* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The UBA2 Domain Functions as an Intrinsic Stabilization Signal that
Survey
Document related concepts
Cytokinesis wikipedia , lookup
Hedgehog signaling pathway wikipedia , lookup
Histone acetylation and deacetylation wikipedia , lookup
G protein–coupled receptor wikipedia , lookup
Biochemical switches in the cell cycle wikipedia , lookup
Magnesium transporter wikipedia , lookup
P-type ATPase wikipedia , lookup
Signal transduction wikipedia , lookup
List of types of proteins wikipedia , lookup
Proteolysis wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Molecular Cell, Vol. 18, 225–235, April 15, 2005, Copyright ©2005 by Elsevier Inc. DOI 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.03.015 The UBA2 Domain Functions as an Intrinsic Stabilization Signal that Protects Rad23 from Proteasomal Degradation Stijn Heessen,1,2 Maria G. Masucci,1 and Nico P. Dantuma1,3,* 1 Microbiology and Tumor Biology Center Karolinska Institutet Nobels väg 16 S-171 77 Stockholm Sweden 2 Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Nobels väg 3 S-171 77 Stockholm Sweden 3 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology Karolinska Institutet Nobels väg 3 S-171 77 Stockholm Sweden Summary The proteasome-interacting protein Rad23 is a longlived protein. Interaction between Rad23 and the proteasome is required for Rad23’s functions in nucleotide excision repair and ubiquitin-dependent degradation. Here, we show that the ubiquitin-associated (UBA)-2 domain of yeast Rad23 is a cis-acting, transferable stabilization signal that protects Rad23 from proteasomal degradation. Disruption of the UBA2 domain converts Rad23 into a short-lived protein that is targeted for degradation through its N-terminal ubiquitin-like domain. UBA2-dependent stabilization is required for Rad23 function because a yeast strain expressing a mutant Rad23 that lacks a functional UBA2 domain shows increased sensitivity to UV light and, in the absence of Rpn10, severe growth defects. The C-terminal UBA domains of Dsk2, Ddi1, Ede1, and the human Rad23 homolog hHR23A have similar protective activities. Thus, the UBA2 domain of Rad23 is an evolutionarily conserved stabilization signal that allows Rad23 to interact with the proteasome without facing destruction. Introduction The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad23 protein is involved in regulation of nucleotide excision repair, proteolysis and cell cycle progression (Clarke et al., 2001; Lambertson et al., 1999; Watkins et al., 1993). While the precise mode of action of Rad23 is unknown, increasing evidence suggests that a close interplay between Rad23 and the ubiquitin/proteasome system is essential for its diverse functions (Chen and Madura, 2002; Russell et al., 1999; Schauber et al., 1998). The ubiquitin/proteasome system was originally identified as the primary degradation machinery in the cytosol and nucleus of eukaryotic cells (Baumeister et al., 1998; *Correspondence: [email protected] Hershko and Ciechanover, 1998), but recent studies have revealed additional nonproteolytic functions in DNA repair and transcription (Ferdous et al., 2001; Gonzalez et al., 2002; Russell et al., 1999). The presence of several characteristic structural domains highlights the close relationship of Rad23 with the ubiquitin/proteasome system. Rad23 contains an N-terminal ubiquitin-like (UbL) domain and two ubiquitin-associated (UBA) domains: an internal UBA1 domain and a C-terminal UBA2 domain (Buchberger, 2002). The UbL domain, which can be functionally replaced by ubiquitin (Watkins et al., 1993), mediates the interaction between Rad23 and the proteasome (Schauber et al., 1998). The UBA domain was originally identified as a sequence motif present in proteins linked to the ubiquitination system (Hofmann and Bucher, 1996). It was later reported that, notwithstanding their low sequence homology, all UBA domains share the ability to bind ubiquitin (Bertolaet et al., 2001b; Chen et al., 2001; Wilkinson et al., 2001). Based on its ability to simultaneously bind ubiquitinated proteins and the proteasome, it has been proposed that Rad23 may function as a scaffold that facilitates interactions between substrates and the proteasome (Chen and Madura, 2002; Kim et al., 2004). Recently, direct biochemical evidence has been provided for a role of Rad23 in targeting ubiquitinated substrates to the proteasome (Elsasser et al., 2004; Saeki et al., 2002a; Verma et al., 2004). Several studies revealed that a concerted action of the ubiquitin/proteasome system and Rad23 is important for nucleotide excision repair (NER) although the precise mode of action of the proteasome in this event remains obscure (Russell et al., 1999; Schauber et al., 1998). Interestingly, this DNA repair activity requires only the 19S regulatory particle of the proteasome and is independent of the proteolytically active 20S core particle (Gillette et al., 2001). Substrates of the ubiquitin/proteasome system are targeted by degradation signals, which are small motifs or domains that accommodate interaction with the proteasome in a ubiquitin-dependent (Hershko and Ciechanover, 1998) or, less common, a ubiquitin-independent manner (Chen et al., 2004; Murakami et al., 1992). As a general rule, recruitment of proteins to the proteasome results in their rapid inactivation by processive degradation. However, the interaction between Rad23 and the proteasome does not lead to Rad23 destruction (Schauber et al., 1998; Watkins et al., 1993). We have previously described a similar phenomenon with a viral repetitive sequence that can be used for cis-stabilization of proteasome substrates (Heessen et al., 2002; Levitskaya et al., 1995; Sharipo et al., 1998). Based on these findings, we postulated that cellular proteins might contain similar protective “stabilization signals” that spare them from proteolysis (Dantuma and Masucci, 2002). Here, we show that the C-terminal UBA domains of Rad23, Dsk2, Ddi1, and Ede1 function as stabilization signals that can protect proteins from proteasomal