well as
residues in
-strand B, segment C-E, the juxtamembrane segment, and
the disulfide bond (26).
NT-3 interaction with TrkC is dominated by loop EF in TrkC (26). Since
loop EF is conserved among the Trk receptors (except at two positions)
(Fig. 1), NT-3 may be prevented from binding to TrkA due to repulsion
by certain TrkA residues outside of loop EF, although this repulsion
can be overcome at higher concentrations (10, 14, 31). NT-3 binding to
variant C13 was reduced compared with variant CR1 (Table II). Likewise,
BDNF can bind to CR1 but not C13 (Fig. 6). This suggests that residues
that differ between CR1 and C13 are among those in TrkA that prevent
binding by NT-3 and BDNF. These include His311 (loop AB),
Arg334 (
-strand C), Gln367 (loop EF),
several residues in
-strands F and G, as well as some in the
juxtamembrane segment (Fig. 1). However, inspection of the NGF/TrkA
crystal structure shows that only His311,
Gln367, and the juxtamembrane segment make contact with
NGF. Within the juxtamembrane segment, Met396 and
Asp397 may contribute to the difference in binding between
C13 and CR1; the involvement of individual residues beyond
Asp397 cannot be discerned from the structure although they
may play a significant role. Arg334 and residues in
-strands F and G are distant from the NGF/TrkA interface (36) and
are unlikely to be specificity determinants.
Deciphering which residues in Trk receptors prevent binding of certain
neurotrophins cannot be unambiguously ascertained from the crystal
structure alone. Interaction between a Trk residue and a neurotrophin
residue found in the crystal structure may not necessarily correlate
with mutagenesis results. For example, in the NGF/TrkA crystal
structure (36) TrkA Arg364 (347 in TrkA numbering)
interacts with NGF Glu11, and one might expect this
interaction to be important. However, in this study exchanging
Arg364 for Leu364 had no effect on binding of
NGF; in a previous study exchanging Arg364
Ala in TrkA
did not affect NGF binding and, likewise, exchanging Leu364
Ala in TrkC did not affect NT-3 binding (26). Such discrepancies between crystal structures of hormone-receptor complexes and
mutagenesis data have been noted previously (45).
In previous studies it was found that a relatively small number of
residues in neurotrophins can be altered to generate neurotrophin variants with multiple specificity for Trk receptors. In NT-3 a single
amino acid change, Asp15
Ala, allowed binding to TrkB
similar to that of BDNF binding to TrkB, while maintaining binding to
TrkC (31). In NGF, changing five or six amino acids to NT-3 sequence
provided binding both to TrkA and TrkC which was equivalent to native
NGF and NT-3, respectively (46). These and other studies show that the
neurotrophins may share conserved binding residues (e.g.
Arg103) while having other residues involved in
specificity. However, the amino acids in each neurotrophin which
dictate specificity may not be identical. For example, the N terminus
is important in NGF but not NT-3 and exchanging the residues in loop
40-49 between NGF and NT-3 altered specificity, whereas exchanging
this loop between NGF and NT-4 did not alter specificity (44). The same
situation is now apparent for the Trk receptors; they share a conserved
binding motif (loop EF), have discrete sections involved in specificity
(e.g. loop AB,
-strand B, and the juxtamembrane segment),
and the importance of these may differ among the Trk receptors.
In a recent report, Barde and co-workers (47) found that association of
the p75 neurotrophin receptor with TrkB could influence neurotrophin
specificity in a transfected cell line. However, they also pointed out
that they had previously shown that natural TrkB variants in the
extracellular juxtamembrane domain also show differences in specificity
in the absence of p75 (40) and that there may be multiple ways by which
selectivity is controlled. The goal of the present study was to
elucidate the specificity of TrkA inherent in its amino acid sequence.
In vitro protein/protein assays were employed so as to
preclude complications due to putative selectivity/specificity
influences in different cell types. Now that the primary specificity of
TrkA is known, the relevance of this in different cellular contexts can
be addressed.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Evelyn Martin and Kathleen Yedinak (Genentech) for purified recombinant neurotrophins; David Shelton (Genentech) for native receptor-immunoadhesin proteins; Mark Vasser, Parkash Jhurani, Peter Ng, and Kristina Azizian (Genentech) for oligonucleotide synthesis; and David Wood (Genentech) for graphics support.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§ All authors contributed equally to this study.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of
Immunology, MS34, Genentech Inc., 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, CA 94080.

