ABSTRACT
LMO (LIM-only) and LIM-HD (LIM-homeodomain) proteins form a family of proteins that is required for myriad developmental processes and which can contribute to diseases such as T-cell leukaemia and breast cancer. The four LMO and 12 LIM-HD proteins in mammals are expressed in a combinatorial manner in many cell types, forming a transcriptional 'LIM code'. The proteins all contain a pair of closely spaced LIM domains near their N-termini that mediate protein-protein interactions, including binding to the approximately 30-residue LID (LIM interaction domain) of the essential co-factor protein Ldb1 (LIM domain-binding protein 1). In an attempt to understand the molecular mechanisms behind the LIM code, we have determined the molecular basis of binding of LMO and LIM-HD proteins for Ldb1(LID) through a series of structural, mutagenic and biophysical studies. These studies provide an explanation for why Ldb1 binds the LIM domains of the LMO/LIM-HD family, but not LIM domains from other proteins. The LMO/LIM-HD family exhibit a range of affinities for Ldb1, which influences the formation of specific functional complexes within cells. We have also identified an additional LIM interaction domain in one of the LIM-HD proteins, Isl1. Despite low sequence similarity to Ldb1(LID), this domain binds another LIM-HD protein, Lhx3, in an identical manner to Ldb1(LID). Through our and other studies, it is emerging that the multiple layers of competitive binding involving LMO and LIM-HD proteins and their partner proteins contribute significantly to cell fate specification and development.
Subject(s)
Binding, Competitive , Proteins/chemistry , Proteins/metabolism , Amino Acid Sequence , Animals , Homeodomain Proteins/chemistry , Homeodomain Proteins/metabolism , Humans , Models, Molecular , Molecular Sequence Data , Organ Specificity , Protein Structure, TertiaryABSTRACT
LIM-homeodomain (LIM-HD) transcription factors form a combinatorial 'LIM code' that contributes to the specification of cell types. In the ventral spinal cord, the binary LIM homeobox protein 3 (Lhx3)/LIM domain-binding protein 1 (Ldb1) complex specifies the formation of V2 interneurons. The additional expression of islet-1 (Isl1) in adjacent cells instead specifies the formation of motor neurons through assembly of a ternary complex in which Isl1 contacts both Lhx3 and Ldb1, displacing Lhx3 as the binding partner of Ldb1. However, little is known about how this molecular switch occurs. Here, we have identified the 30-residue Lhx3-binding domain on Isl1 (Isl1(LBD)). Although the LIM interaction domain of Ldb1 (Ldb1(LID)) and Isl1(LBD) share low levels of sequence homology, X-ray and NMR structures reveal that they bind Lhx3 in an identical manner, that is, Isl1(LBD) mimics Ldb1(LID). These data provide a structural basis for the formation of cell type-specific protein-protein interactions in which unstructured linear motifs with diverse sequences compete to bind protein partners. The resulting alternate protein complexes can target different genes to regulate key biological events.
Subject(s)
DNA-Binding Proteins/chemistry , DNA-Binding Proteins/metabolism , Homeodomain Proteins/chemistry , Homeodomain Proteins/metabolism , Crystallography, X-Ray , DNA-Binding Proteins/genetics , Homeodomain Proteins/genetics , Humans , LIM Domain Proteins , LIM-Homeodomain Proteins , Models, Molecular , Mutagenesis , Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Biomolecular , Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs , Thermodynamics , Transcription Factors , Two-Hybrid System TechniquesABSTRACT
The overexpression of LIM-only protein 2 (LMO2) in T-cells, as a result of chromosomal translocations, retroviral insertion during gene therapy, or in transgenic mice models, leads to the onset of T-cell leukemias. LMO2 comprises two protein-binding LIM domains that allow LMO2 to interact with multiple protein partners, including LIM domain-binding protein 1 (Ldb1, also known as CLIM2 and NLI), an essential cofactor for LMO proteins. Sequestration of Ldb1 by LMO2 in T-cells may prevent it binding other key partners, such as LMO4. Here, we show using protein engineering and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methodologies that LMO2 binds Ldb1 with a twofold lower affinity than does LMO4. Thus, excess LMO2 rather than an intrinsically higher binding affinity would lead to sequestration of Ldb1. Both LIM domains of LMO2 are required for high-affinity binding to Ldb1 (K(D) = 2.0 x 10(-8) M). However, the first LIM domain of LMO2 is primarily responsible for binding to Ldb1 (K(D) = 2.3 x 10(-7) M), whereas the second LIM domain increases binding by an order of magnitude. We used mutagenesis in combination with yeast two-hybrid analysis, and phage display selection to identify LMO2-binding "hot spots" within Ldb1 that locate to the LIM1-binding region. The delineation of this region reveals some specific differences when compared to the equivalent LMO4:Ldb1 interaction that hold promise for the development of reagents to specifically bind LMO2 in the treatment of leukemia.