degradation. Molecular Cell 226 Figure 1. Cis Stabilization of Proteasome Reporter Substrates by the UBA2 Domain (A) Schematic drawing of the fusion of the N-end rule reporter substrate Ub-R-GFP and Rad23 fragments. The locations of the UbL, UBA1, and UBA2 domains in Rad23 are indicated. (B) Lysates of 10 OD600 units of log-phase yeast coexpressing Ub-R-GFP-Rad23⌬UbL and 3HAubiquitin were subjected to immunoprecipitation with an anti-GFP antibody, followed by Western blotting with an anti-HA antibody. Yeast cells transformed with an empty vector and 3HAubiquitin were used as negative control. The molecular weight markers, ubiquitinated species, and the immunoglobulin heavy chain (HC) are indicated. (C) Representative histograms of flow cytometric analysis of yeast expressing the Ub-M-GFP, Ub-R-GFP, or the Ub-R-GFP fusions shown in (A). The mean fluorescence intensity of each sample is indicated in the upper-right corner (corrected for background fluorescence of vector transformed yeast). (D) Quantification of mean fluorescence intensities of yeast cells expressing Ub-M-GFP, Ub-R-GFP, or the Ub-R-GFP fusion proteins measured by flow cytometry. Ub-M-GFP was standardized as 100%. Values are means and standard deviations of three independent experiments. Asterisks indicate values that are significantly different from Ub-R-GFP (t test, p < 0.05). (E) Representative histograms of flow cytometric analysis of yeast cells expressing UbG76V-GFP or UbG76V-GFP-Rad23⌬UbL. UBA2 Is an Intrinsic Stabilization Signal 227 Figure 2. An Intact UBA2 Domain Protects from Proteasomal Degradation and Does Not Cause General Impairment of Proteasomal Degradation (A) Western blot analysis of turnover of Ub-R-GFP, Ub-R-GFP-UBA1, and Ub-R-GFP-UBA2 levels in wild-type yeast and Ub-R-GFP in the ubr1D strain at 0, 10, 20, and 40 min after promoter shutoff. (B) Densitometric quantification of the Ub-R-GFP (closed circles) and Ub-R-GFP-UBA2 (open circles) signal in (A). The signal at t = 0 is standardized as 100%. (C) Mean fluorescence intensities of yeast expressing Ub-R-GFP-UBA1, Ub-R-GFP-UBA2, and Ub-R-GFP-UBA2L392A. Mean and standard deviations of three independent experiments are shown. Asterisk indicates values that are significantly different from Ub-R-GFP-UBA1 (t test, p < 0.01). (D) Western blot analysis with specific GFP antibody of Ub-R-GFP and Ub-R-GFP-Rad23⌬UbL levels at 0, 10, 20, and 40 min after switching off the GAL1 promoter in yeast expressing Ub-R-GFP alone or together with Ub-R-GFP-Rad23⌬UbL. Putative ubiquitinated species (asterisks) and molecular weight markers are indicated. Results Cis Stabilization of Proteasome Reporter Substrates by the UBA2 Domain The remarkable stability of the proteasome-interacting protein Rad23 prompted us to investigate whether this protein may harbor domains that protect it from protea- somal degradation. For this purpose, we analyzed whether insertion of Rad23 fragments in green fluorescent protein (GFP)-based substrates of the ubiquitin/ proteasome system could inhibit their degradation (Figure 1A). These GFP-based substrates are targeted to the proteasome through the presence of well-defined degradation signals that deem the GFP for ubiquitin- Molecular Cell 228 Table 1. Yeast Strains Used in this Study Strain Genotype Reference DF5 MATa lys2-801 leu2-3, 112 ura3-52 his3-⌬200 trp1-1 DF5 ubr1D::LEU2 DF5 rad23D::kanMX-KlURA3 DF5 FLAG-RAD23 DF5 FLAG-rad23(L392A) DF5 rpn10D::HIS3 DF5 rad23D::kanMX-KlURA3 rpn10D::HIS3 DF5 FLAG-RAD23 rpn10D::HIS3 DF5 FLAG-rad23(L392A) rpn10D::HIS3 Finley et al. BBY47 SHY002 SHY003 SHY004 SHY012 SHY013 SHY014 SHY015 Bartel et al. this study this study this study this study this study this study this study dependent proteolysis (Dantuma et al., 2000b). Because it is well established that the UbL domain of Rad23 mediates interaction with the proteasome, we omitted the UbL domain to assure that only the degradation signal of the reporter substrate would target the fusion to the proteasome. Introduction of the Rad23⌬UbL did not interfere with cleavage of the N-terminal ubiquitin of ubiquitin-R-GFP (Ub-R-GFP; data not shown), which is required for activation of the N-end rule degradation signal in this reporter substrate (Varshavsky, 1996), nor did it affect targeting of the Ub-R-GFP for ubiquitination because we could readily detect ubiquitinated reporter substrates (Figure 1B). Insertion of the Rad23⌬UbL in the Ub-R-GFP reporter resulted in a 14-fold increase in the mean fluorescent intensity of the reporter-expressing yeast to approximately 50% of the level observed with the stable Ub-M-GFP that lacks a degradation signal (Figures 1C and 1D). To identify the region in Rad23 that was responsible for this effect, we produced a set of C-terminal deletions of the Ub-R-GFP-Rad23⌬UbL fusion protein (Figure 1A). Removal of the C-terminal UBA2 domain brought the fluorescence intensity almost back to the Ub-R-GFP level (Figures 1C and 1D). Insertion of the UBA2 domain was sufficient to recapitulate the effect observed with Rad23⌬UbL, whereas the related UBA1 domain alone had no appreciable effect on the mean fluorescent intensity (Figures 1C and 1D). To test whether the stabilizing effect of UBA2 was dependent on the type of degradation signal, we analyzed the effect of the UBA2 domain on a reporter substrate carrying an ubiquitin fusion degradation (UFD) signal, UbG76V-GFP. Of note, N-end rule and UFD substrates are targeted through distinct ubiquitination pathways for degradation by the proteasome (Bartel et al., 1990; Johnson et al., 1995; Koegl et al., 1999). We found a very similar protective effect on the UFD reporter substrate, suggesting that the effect is largely independent of the type of degradation signal (Figure 1E). An Intact UBA2 Domain Is Required for Protection from Proteasomal Degradation Promoter shutoff experiments demonstrated that the increased steady-state levels of UBA2-containing substrates were due to delayed turnover of the reporter while the UBA1 domain had no effect on degradation (Figures 2A and 2B). The Ub-R-GFP reporter was