ISSN: 2329-6798
Modern Chemistry & Applications
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Structural Investigation of HSP70-HSP90 and HSP90-TDF Interactions

Urmi Roy, Alisa G Woods, Izabela Sokolowska and Costel C Darie*
Department of Chemistry and Biomolecular Science, Clarkson University, USA
Corresponding Author : Costel C Darie
Biochemistry & Proteomics Group
Structural Biology & Molecular Modeling Unit
Department of Chemistry & Biomolecular Science
Clarkson University, 8 Clarkson Avenue
Potsdam, NY, 13699-5810, USA
Tel: 315-268-7763
Fax: 315-268-6610
E-mail: cdarie@clarkson.edu
Received March 20, 2014; Accepted May 27, 2014; Published May 30, 2014
Citation: Roy U, Woods AG, Sokolowska I, Darie CC (2014) Structural Investigation of HSP70-HSP90 and HSP90-TDF Interactions. Mod Chem appl 2:126. doi:10.4172/2329-6798.1000126
Copyright: © 2014 Roy U, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Related article at
DownloadPubmed DownloadScholar Google
Visit for more related articles at Modern Chemistry & Applications
 

Abstract

Tumor Differentiation Factor (TDF) is a pituitary protein, which is secreted into the blood stream and targets breast and prostate. The end effect of TDF on these tissues is differentiation of breast and prostate cells. However, it is not yet clear how TDF induces cell differentiation. Studies in our laboratory determined that the potential TDF receptor candidates are: HSPA8, a member of the 70 kDa heat shock protein family and HSP90 protein. Our previous studies also indicated that TDF may have an inducible receptor, composed of both HSP70 and HSP90, and that TDF signaling depends on the interaction of these proteins. Here we provide additional insights about the proposed interaction between HSP70 and HSP90 and about the HSP90-TDF interaction.

