Structures of activin ligand traps using natural sets of type I and type II TGF[beta] receptors
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Goebel, Erich J..
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
TGFβ family ligands, which include the TGFβs, BMPs, and activins, signal by forming a ternary complex with type I and type II receptors. For TGFβs and BMPs, structures of ternary complexes have revealed differences in receptor assembly. However, structural information for how activins assemble a ternary receptor complex is lacking. In this paper, we report the structure of an activin class member, GDF11, in complex with the type II receptor ActRIIB and the type I receptor Alk5. The structure reveals that receptor positioning is similar to the BMP class, with no interreceptor contacts; however, the type I receptor interactions are shifted toward the ligand fingertips and away from the dimer interface. Mutational analysis shows that ligand type I specificity is derived from differences in the fingertips of the ligands that interact with an extended loop specific to Alk4 and Alk5. The study also reveals differences for how TGFβ and GDF11 bind to the same type I receptor, Alk5. For GDF11, additional contacts at the fingertip region substitute for the interreceptor interactions that are seen for TGFβ, indicating that Alk5 binding to GDF11 is more dependent on direct contacts. In support, we show that a single residue of Alk5 (Phe 84 ), when mutated, abolishes GDF11 signaling, but has little impact on TGFβ signaling. The structure of GDF11/ActRIIB/Alk5 shows that, across the TGFβ family, different mechanisms regulate type I receptor binding and specificity, providing a molecular explanation for how the activin class accommodates low-affinity type I interactions without the requirement of cooperative receptor interactions.
Background: Growth/differentiation factor 8 (GDF8) and GDF11 are two highly similar members of the transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) family. While GDF8 has been recognized as a negative regulator of muscle growth and differentiation, there are conflicting studies on the function of GDF11 and whether GDF11 has beneficial effects on age-related dysfunction. To address whether GDF8 and GDF11 are functionally identical, we compared their signaling and structural properties. Results: Here, in this paper, we show that, despite their high similarity, GDF11 is a more potent activator of SMAD2/3 and signals more effectively through the type I activin-like receptor kinase receptors ALK4/5/7 than GDF8. Resolution of the GDF11:FS288 complex, apo-GDF8, and apo-GDF11 crystal structures reveals unique properties of both ligands, specifically in the type I receptor binding site. Lastly, substitution of GDF11 residues into GDF8 confers enhanced activity to GDF8. Conclusions: These studies identify distinctive structural features of GDF11 that enhance its potency, relative to GDF8; however, the biological consequences of these differences remain to be determined.