stable in the ubr1D yeast strain, which lacks the N-end rule ubiquitin ligase (Table 1), confirming that the ubiquitin/ proteasome system is responsible for degradation of this substrate in yeast (Bartel et al., 1990). Thus, the UBA2 domain increases the steady-state levels of Ub-R-GFP by delaying its proteasomal degradation. Structural analysis of the UBA2 domains of the human homolog of Rad23 A (hHR23A) has revealed that a conserved leucine corresponding with leucine 392 in yeast Rad23 is important for the structural integrity of the characteristic UBA fold (Mueller and Feigon, 2002). Substitution of this single amino acid with an alanine was sufficient to completely abrogate the protective effect, suggesting that a proper UBA fold is important for the inhibitory activity (Figure 2C). The UBA2 domain Does Not Cause General Impairment of the Ubiquitin/Proteasome System It has been reported that UBA domains can act as general inhibitors of ubiquitination (Ortolan et al., 2000) and deubiquitination (Hartmann-Petersen et al., 2003). Thus, stabilization of the GFP reporter could be the consequence of a general impairment of the ubiquitin/ proteasome system caused by the overexpressed UBA2 domain. To probe into this possibility, we examined whether overexpression of the stable Ub-R-GFPRad23⌬UbL fusion protein led to a general accumulation of proteasome substrates. Ub-R-GFP-Rad23⌬UbL and the Ub-R-GFP or UbG76V-GFP substrates were coexpressed in yeast and their degradation was followed after simultaneously switching off expression of both proteins. Overexpression of Ub-R-GFP-Rad23⌬UbL did not affect the turnover of Ub-R-GFP (Figure 2D) or UbG76V-GFP (data not shown). Furthermore, while general impairment of the ubiquitin/proteasome system results in accumulation of ubiquitinated substrates and induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis (Dantuma et al., 2000b), overexpression of Ub-R-GFP-Rad23⌬UbL did not increase the total pool of ubiquitin-conjugates nor did it affect proliferation (data not shown). We conclude that insertion of the Rad23 UBA2 domain can selectively protect proteasome substrates carrying the UBA2 domain from degradation without disturbing overall proteasomal degradation. The UBA2 Domain Functions as an Intrinsic Stabilization Signal in Rad23 In order to explore whether the UBA2 domain plays a protective role in the context of native Rad23, we took advantage of the single L392A amino acid substitution that abrogated the protective effect of the UBA2 domain. Introduction of this amino acid substitution converted Rad23 from a very stable into a short-lived protein with a half-life of approximately 10 min (Figures 3A and 3B). Because mutations can result in rapid degradation due to misfolding, it was important to assess whether the Rad23L293A was targeted for degradation through a misfolded UBA2L392A domain or through an endogenous targeting signal that is also functional in the context of native Rad23. We argued that the UbL domain could fulfill this role as it has been shown to mediate the interaction of Rad23 with the proteasome (Schauber et al., 1998). Deletion of the UbL domain resulted in full stabilization of the mutant Rad23L392A (Figures 3A and 3B), excluding the possibility that the UBA2L392A domain targets the mutant Rad23 for degra- UBA2 Is an Intrinsic Stabilization Signal 229 Figure 3. The UBA2 Domain Functions as an Intrinsic stabilization Signal in Rad23 (A) Turnover of FLAGRad23, FLAGRad23L392A, and FLAGRad23⌬UbL/L392A after promoter shutoff. Samples were collected at the indicated time points after shutting off the GAL1 promoter and analyzed in anti-FLAG Western blot analysis. (B) Densitometric quantification of Western blot shown in (A). FLAGRad23 (closed circles), FLAGRad23L392A (open circles), and FLAGRad23⌬UbL/ L392A (squares). The signal at t = 0 for each of the constructs was standardized as 100%. (C) Steady-state levels of FLAG-tagged Rad23 in the wild-type, rad23D, FLAGRad23, and FLAGRad23L392A yeast strains determined in an antiFLAG Western blot on 0.25 OD600 units. FLAGRad23 and FLAGRad23L392A are expressed from the endogenous Rad23 promoter. (D) Turnover of FLAGRad23 and FLAGRad23L392A was determined by metabolic labeling with 35S-methionine/cysteine followed by chasing within the presence of an excess cold methionine and cysteine for the indicated times. FLAGRad23 and FLAGRad23L392A were immunoprecipitated with anti-FLAG antibodies. Asterisks indicate a nonspecific band. dation. This shows that UbL domain is important for targeting Rad23 to the proteasome (Schauber et al., 1998) and, in the absence of the protective UBA2 domain, for induction of Rad23 proteolysis. Three yeast strains were generated to gain insight in the role and functional significance of the UBA2 domain under physiological conditions: (1) a rad23D strain, which lacks the Rad23 gene, (2) a FLAGRad23 strain, and (3) a FLAGRad23L392A strain, which express FLAGtagged wild-type Rad23 and FLAG-tagged mutant Rad23L392A, respectively, from the endogenous Rad23 promoter (Table 1). The FLAGRad23 could easily be detected in Western blot analysis, whereas the level of the FLAG Rad23L392A mutant was below the detection limit (Figure 3C). Pulse-chase analysis revealed that this striking difference in steady-state levels was due to accelerated degradation of the Rad23L392A mutant (Figure 3D). We conclude that the UBA2 domain is important for physiological expression levels of Rad23 from its endogenous promoter. Rad23 Lacking a Protective UBA2 Domain Is Functionally Compromised It has been reported that the UBA1 and UBA2 domains of Rad23 are dispensable for functional NER (Bertolaet et al., 2001b). Consistent with this earlier report, we Molecular Cell 230 Figure 4. Rad23 Lacking a Protective UBA2 Domain Is Functionally Compromised (A) UV sensitivity of the wild-type, rad23⌬, FLAGRad23, and FLAGRad23L392A yeast strains. Serial dilutions of yeast cultures were spotted on YPD agar and were left untreated or exposed to 300 J/m2 UV light. (B) UV sensitivity of the wild-type, rad23⌬, FLAGRad23, and