Keywords
Tumor differentiation factor; Protein-protein interactions; Molecular modeling
Introduction
Tumor differentiation factor (TDF) is a recently identified protein, produced in the brain. Work in our lab identified TDF in the brain, specifically in the pituitary, but also in other regions. TDF immunostaining specifically co-localized with markers specific for neurons, but not with markers specific to astrocytes [1].
The TDF protein produced by the pituitary is likely secreted in the blood stream and targets breast and prostate tissue [2]. In vitro work using proteomics suggested that the TDF receptor candidates are members of the heat shock family, specifically heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) and heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) [3-5].
Proteomics allows identification and characterization of proteins in large scale [6-10] and TDF receptor candidates (and TDF ligand) were identified by affinity chromatography followed by mass spectrometry [3-5,11]. Our earlier studies also indicated that TDF may have an inducible receptor, composed of HSP70 and HSP90 [3-5]. Furthermore, we also suggested that TDF signaling depends on the interaction of HSP70 and HSP90 proteins with TDF [12]. However, the function of TDF is still not understood and many of these studies still need additional theoretical and experimental confirmation. In addition, the TDF crystal structure has not been established, thus making us rely mostly on structural biology-based work [13]. Therefore, a better understanding of TDF requires additional studies. To further understand the function of TDF, we employed structural biology to investigate the interaction of HSP70, HSP90 and TDF. Here we provide additional insights about the possible interaction between TDF and its potential HSP70 and HSP90 receptors.
Methods
For protein interaction and docking experiments, we have taken the homology model of 3C7NB, a member of the HSP70 as a ligand protein [4] and HSP90-beta as receptor protein. The 3C7NB is the open, weakly ADP bound form [14]. For HSP90, we have selected the homology model based on gi20149594 and template crystal structure 2IOQ Chain B [15]. This model receptor protein is developed using Swiss model [16,17]. 2IOQ is an open form of HSP90.
Protein-protein docking was carried out using GRAMM-X Docking Web Server v.1.2.0 [18,19] and verified by Patch dock and Fire dock servers [20-23]. Descriptions of these docking experiments are described elsewhere [3-5]. For the TDF-HSP90 interaction, we used the same homology model of HSP90 (2IOQ.pdb) as receptor protein [15], but used the model TDF structure as a ligand protein [11,12]. This model TDF protein was developed using I-Tasser server [24,25]. In our previous experiments, we have used TDF-P1 as a ligand [12].
To further substantiate we have performed another set of experiment using HSP90 model receptor based on template structure 2CG9B.PDB (Chain B) [26]. That part could be found in the supplemental materials (Figures S1-S6).
Results and Discussion
HSP70-HSP90 interaction
HSP70 proteins may interact with the proteins from the HSP90 family. Both proteins were also experimentally determined that interact with TDF. To investigate the details on TDF-HSP70-HSP90 interaction, we conducted docking experiments involving HSP70 and HSP90 proteins, and TDF-HSP90 proteins. HSP90 is composed of N Terminal Domain (NTD), Middle Domain (MD) and C Terminal Domain (CTD). HSP90 forms a dimer at the C-terminal domain [27]. Figure 1A describes the structure of the model receptor protein (HSP90, based on 2IOQ.pdb) colored from N-terminal to C-terminal. Three receptor cavities for potential ligand-binding are also labeled by numbers in this figure. Figure 1B displayed the hydrophobic surface of the model receptor protein. From Figure 1B it is clear that the ligand binding pockets are somewhat hydrophobic in nature. Figure 1C described the structural aspects of model ligand protein. The structure of the model ligand protein is based on HSP70 (HSPA8, 3C7NB.pdb) (Figure 1C). The structure of the model HSP70 is composed of three parts N-terminal nucleotide binding domain (NBD), substrate binding domain (SBD), and a linker that connects the SBD and NBD.
Figures 2 and 3 display the two tentatively identified docking sites (cavity 3 and cavity 1 of Figure 1A) of HSP70 ligand on the HSP90 model receptor model. Interfacial residues are also displayed in Figures 2C-2D and 3C-3D. These docking sites are identified using GRAMM-X docking server. One additional ligand protein binding pocket (cavity 2 of Figure 1A) as displayed in Figure 4 is identified using Patch dock and Fire dock server. Figure 4C and 4D are the residues of the receptor and ligand protein at the interfacial region. In Figure 2, the NBD of the ligand protein is docked onto the receptor cavity 3. In Figure 3, the SBD of the ligand protein is docked onto the receptor cavity 1. In Figure 4, the SBD is docked onto the receptor protein cavity 2. From the above computational study we can see that the SBD of HSP70 is most frequently bound to HSP90. An additional feature is observed while identifying the tentative docking site using Patch dock and Fire dock. In this particular instance, the tentative docking site of the ligand protein is traversed between the receptor protein cavity 2 and 3 of Figure 1A. When docking by GRAMM-X, the ligand protein has a higher tendency to dock in cavity 3 than cavity 1 of model receptor based on 2IOQ. In case of patch dock and fire dock web-server however, the ligand protein is mostly docked at cavity 2 and 3 than cavity 1. All these figures are made using Accelrys Discovery Studio 3.5 [28]. Overall, we have found three tentative docking sites for interaction between HSP70 and HSP90 and that From Figure 1B, we can assume that these pockets are somewhat hydrophobic in nature.
Figure 5 displays the predicted protein-protein interaction network for HSP70 kDa protein 8 (HSPA8). These analyses are performed using the The Biological General Repository for Interaction Datasets (BioGRID) [29,30] and the graphic views are generated using the web based BioGRID graphical network viewer [http://thebiogrid.org/]. The numbers of total interactions are 414 (Figure 5A). If “interactor interactions” are included then the total numbers of interactions for HSPA8 are 7160 (Figure 5B).
HSP90-TDF interaction
We also investigated the interaction between TDF ligand protein [11,12] and HSP90 receptor based on template structure 2IOQ. pdb [15]. In this case, when docking by GRAMM-X, the ligand TD protein has a higher tendency to dock in cavity 3 than cavity 1 of model receptor. And in this case the TDF protein does not seem to dock strongly at cavity 2 of the model receptor. These docking site using GRAMM-X webserver are displayed in Figure 6A. Interfacial residues of TDF structure are displayed in Figures 6B. In case of patch dock and fire dock web-server the ligand TDF protein however mostly docked at cavity 3 than cavity 1 and 2. Figures 6A and 6B were made using Accelrys Discovery Studio 3.5 [28].
The protein-protein interaction network (physical and genetic) for HSP90 protein is shown in Figure 7. The numbers of total predicted interactions are 906 (Figure 7A). These calculations are based on interspecies interactions and self-interaction. If “interactor interactions” are included (Figure 7B) then the total numbers of interactions are 8456 [29,30].
Conclusions
Overall, the current data suggest that TDF may indeed interact, in addition to HSP70, with HSP90. As we demonstrated previously, TDF may activate a pathway that is specific to breast and prostate cancer cells but not sensitive to other cancer or normal fibroblast or fibroblast-like cells. Our previous report also suggested that TDF-R may be a multisubunit inducible receptor, composed of HSP70 and HSP90, and that TDF signaling depends on the interaction of these proteins. Thus TDF interacts with its receptors and induces cell differentiation through a unique, non-steroid mechanism [3-5,12].
From the above structural study we can speculate that TDF protein has a higher tendency to bind to the MD of HSP90 receptor protein. The client proteins and co-chaperones are supposed to bind in the MD of HSP90 [31-35]. The NTD of HSP90 contains a lid structure that is closed in ATP bound conformation but remains open in the ADP bound and apo forms [36]. In the case of HSP70, we find that the ligand typically binds to the SBD of HSP70, which is consistent with earlier reported findings [37,38]. Nevertheless, some binding of the ligand protein is found in the linker region of HSP70, and this type of binding has also been reported in the literature [39,40]. For HSP70, the α helical lid in the SBD plays a role in substrate binding. Here, the substrate is encompassed by the lid in a cavity comprised of β sheets. Structural reordering of helical lid is possible before and after substrate binding [41]. Ongoing experimental investigations in our laboratory will hopefully shed some light in the current interactions identified by structural biology.
Although HSP90 system is largely studied, there are many unanswered questions [42-45]. To our knowledge, complex formation between Hsp90 and Hsp70 are mediated through co-chaperones such as Hop/p60 or Sti1 in yeast [46-48]; no strong experimental evidence or crystal structure is available at this time to verify direct interactions of Hsp70’s with hsp90’s. The present work proposes the idea of a complex formation between HSP70 and HSP90 (as a TDF receptor), and a recent study on multiple myeloma also suggests the possibility of such direct interaction between Hsp70 and Hsp90 [49]. Nevertheless, since no experimental evidence is available to verify this interaction, this proposal remains an open topic for further investigation.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported in part by the Keep A Breast Foundation (KEABF-375-35054) and by support from the U.S. Army research office through the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP grant #W911NF-11-1-0304). This work was also supported in part by Volverine Packing Co (Jim & Marsha Bonahoom) and Bonhomie Wine imports (Charlie & Claire Woods). CCD was supported during the summer of 2013 by the David A. Walsh ’67 fellowship.
References
 

















































