Search

The aggregation of amyloidogenic proteins is often related to the occurrence of neurodegenerative diseases, including fused in sarcoma protein (FUS) in frontotemporal lobar degeneration and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis diseases. Recently, the SERF protein family has been reported to have a significant regulatory effect on amyloid formation, but it is still unclear about the detailed mechanisms of SERF acting on different amyloidogenic proteins. Herein, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and fluorescence spectroscopy were used to explore interactions of ScSERF with three amyloidogenic proteins FUS‐LC, FUS‐Core, and α‐Synuclein. NMR chemical shift perturbations reveal them sharing similar interaction sites on the N‐terminal region of ScSERF. However, the amyloid formation of α‐Synuclein protein is accelerated by ScSERF, while ScSERF inhibits fibrosis of FUS‐Core and FUS‐LC proteins. Both the primary nucleation and the total amount of fibrils produced are detained. Our results suggest a diverse role of ScSERF in regulating the fibril growth of amyloidogenic proteins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The TG interacting factor-1 homeodomain (TGIF1-HD) binds with the consensus DNA motif 5′-TGTCA-3′ in gene promoters through its three-amino acid loop extension (TALE) type homeodomain, and then recruits co-regulators to regulate gene expression. Although the solution NMR structure of human TGIF1-HD has been reported previously, little is known about its DNA binding mechanism. NMR titrations have been extensively used to study mechanisms of ligand binding to target proteins; however, an intermediate exchange occurred predominantly between TGIF1-HD in the free and bound states when titrated with the consensus DNA, which resulted in poor-quality NMR spectra and precluded further exploration of its interaction interface and conformational dynamics. Here, the helix α3 of TGIF1-HD was speculated as the specific DNA binding interface by hydrogen–deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) experiments, and subsequently confirmed by chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) spectroscopy. In addition, simultaneous conformational changes in other regions, including α1 and α2, were induced by DNA binding, explaining the observation of chemical shift perturbations from extensive residues besides those located in α3. Further, low-populated DNA-bound TGIF1-HD undergoing a slow exchange at a rate of 130.2 ± 3.6 s −1 was derived from the analysis of the CEST data, and two residues, R220 and R221, located in the middle of α3 were identified to be crucial for DNA binding. Our study provides structural and dynamic insights into the mechanisms of TGIF1-HD recognition of extensive promoter DNA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]