FLAGRad23L392A yeast strains. Serial dilutions of yeast cultures were spotted on YPD agar and were left untreated or exposed to one, two, or three exposures of 100 J/m2 UV light with 20 min intervals between each exposure. (C) Quantification of UV sensitivity by colony survival assay. Yeast was exposed to 3 × 100 J/m2 or left untreated. The numbers were standardized to untreated controls. Mean and standards deviation of triplicate measurements are shown. Asterisks indicate that values are significantly different from wild-type strain (t test, p < 0.02). (D) Serial dilutions of the indicated yeast cultures were spotted on YPD agar and were grown at 30°C or 25°C. found that yeast cells expressing the destabilized FLAG Rad23L392A were only slightly affected in their ability to survive a 300 J/m2 UV light exposure, whereas rad23D cells were highly sensitive to this UV dose (Figure 4A). This suggests that the reduced Rad23 levels in the FLAGRad23L392A strain are still sufficient for NER. A more dramatic effect on cell survival was revealed when the yeast was subjected to three subsequent UV exposures of 100 J/m2 with 20 min intervals. The 1st UV exposure had a strong inhibitory effect on the growth of the rad23D strain, whereas the FLAGRad23 and FLAG Rad23L392A strains coped equally well (Figure 4B). UBA2 Is an Intrinsic Stabilization Signal 231 of Rad23 as multiubiquitin chain receptor engaged in the targeting of substrates to the proteasome, a notion that was recently supported by detailed biochemical studies (Verma et al., 2004). We investigated the significance of the protective UBA2 domain in relation to this function of Rad23. Deletion of Rad23 and Rpn10 resulted indeed in slow growth, in particular at 25°C (Figure 4D). Whereas introduction of the FLAGRad23 restored the growth to wild-type levels, the destabilized FLAG Rad23L392A did not rescue the growth phenotype of the rad23D/rpn10D double mutant. Thus, the presence of a protective UBA2 domain is of critical significance for Rad23 function. Figure 5. C-terminal UBA Domains of Dsk2, Ddi1, and Ede1 Can Protect from Proteasomal Degradation (A) Schematic representation of the UbL and UBA domains in Rad23, Ddi1, Dsk2, and Ede1. (B) Mean fluorescence intensities of yeast expressing Ub-R-GFP, Ub-R-GFP-UBA2(Rad23), Ub-R-GFP-UBA(Dsk2), Ub-R-GFP-UBA (Ddi1), and Ub-R-GFP-UBA(Ede1). Mean and standard deviations of three independent experiments are shown. Asterisks indicate values that are significantly different from Ub-R-GFP: *(t test, p < 0.02), **(t test, p < 0.01). (C) Western blot analysis with specific GFP antibody of Ub-R-GFP, Ub-R-GFP-UBA(Dsk2), Ub-R-GFP-UBA(Ddi1), and Ub-R-GFPUBA(Ede1) levels at 0, 10, 20, and 40 min after switching off the GAL1 promoter. However, a clear difference was observed in the survival of the FLAGRad23L392A strain after the second and third UV exposures, with increased sensitivity to UV irradiation with each exposure (Figures 5B and 5C). Thus, although the short-lived FLAGRad23L392A appeared to be sufficient for UV resistance after a single UV exposure, it was not capable of rescuing yeast from multiple rounds of UV exposure. Yeast strains lacking both Rad23 and the ubiquitin binding proteasome subunit Rpn10 display impaired degradation of proteasome substrates, accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins, and growth retardation that is most striking at low temperatures (Lambertson et al., 1999). These findings are in line with a possible function The C-Terminal UBA Domains of Dsk2, Ddi1, and Ede1 Act as Stabilization Signals Dsk2 and Ddi1 share with Rad23 the presence of an N-terminal UbL domain and a C-terminal UBA domain (Figure 5A). In addition, some proteins such as Ede1, a protein engaged in membrane trafficking (Aguilar et al., 2003), carry a C-terminal UBA domain but lack an UbL domain (Figure 5A). In order to examine whether the UBA domains of these proteins share the protective capacity of Rad23’s UBA2 domain, they were fused to the C terminus of the Ub-R-GFP reporter. Flow cytometric analysis clearly demonstrated a significant increase in the steady-state fluorescence levels of the chimeric reporters (Figure 5B). Most striking was the effect of the UBA domain of Dsk2, which even exceeded the effect of the Rad23 UBA2 domain, while the Ddi1 and Ede1 had weaker effects. Analysis of the turnover of these reporter constructs confirmed that the increase in the steady-state levels was due to a delay in degradation (Figure 5C). We conclude that the stabilizing effect of the C-terminal UBA domain is not unique for Rad23 but is a more general phenomenon shared with at least three other UBA domains. The Protective Effect of the UBA2 Domain Is Evolutionarily Conserved To examine whether the protective effect of the UBA2 domain has been conserved during evolution, we next tested the activity of the UBA1 and UBA2 domains of the human homolog hHR23A. We found that the UBA2 domains of Rad23 and hHR23A but not their UBA1 counterparts are equally capable of stabilizing the UbR-GFP reporter in yeast (Figure 6A). In order to assess whether the protective effect also operates in mammalian cells, we used a previously described assay in which human cervix carcinoma HeLa cells are transiently transfected with these fusions and the percentage of fluorescent cells is determined in the absence or presence of a specific proteasome inhibitor (Dantuma et al., 2000a). Introduction of the UBA1 domain of Rad23 or hHR23A in Ub-R-GFP did not affect the stability of this reporter in HeLa cells, whereas the UBA2 domains inhibited degradation (Figures 6B and 6C). We conclude that the stabilizing effect of the UBA2 domain in Rad23 is conserved during evolution. Discussion We have shown that the UBA2 domain of Rad23 act as an intrinsic, cis-acting, transferable stabilization signal. Molecular Cell 232 Figure 6. Protective Effect of the UBA2 Domain Is Evolutionarily Conserved (A) Mean fluorescence intensities of yeast expressing Ub-M-GFP, Ub-R-GFP, or Ub-R-GFP fused to the UBA1 or UBA2 domain of yeast Rad23 and human hHR23A. Mean