Supported by the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis and the
Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: NGF, nerve growth factor; NT-3, neurotrophin-3; BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophin; mAb, monoclonal antibody; EGFP, enhanced green fluorescent protein; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; BSA, bovine serum albumin; LRM, leucine-rich motif.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Chao, M., Casaccia-Bonnefil, P., Carter, B., Chittka, A., Kong, H., and Yoon, S. O. (1998) Brain Res. Rev. 26, 295-301[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 2. | Frade, J. M., and Barde, Y. A. (1998) BioEssays 20, 137-145[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 3. | Lewin, G. R., and Barde, Y. A. (1996) Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 289-317[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 4. | Kaplan, D. R., and Miller, F. D. (1997) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 9, 213-221[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 5. | Barbacid, M. (1995) Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 766, 442-458[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 6. |
Tam, S.-Y.,
Tsai, M.,
Yamaguchi, M.,
Yano, K.,
Butterfield, J. H.,
and Galli, S. J.
(1997)
Blood
90,
1807-1820 |
| 7. | Torcia, M., Bracci-Laudiero, L., Lucibello, M., Nencioni, L., Labardi, D., Rubartelli, A., Cozzolino, F., Aloe, L., and Garaci, E. (1996) Cell 85, 345-356[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 8. | Ibáñez, C. F. (1995) Trends Biotechnol. 13, 217-227[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 9. | Dechant, G., and Barde, Y. A. (1997) Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 7, 413-418[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 10. | Lamballe, F., Klein, R., and Barbacid, M. (1991) Cell 66, 967-979[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 11. | Berkemeier, L. R., Winslow, J. W., Kaplan, D. R., Nikolics, K., Goeddel, D. V., and Rosenthal, A. (1991) Neuron 7, 857-866[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 12. |
Ip, N. Y.,
Ibáñez, C. F.,
Nye, S. H.,
McClain, J.,
Jones, P. F.,
Gies, D. R.,
Belluscio, L.,
Le Beau, M. M.,
Espinosa, R., III,
Squinto, S. P.,
Persson, H.,
and Yancopoulos, G. D.
(1992)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
89,
3060-3064 |
| 13. |
Kaplan, D. R.,
Hempstead, B. L.,
Martin-Zanca, D.,
Chao, M. V.,
and Parada, L. F.
(1991)
Science
252,
554-558 |
| 14. |
Belliveau, D. J.,
Krivko, I.,
Kohn, J.,
Lachance, C.,
Pozniak, C.,
Rusakov, D.,
Kaplan, D.,
and Miller, F. D.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
136,
375-388 |
| 15. | Schneider, R., and Schweiger, M. (1991) Oncogene 6, 1807-1811[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 16. | Urfer, R., Tsoulfas, P., O'Connell, L., Shelton, D. L., Parada, L. F., and Presta, L. G. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 2795-2805[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. | MacDonald, J. I. S, and Meakin, S. O. (1996) Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 7, 371-380[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 18. | Pérez, P., Coll, P. M., Hempstead, B. L., Martin-Zanca, D., and Chao, M. (1995) Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 6, 97-105[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 19. | Holden, P. H., Asopa, V., Robertson, A. G. S., Clarke, A. R., Tyler, S., Bennett, G. S., Brain, S. D., Wilcock, G. K., Allen, S. J., Smith, S. K. F., and Dawbarn, D. (1997) Nat. Biotechnol. 15, 668-672[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 20. | Tannahill, L., Klein, R., and Schachner, M. (1995) Eur. J. Neurosci. 7, 1424-1428[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 21. | Windisch, J. M., Marksteiner, R., Lang, M. E., Auer, B., and Schneider, R. (1995) Biochemistry 34, 11256-11263[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 22. |
Windisch, J. M.,
Marksteiner, R.,
and Schneider, R.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
28133-28138 |
| 23. |
Haniu, M.,
Montestruque,
Bures, E. J.,
Talvenheimo, J.,
Toso, R.,
Lewis-Sandy, S.,
Welcher, A. A.,
and Rohde, M. F.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
25296-25303 |
| 24. | Windisch, J. M., Auer, B., Marksteiner, R., Lang, M. E., and Schneider, R. (1995) FEBS Lett. 374, 125-129[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 25. |
Ninkina, N.,
Grashchuck, M.,
Buchman, V. E.,
and Davies, A. M.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
13019-13025 |
| 26. |
Urfer, R.,
Tsoulfas, P.,
O'Connell, L.,
Hongo, J.-A.,
Zhao, W.,
and Presta, L. G.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
5829-5840 |
| 27. |
Martin-Zanca, D.,
Oskam, R.,
Mitra, G.,
Copeland, T.,
and Barbacid, M.