References


















































Figures at a glance

image   image   image   image
Figure 1   Figure 2   Figure 3   Figure 4

 

image   image   image
Figure 5   Figure 6   Figure 7
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment
Share This Article
   
 
   
 
Relevant Topics
Disc Advanced Mathematics for Physical Chemistry
Disc Advances in Physical Chemistry Methods
Disc Analytical technique
Disc Anti-Allergic
Disc Anti-Infective Agents in Medicinal Chemistry
Disc Anticancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry
Disc Applied Medicinal Chemistry
Disc Applied Physical Chemistry
Disc Atmospheric Physical Chemistry
Disc BioMolecular Chemistry
Disc Bioorganic Medicinal Chemistry
Disc Biophysical Analysis
Disc Carbohydrates
Disc Cellular Biophysics
Disc Chemical Biology of Molecules
Disc Chemical Biophysics
Disc Chemical Pharmacology
Disc Chiropractic Biophysics
Disc Computational Biophysics
Disc Experimental Physical Chemistry
Disc Hybridization
Disc Hydrocarbons
Disc Macromolecular Physical Chemistry
Disc Mathematical Biophysics
Disc Medical Biophysics
Disc Medicinal Biochemistry
Disc Medicinal Chemical Research
Disc Medicinal Companies and Market Analysis
Disc Medicinal Organic Chemistry
Disc Membrane Biophysics
Disc Modern Analytical Chemistry
Disc Modern Chemistry Formulaes
Disc Modern Experimental Chemistry
Disc Modern Heterocyclic Chemistry
Disc Modern Inorganic Chemistry
Disc Modern Nuclear Chemistry
Disc Modern Organometallic Chemistry
Disc Modern Physical Organic Chemistry
Disc Modern Stoichiochemistry
Disc Modern Theoretical Chemistry
Disc Molecular Biophysics
Disc Molecular Physical Chemistry
Disc Organic Chemistry
Disc Oxidation
Disc Physical Chemistry Applications
Disc Physical Chemistry for Polymers
Disc Physical Methods in Inorganic Chemistry
Disc Physical Organic Chemistry
Disc Phyto Chemistry
Disc Quantum Biophysics
Disc Radiation Biophysics
Disc Radiation Physics
Disc Single Molecule Biophysics
Disc Synthetic Chemistry
Disc Synthetic Medicinal Chemistry
 
Recommended Journals
Disc Physical Chemistry Journal
Disc Organic Chemistry Journal
Disc Medicinal Chemistry Journal
  View More»
 
Recommended Conferences
Disc International Conference on Stereochemistry
August 18-19, 2016, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Disc International Conference on Pharmaceutical Chemistry
September 05-07, 2016 Frankfurt, Germany
Disc World Congress on Chromatography
September 21-23, 2016 Amsterdam, Netherlands
View More»
 
Article Tools
Disc Export citation
Disc Share/Blog this article
 
Article usage
  Total views: 11323
  [From(publication date):
September-2014 - Jul 25, 2016]
  Breakdown by view type
  HTML page views : 7579
  PDF downloads :3744
 
 
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

OMICS International Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
 
 
OMICS International Conferences 2016-17
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings
 
 

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

agrifoodaquavet@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

clinical_biochem@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

business@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

chemicaleng_chemistry@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

environmentalsci@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

engineering@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

generalsci_healthcare@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

genetics_molbio@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

immuno_microbio@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

omics@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

materialsci@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

mathematics_physics@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

medical@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

neuro_psychology@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

pharma@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

social_politicalsci@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2016 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version