fluorescent intensity of UbM-GFP-expressing yeast was standardized as 100%. Means and standard deviations of three independent experiments are shown. Asterisks indicate values significantly different from Ub-R-GFP (t test, p < 0.05). (B) Dot plots of flow cytometric analysis of HeLa cells transiently transfected with the indicated constructs. Cells were left untreated or incubated with 10 M of the proteasome inhibitor Z-L3-VS for 8 hr. The percentage of GFP-positive cells in each sample is indicated in the upper right corner. Values from one representative experiment out of three are shown. (C) Quantitative analysis of flow cytometric analysis depicted in (B). Relative fluorescence is expressed as the percentage of GFP positive cells in the absence of inhibitor divided by the percentage of GFP positive cells in the presence of inhibitor. Means and standard deviations from three independent experiments are shown. Asterisks indicate values significantly different from Ub-R-GFP (t test, p < 0.05). Thus, Rad23 harbors counteracting degradation and stabilization signals, which enable the protein to interact with the proteasome without being degraded. UBA2-dependent stabilization is required for Rad23 function in DNA repair and protein degradation. Our data show that protein stabilization is a characteristic shared by at least four C-terminally positioned UBA domains present in Rad23, Dsk2, Ddi1, and Ede1. Rad23, Dsk2, and Ddi1 each contain an N-terminal proteasome-interacting UbL domain and a C-terminal UBA domain (Jentsch and Pyrowolakis, 2000), whereas Ede1 lacks the UbL domain. Whether Ede1, which is the yeast homolog of eps15 and involved in ubiquitindependent membrane trafficking (Aguilar et al., 2003), interacts with the proteasome awaits clarification. Rad23, Dsk2, Ddi1, and Ede1 are to our knowledge the first examples of cellular proteins that harbor a specific domain that enables proteins to resist degradation. It remains to be seen how widespread this phenomenon is, but there are several findings in the literature suggesting that other proteins may contain related and unrelated stabilization signals (Dantuma and Masucci, 2002). For instance, a truncated variant of the ataxin 1-interacting ubiquitin-like protein lacking the UBA domain was also found to be degraded by the ubiquitin/ proteasome system (Riley et al., 2004). How do C-terminal UBA domains protect from degradation? There are indications that UBA domains do not only bind ubiquitin but also UbL domains (Raasi and Pickart, 2003; Wang et al., 2003). Based on these findings, it has been proposed that intramolecular interactions between the UbL and UBA domains may give Rad23 a closed conformation that cannot bind to the proteasome (Madura, 2002; Wang et al., 2003). Others have proposed that UBA domains can inhibit elongation of polyubiquitin chains by capping conjugated ubiquitin (Chen et al., 2001; Ortolan et al., 2000). Although either UbL binding or inhibition of polyubiquitination provides possible explanations for the stabilizing effect of the C-terminal UBA domain, there are several observations that do not support these models. First, the ubiquitin binding activity of the UBA domains is not sufficient for the protective effect since the very similar UBA1 domains of Rad23 and hHR23A, that bind ubiquitin and block ubiquitination equally well as UBA2 domains (Bertolaet et al., 2001b; Chen et al., 2001; Rao and Sastry, 2002), lacked this protective activity. Second, the presence of the UBA domain did not have any striking effects on the handling of ubiquitin on the substrate: the N-terminal ubiquitin was efficiently cleaved of the Ub-R-GFP to activate the N-end rule degradation signal and the reporter was found to be polyubiquitinated. Third, Madura and colleagues previously reported that C-terminal tagging of Rad23 dramatically affected its half-life and resulted in rapid proteasomal degradation (Schauber et al., 1998). We have obtained preliminary data suggesting that a C-terminal extension disturbs the protective effect of the UBA2 domain (unpublished data). It seems unlikely that short motifs lacking any secondary structure would interfere with UBA interactions since both internal and C-terminal UBA domains were found to bind ubiquitin in the context of the native protein (Bertolaet et al., 2001b). Fourth, the interaction between Rad23 and the protea- UBA2 Is an Intrinsic Stabilization Signal 233 some has been studied in much detail (Elsasser et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2004; Saeki et al., 2002b; Schauber et al., 1998), leaving little doubt about the fact that Rad23 does interact with the proteasome in vivo. A possibility that cannot be excluded is masking of polyubiquitin chains by the UBA2 domain. Thus the UBA2 domain could bind to polyubiquitin chains conjugated to Rad23, thereby modifying the interaction between Rad23 to the proteasome in such a way that it does not promote degradation. It remains unclear whether Rad23 itself is a target for ubiquitination, but the fission yeast homolog Rph23 was shown to be polyubiquitinated (Elder et al., 2002). In disfavor of this model, it was recently shown that the UBA1 and UBA2 domains bind synthetic Lys48 tetraubiquitin chains equally well (Raasi and Pickart, 2003), but more detailed analyses on the in vivo preferences of UBA domains for different polyubiquitin chains is required to conclusively address this issue. Our study shows that the structural integrity of the UBA2 domain is an essential constraint for the protective effect. An attractive hypothesis that could explain these results is that the C-terminal UBA2 domain hinders unfolding of proteasome-bound Rad23. Prakash and coworkers have recently shown that degradation signals require an unstructured initiation site for efficient unfolding and proteasomal degradation (Prakash et al., 2004). Unfolding is a rate-limiting and crucial step in the sequence of events that leads to degradation of ubiquitinated substrates (Thrower et al., 2000), and in vitro studies have shown that tightly folded C-terminal