(1989)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
9,
24-33 |
| 28. | Tsoulfas, P., Soppet, D., Escandón, E., Tessarollo, L., Mendoza-Ramirez, J.-L., Rosenthal, A., Nikolics, K., and Parada, L. F. (1993) Neuron 10, 975-990[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 29. | Kinsella, T. M., and Nolan, G. P. (1996) Hum. Gene Ther. 7, 1405-1413[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 30. | Ultsch, M. H., Wiesmann, C., Simmons, L. C., Heinrich, J., Yang, M., Reilly, D., Bass, S. H., and de Vos, A. M. (1999) J. Mol. Biol. 290, 149-159[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 31. | Urfer, R., Tsoulfas, P., Soppet, D., Escandón, E., Parada, L. F., and Presta, L. G. (1994) EMBO J. 13, 5896-5909[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 32. |
Tsoulfas, P.,
Stephens, R. M.,
Kaplan, D. R.,
and Parada, L. F.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
5691-5697 |
| 33. | Ibáñez, C. F., Ilag, L. L., Murray-Rust, J., and Persson, H. (1993) EMBO J. 12, 2281-2293[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 34. |
Shih, A.,
Laramee, G. R.,
Schmelzer, C. H.,
Burton, L. E.,
and Winslow, J. W.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
27679-27686 |
| 35. |
Kahle, P.,
Burton, L. E.,
Schmelzer, C. H.,
and Hertel, C.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
22707-22710 |
| 36. | Wiesmann, C., Ultsch, M. H., Bass, S. H., and de Vos, A. M. (1999) Nature 401, 184-188[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 37. |
Barker, P. A.,
Lomen-Hoerth, C.,
Gensch, E. M.,
Meakin, S. O.,
Glass, D. J.,
and Shooter, E. M.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
15150-15157 |
| 38. | Shelton, D. L., Sutherland, J., Gripp, J., Camerato, T., Armanini, M. P., Phillips, H. S., Carroll, K., Spencer, S. D., and Levinson, A. D. (1995) J. Neurosci. 15, 477-491[Abstract] |
| 39. |
Clary, D. O.,
and Reichardt, L. F.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
11133-11137 |
| 40. | Strohmaier, C., Carter, B. D., Urfer, R., Barde, Y.-A., and Dechant, G. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 3332-3337[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 41. |
Boeshore, K. L.,
Luckey, C. N.,
Zigmond, R. E.,
and Large, T. H.
(1999)
J. Neurcosci.
19,
4739-4747 |
| 42. | Ibáñez, C. F., Ebendal, T., and Persson, H. (1991) EMBO J. 10, 2105-2110[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 43. |
Kullander, K.,
Kaplan, D.,
and Ebendal, T.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
9300-9307 |
| 44. |
Ilag, L. L.,
Lönnerberg, P.,
Persson, H.,
and Ibáñez, C. F.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
19941-19946 |
| 45. |
De Vos, A. M.,
Ultsch, M.,
and Kossiakoff, A. A.
(1992)
Science
255,
306-312 |
| 46. | Urfer, R., Tsoulfas, P., O'Connell, L., and Presta, L. G. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 4775-4781[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 47. | Bibel, M., Hoppe, E., and Barde, Y.-A. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 616-622[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||