domains can delay or block proteasomal degradation (Navon and Goldberg, 2001). Disturbing the UBA2 fold may enable the proteasome to unfold and degrade Rad23. This would also explain the intriguing observation that simple C-terminal tagging can destabilize Rad23 (Schauber et al., 1998) because extending the UBA2 domain with unstructured epitope tags may provide the proteasome with a “handle” to unwind the UBA domain. Notably, it has been hypothesized that processing domains, i.e., domains that interrupt proteasomal degradation of a precursor protein at a specific point (Rape et al., 2001), may mediate protein-protein interactions that terminate degradation by forming stable structures (Rape and Jentsch, 2002). UBA domains can interact with each other (Bertolaet et al., 2001a), and a similar mechanism may therefore apply for stabilization by UBA domains. We have shown that yeast expressing destabilized Rad23 can resist a high, single dose of UV exposure, despite extremely low Rad23 levels. This observation is consistent with earlier reports showing that deletion of the UBA2 domain does not affect UV sensitivity after a single UV exposure (Bertolaet et al., 2001b; Chen and Madura, 2002). Apparently cells contain excess amounts of Rad23. This may be related to the emerging role of Rad23 in the targeting of substrates for ubiquitin/proteasome-dependent proteolysis (Verma et al., 2004). Even more remarkable is the increased sensitivity of yeast expressing Rad23L392A to repeated UV exposures. Conceivably, NER lesions may induce Rad23proteasome interactions and cause a further depletion of the already low levels of Rad23 in this strain. Because UV exposure also causes proteotoxic stress and can induce DNA damage-independent responses (Bryan et al., 2004), it cannot be excluded that this unique phenotype is caused by a combination of reduced NER activity and reduced substrate targeting activity as a consequence of the low Rad23 levels. Our study identifies C-terminal UBA domains as cellular stabilization signals and the primary element that enables Rad23 and hHR23A to interact with the proteasome without facing destruction. An attractive hypothesis is that Rad23 by acquiring the UBA2 domain has evolved from a proteasome substrate into a privileged protected “substrate” that assists the ubiquitin/proteasome system as a dedicated proteasome scaffold in DNA repair and substrate targeting. Experimental Procedures Yeast Strains and Plasmids All strains used in this work are listed in Table 1 and are derivatives of DF5. Correct integration of gene cassettes was confirmed by whole-locus PCR analysis. SHY002 was constructed by replacing the entire RAD23 open reading frame (ORF) by transforming DF5 with a PCR product encompassing the kanMX4-KlURA3 cassette from pCORE (Storici et al., 2001). Ura+ G418R clones were isolated and UV sensitivity was confirmed. To obtain SHY003, the SHY002 strain was transformed with a FLAG-RAD23 PCR fragment from pYES3/CT-FLAG-RAD23 deleting the kanMX4-KlURA3 cassette, giving rise to 5-fluorootic acid-resistant (5-FOAR) and G418S clones. SHY004 was created similarly by transforming SHY002 with a FLAG-RAD23L392A PCR product amplified from pYES3/CT-FLAGRAD23L392A. RPN10D strains SHY012-15 were generated by replacement of the complete RPN10 ORF with an HIS3 containing cassette that was PCR amplified from pRS313. The FLAGRad23 open reading frame and fragments were PCR amplified from pCS13-FLAGRad23 (gift from Dr. Madura, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ) and subcloned under the regulation of a GAL1 promoter in the yeast expression vector pYES2 (Invitrogen, 2 URA3) or pYES3/CT (Invitrogen, 2 TRP1). The UBA domains of Dsk2, Ddi1, and Ede1 were PCR amplified from genomic yeast DNA. The hHR23A UBA1 (codons 159–200) and UBA2 (codons 317–357) domains were PCR-amplified from total HEK293T cell cDNA. Flow Cytometry HeLa cells transiently transfected with lipofectamine were treated 8 hr with 10 M of the proteasome inhibitor carboxybenzyl-leucylleucyl-leucine vinyl sulfone (Z-L3VS, gift from Dr. Ploegh, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) and subjected to flow cytometric analysis on a fluorescent activated cell sorter (Beckton & Dickinson). Western Blot Analysis and Immunoprecipitations Western blots of total protein extracts were probed with mouse monoclonal anti-FLAG (M5, Sigma-Aldrich), anti-HA antibody (Boehringer-Mannheim), anti-HA ascites, and rabbit polyclonal anti-GFP antibody (Molecular Probes Europe). For immunoprecipitations, yeast was lysed with acid-washed glass beads in HEPES lysis buffer (50 mM HEPES, 5mM EDTA, 1% TritonX-100, 150 mM NaCl), supplemented with 20mM NEM (Sigma-Aldrich) and 0.5 M epoxomycin (Affinity Research Products). For anti-FLAG immunoprecipitations, sepharose beads with conjugated M2 anti-FLAG monoclonal antibody were used (M2-Sepharose, Sigma). Turnover Analysis For GAL1 promoter shutoff experiments, transcription and translation were arrested by adding glucose and cycloheximide (Sigma) to final concentrations of 2% and 0.5 mg/ml, respectively. For endogenously expressed proteins, only cycloheximide was added to the growth media (final concentration 100 g/ml). Aliquots were taken at the indicated time points, and total protein extracts were prepared by NaOH lysis and TCA precipitation. Samples were heated Molecular Cell 234 10 min at 65°C and subjected to SDS-PAGE before Western blot analysis with the appropriate antibodies. Pulse-chase analyses were performed by metabolic labeling of 6 OD600 units of yeast with 100 C 35S-methionine/35S-cysteine (Redivue ProMix, Amersham) for 10 min and chasing in the presence of 10 mM cold methionine and 1 mM cold cysteine for the indicated time. Yeast was washed, lysed with acid-washed glass beads, and the proteins of interest were immunoprecipitated from the lysate. UV Survival Assays For drop assays, yeast cells were resuspended in sterile water and serial 10-fold dilutions were spotted as 1.5 l drops on YPD plates. Plates were irradiated with a single dose of 300 J/m2 or a maximum of 3× 100 J/m2 254 nm UV light using the Stratalinker UV crosslinker (Stratagene). All plates were wrapped in aluminum foil and kept in the dark both during the 20 min recovery intervals and after the final UV exposure. Plates were photographed after 2 days of growth at 30°C. For quantitative survival analyses, yeast cells were diluted in a 24-well plate before serial exposures to 100 J/m2 UV with 20 min intervals. After the final exposure, the yeast was evenly spread out over YPD plates and the number of colonies was determined after growth at 30°C for 2 days in the dark. Acknowledgments We thank Per Ljungdahl for technical advise and support; Kiran Madura, Hidde Ploegh, Alex Varshavsky, Sigurd Braun, and Stefan Jentsch for generous gifts of reagents and advice; Marianne Jellne for excellent technical support; Kristina Lindsten, Lisette Verhoef, Victoria Menéndez-Benito, Florian Salomons, Claes Andréasson, Steven Bergink, Wim Vermeulen, and Cecile Pickart for stimulating discussions and useful comments. This work was supported by grants awarded by the Swedish Research Council (N.P.D.), Swedish Cancer Society (N.P.D. and M.G.M.), Swedish Foundation for Strategy Research (M.G.M.) and the Karolinska Institute. N.P.D. is supported by a fellowship from the Swedish Research Council. S.H. has been supported in part by a grant from the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. Received: October 8, 2004 Revised: January 11, 2005 Accepted: March 21, 2005 Published: April 14, 2005 References Aguilar, R.C., Watson, H.A., and Wendland, B. (2003). The yeast Epsin Ent1 is recruited to membranes through multiple independent interactions. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 10737–10743. Bartel, B., Wunning, I., and Varshavsky, A. (1990). The recognition component of the N-end rule pathway. EMBO J. 9, 3179–3189. Baumeister, W., Walz, J., Zuhl, F., and Seemuller, E. (1998). The proteasome: paradigm of a self-compartmentalizing protease. Cell 92, 367–380. Bertolaet, B.L., Clarke, D.J., Wolff, M., Watson, M.H., Henze, M., Divita, G., and Reed, S.I. (2001a). UBA domains mediate proteinprotein interactions between two DNA damage-inducible proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 313, 955–963. Bertolaet, B.L., Clarke, D.J., Wolff, M., Watson, M.H., Henze, M., Divita, G., and Reed, S.I. (2001b). UBA domains of DNA damageinducible proteins interact with ubiquitin. Nat. Struct. Biol. 8, 417– 422. Bryan, B.A., Knapp, G.S., Bowen, L.M., and Polymenis, M. (2004). The UV response in Saccharomyces cerevisiae involves the mitogen-activated protein kinase Slt2p. Curr. Microbiol. 49, 32–34. Buchberger, A. (2002). From UBA to UBX: new words in the ubiquitin vocabulary. Trends Cell Biol. 12, 216–221. Chen, L., and Madura, K. (2002). Rad23 promotes the targeting of proteolytic substrates to the proteasome. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 4902–4913. Chen, L., Shinde, U., Ortolan, T.G., and Madura, K. (2001). Ubiquitin-associated (UBA) domains in Rad23 bind ubiquitin and promote inhibition of multi-ubiquitin chain assembly. EMBO Rep. 2, 933– 938. Chen, X., Chi, Y., Bloecher, A., Aebersold, R., Clurman, B.E., and Roberts, J.M. (2004). N-acetylation and ubiquitin-independent proteasomal degradation of p21(Cip1). Mol. Cell 16, 839–847. Clarke, D.J., Mondesert, G., Segal, M., Bertolaet, B.L., Jensen, S., Wolff, M., Henze, M., and Reed, S.I. (2001). Dosage suppressors of pds1 implicate ubiquitin-associated domains in checkpoint control. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 1997–2007. Dantuma, N.P., Heessen, S., Lindsten, K., Jellne, M., and Masucci, M.G. (2000a). Inhibition of proteasomal degradation by the Gly-Ala repeat of Epstein-Barr virus is influenced by the length of the repeat and the strength of the degradation signal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 8381–8385. Dantuma, N.P., Lindsten, K., Glas, R., Jellne, M., and Masucci, M.G. (2000b). Short-lived green fluorescent proteins for quantifying ubiquitin/proteasome-dependent proteolysis in living cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 538–543. Dantuma, N.P., and Masucci, M.G. (2002). Stabilization signals: a novel regulatory mechanism in the ubiquitin/proteasome system. FEBS Lett. 529, 22–26. Elder, R.T., Song, X.Q., Chen, M., Hopkins, K.M., Lieberman, H.B., and Zhao, Y. (2002). Involvement of rhp23, a Schizosaccharomyces pombe homolog of the human HHR23A and Saccharomyces cerevisiae RAD23 nucleotide excision repair genes, in cell cycle control and protein ubiquitination. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 581–591. Elsasser, S., Chandler-Militello, D., Muller, B., Hanna, J., and Finley, D. (2004). Rad23 and Rpn10 serve as alternative ubiquitin receptors for the proteasome. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 26817–26822. Elsasser, S., Gali, R.R., Schwickart, M., Larsen, C.N., Leggett, D.S., Muller, B., Feng, M.T., Tubing, F., Dittmar, G.A., and Finley, D. (2002). Proteasome subunit Rpn1 binds ubiquitin-like protein domains. Nat. Cell Biol. 4, 725–730. Ferdous, A., Gonzalez, F., Sun, L., Kodadek, T., and Johnston, S.A. (2001). The 19S regulatory particle of the proteasome is required for efficient transcription elongation by RNA polymerase II. Mol. Cell 7, 981–991. Gillette, T.G., Huang, W., Russell, S.J., Reed, S.H., Johnston, S.A., and Friedberg, E.C. (2001). The 19S complex of the proteasome regulates nucleotide excision repair in yeast. Genes Dev. 15, 1528–1539. Gonzalez, F., Delahodde, A., Kodadek, T., and Johnston, S.A. (2002). Recruitment of a 19S proteasome subcomplex to an activated promoter. Science 296, 548–550. Hartmann-Petersen, R., Hendil, K.B., and Gordon, C. (2003). Ubiquitin binding proteins protect ubiquitin conjugates from disassembly. FEBS Lett. 535, 77–81. Heessen, S., Leonchiks, A., Issaeva, N., Sharipo, A., Selivanova, G., Masucci, M.G., and Dantuma, N.P. (2002). Functional p53 chimeras containing the Epstein-Barr virus Gly-Ala repeat are protected from Mdm2- and HPV-E6-induced proteolysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 1532–1537. Hershko, A., and Ciechanover, A. (1998). The ubiquitin system. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67, 425–479. Hofmann, K., and Bucher, P. (1996). The UBA domain: a sequence motif present in multiple enzyme classes of the ubiquitination pathway. Trends Biochem. Sci. 21, 172–173. Jentsch, S., and Pyrowolakis, G. (2000). Ubiquitin and its kin: how close are the family ties? Trends Cell Biol. 10, 335–342. Johnson, E.S., Ma, P.C., Ota, I.M., and Varshavsky, A. (1995). A proteolytic pathway that recognizes ubiquitin as a degradation signal. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 17442–17456. Kim, I., Mi, K., and Rao, H. (2004). Multiple interactions of Rad23 suggest a mechanism for ubiquitylated substrate delivery important in proteolysis. Mol. Biol. Cell 15, 3357–3365. Koegl, M., Hoppe, T., Schlenker, S., Ulrich, H.D., Mayer, T.U., and UBA2 Is an Intrinsic Stabilization Signal 235 Jentsch, S. (1999). A novel ubiquitination factor, E4, is involved in multiubiquitin chain assembly. Cell 96, 635–644. Varshavsky, A. (1996). The N-end rule: functions, mysteries, uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 12142–12149. Lambertson, D., Chen, L., and Madura, K. (1999). Pleiotropic defects caused by loss of the proteasome-interacting factors Rad23 and Rpn10 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 153, 69–79. Verma, R., Oania, R., Graumann, J., and Deshaies, R.J. (2004). Multiubiquitin Chain Receptors Define a Layer of Substrate Selectivity in the Ubiquitin-Proteasome System. Cell 118, 99–110. Levitskaya, J., Coram, M., Levitsky, V., Imreh, S., Steigerwald-Mullen, P.M., Klein, G., Kurilla, M.G., and Masucci, M.G. (1995). Inhibition of antigen processing by the internal repeat region of the Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen-1. Nature 375, 685–688. Wang, Q., Goh, A.M., Howley, P.M., and Walters, K.J. (2003). Ubiquitin recognition by the DNA repair protein hHR23a. Biochemistry 42, 13529–13535. Madura, K. (2002). The ubiquitin-associated (UBA) domain: on the path from prudence to prurience. Cell Cycle 1, 235–244. Mueller, T.D., and Feigon, J. (2002). Solution structures of UBA domains reveal a conserved hydrophobic surface for protein-protein interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 319, 1243–1255. Murakami, Y., Matsufuji, S., Kameji, T., Hayashi, S., Igarashi, K., Tamura, T., Tanaka, K., and Ichihara, A. (1992). Ornithine decarboxylase is degraded by the 26S proteasome without ubiquitination. Nature 360, 597–599. Navon, A., and Goldberg, A.L. (2001). Proteins are unfolded on the surface of the ATPase ring before transport into the proteasome. Mol. Cell 8, 1339–1349. Ortolan, T.G., Tongaonkar, P., Lambertson, D., Chen, L., Schauber, C., and Madura, K. (2000). The DNA repair protein rad23 is a negative regulator of multi-ubiquitin chain assembly. Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 601–608. Prakash, S., Tian, L., Ratliff, K.S., Lehotzky, R.E., and Matouschek, A. (2004). An unstructured initiation site is required for efficient proteasome-mediated degradation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 11, 830–837. Raasi, S., and Pickart, C.M. (2003). Rad23 ubiquitin-associated domains (UBA) inhibit 26 S proteasome-catalyzed proteolysis by sequestering lysine 48-linked polyubiquitin chains. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 8951–8959. Rao, H., and Sastry, A. (2002). Recognition of specific ubiquitin conjugates is important for the proteolytic functions of the ubiquitin-associated domain proteins Dsk2 and Rad23. J. Biol. Chem. 277, 11691–11695. Rape, M., Hoppe, T., Gorr, I., Kalocay, M., Richly, H., and Jentsch, S. (2001). Mobilization of processed, membrane-tethered SPT23 transcription factor by CDC48(UFD1/NPL4), a ubiquitin-selective chaperone. Cell 107, 667–677. Rape, M., and Jentsch, S. (2002). Taking a bite: proteasomal protein processing. Nat. Cell Biol. 4, E113–E116. Riley, B.E., Xu, Y., Zoghbi, H.Y., and Orr, H.T. (2004). The polyglutamine repeat protein ataxin-1 and its effects on the UbL-UBA protein, A1Up. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 42290–42301. Russell, S.J., Reed, S.H., Huang, W., Friedberg, E.C., and Johnston, S.A. (1999). The 19S regulatory complex of the proteasome functions independently of proteolysis in nucleotide excision repair. Mol. Cell 3, 687–695. Saeki, Y., Saitoh, A., Toh-e, A., and Yokosawa, H. (2002a). Ubiquitinlike proteins and Rpn10 play cooperative roles in ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 293, 986–992. Saeki, Y., Sone, T., Toh-e, A., and Yokosawa, H. (2002b). Identification of ubiquitin-like protein-binding subunits of the 26S proteasome. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 296, 813–819. Schauber, C., Chen, L., Tongaonkar, P., Vega, I., Lambertson, D., Potts, W., and Madura, K. (1998). Rad23 links DNA repair to the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway. Nature 391, 715–718. Sharipo, A., Imreh, M., Leonchiks, A., Imreh, S., and Masucci, M.G. (1998). A minimal glycine-alanine repeat prevents the interaction of ubiquitinated IκB-α with the proteasome: a new mechanism for selective inhibition of proteolysis. Nat. Med. 4, 939–944. Storici, F., Lewis, L.K., and Resnick, M.A. (2001). In vivo sitedirected mutagenesis using oligonucleotides. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 773–776. Thrower, J.S., Hoffman, L., Rechsteiner, M., and Pickart, C.M. (2000). Recognition of the polyubiquitin proteolytic signal. EMBO J. 19, 94–102. Watkins, J.F., Sung, P., Prakash, L., and Prakash, S. (1993). The Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA repair gene RAD23 encodes a nuclear protein containing a ubiquitin-like domain required for biological function. Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 7757–7765. Wilkinson, C.R., Seeger, M., Hartmann-Petersen, R., Stone, M., Wallace, M., Semple, C., and Gordon, C. (2001). Proteins containing the UBA domain are able to bind to multi-ubiquitin chains. Nat. Cell Biol. 3, 939–943.