Universität Stuttgart

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/1

Browse

Institute: search.filters.UBSInstitut.Institut für BiochemieAuthor: search.filters.author.Weirich, Sara

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Somatic cancer mutations in the MLL1 histone methyltransferase modulate its enzymatic activity and dependence on the WDR5/RBBP5/ASH2L complex
    (2017) Weirich, Sara; Kudithipudi, Srikanth; Jeltsch, Albert
    Somatic missense mutations in the mixed lineage leukemia 1 (MLL1) histone H3K4 methyltransferase are often observed in cancers. MLL1 forms a complex with WDR5, RBBP5, and ASH2L (WRA) which stimulates its activity. The MM-102 compound prevents the interaction between MLL1 and WDR5 and functions as an MLL1 inhibitor. We have studied the effects of four cancer mutations in the catalytic SET domain of MLL1 on the enzymatic activity of MLL1 and MLL1–WRA complexes. In addition, we studied the interaction of the MLL1 mutants with the WRA proteins and inhibition of MLL1–WRA complexes by MM-102. All four investigated mutations had strong effects on the activity of MLL1. R3903H was inactive and S3865F showed reduced activity both alone and in complex with WRA, but its activity was stimulated by the WRA complex. By contrast, R3864C and R3841W were both more active than wild-type MLL1, but still less active than the wild-type MLL1–WRA complex. Both mutants were not stimulated by complex formation with WRA, although no differences in the interaction with the complex proteins were observed. These results indicate that both mutants are in an active conformation even in the absence of the WRA complex and their normal control of activity by the WRA complex is altered. In agreement with this observation, the activity of R3864C and R3841W was not reduced by addition of the MM-102 inhibitor. We show that different cancer mutations in MLL1 lead to a loss or increase in activity, illustrating the complex and tumor-specific role of MLL1 in carcinogenesis. Our data exemplify that biochemical investigations of somatic tumor mutations are required to decipher their pathological role. Moreover, our data indicate that MM-102 may not be used as an MLL1 inhibitor if the R3864C and R3841W mutations are present. More generally, the efficacy of any enzyme inhibitor must be experimentally confirmed for mutant enzymes before an application can be considered.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Somatic cancer mutations in the MLL3-SET domain alter the catalytic properties of the enzyme
    (2015) Weirich, Sara; Kudithipudi, Srikanth; Kycia, Ina; Jeltsch, Albert
    BACKGROUND: Somatic mutations in epigenetic enzymes are frequently found in cancer tissues. The MLL3 H3K4-specific protein lysine monomethyltransferase is an important epigenetic enzyme, and it is among the most recurrently mutated enzymes in cancers. MLL3 mainly introduces H3K4me1 at enhancers. RESULTS: We investigated the enzymatic properties of MLL3 variants that carry somatic cancer mutations. Asn4848 is located at the cofactor binding sites, and the N4848S exchange renders the enzyme inactive. Tyr4884 is part of an aromatic pocket at the active center of the enzyme, and Y4884C converts MLL3 from a monomethyltransferase with substrate preference for H3K4me0 to a trimethyltransferase with H3K4me1 as preferred substrate. Expression of Y4884C leads to aberrant H3K4me3 formation in cells. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that different somatic cancer mutations of MLL3 affect the enzyme activity in distinct and opposing manner highlighting the importance of experimentally studying the effects of somatic cancer mutations in key regulatory enzymes in order to develop and apply targeted tumor therapy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Investigation of the methylation of Numb by the SET8 protein lysine methyltransferase
    (2015) Weirich, Sara; Kusevic, Denis; Kudithipudi, Srikanth; Jeltsch, Albert
    It has been reported that the Numb protein is methylated at lysine 158 and 163 and that this methylation is introduced by the SET8 protein lysine methyltransferase [Dhami et al., (2013) Molecular Cell 50, 565-576]. We studied this methylation in vitro using peptide arrays and recombinant Numb protein as substrates. Numb peptides and protein were incubated with recombinant SET8 purified after expression in E. coli or human HEK293 cells. However, no methylation of Numb by SET8 was detectable. SET8 methylation of Histone H4 and p53 peptides and proteins, which were used as positive controls, was readily observed. While SET8 methylation of Numb in cells cannot be ruled out, based on our findings, more evidence is needed to Support this claim. It appears likely that another not yet identified PKMT is responsible for the reported methylation of Numb in cells.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Enzymatic characterization of protein lysine methyltransferases
    (2017) Weirich, Sara; Jeltsch, Albert (Prof. Dr.)
    Histone lysine methylation is an epigenetic mechanism that is involved in the regulation of many biological processes. Over the last decade, the global interest in protein lysine methylation events increased drastically, because several protein lysine methyltransferases (PKMTs) and lysine methylation sites were identified in the genomes and proteomes of many organisms also including non-histone proteins functioning as substrates for PKMTs. The fast development of this field has moved the understanding of the biological outcome of lysine methylation into the center of research. Most urgently, it is necessary to improve our knowledge about lysine methylation by connecting specific target sites with the responsible PKMT and identifying the full substrate spectrum of PKMTs. In this thesis substrate specificity analysis was performed to tackle this challenge. It was shown that methylation of substrate specificity arrays is a good approach to analyze the substrate preference of PKMTs and identify subtle differences between related enzymes with same overall specificity. Furthermore, substrate specificity analysis was shown to be useful for the identification of novel substrates, which was successfully demonstrated for SUV4-20H1, SUV4-20H2, MLL1 and MLL3 in the present study. In vitro methylation experiments indicated that SUV4-20H1 and SUV4-20H2 introduce dimethylation on H4K20 using monomethylated H4K20 as substrate. SUV4-20H1 and SUV4-20H2 have an overlapping sequence motif, but SUV4-20H2 is less specific. This result was supported by the identification of one novel non-histone substrate for SUV4-20H1 and three non-histone targets for SUV4-20H2. MLL1 and MLL3 are H3K4 methyltransferases, but they belong to different MLL subfamilies. MLL1 catalyzes H3K4 trimethylation at promotors of developmental genes, whereas MLL3 introduces H3K4 monomethylation at enhancers. MLL1 and MLL3 are parts of related multi protein complexes also containing WDR5, RBBP5 and ASH2L. Substrate specificity analysis of MLL1 showed that it accepts several other residues at many positions of the target sequence, in addition to the residues in the original sequences of H3. At the protein level two novel substrates (TICRR and ZNF862) were methylated by MLL1. Comparison of the relative activity showed that the H3 protein was the best target in the absence of complex partners, but ZNF862 was preferred in presence of WRA. Finally, my data indicate that the substrate specificity of MLL3-WRA differed slightly from MLL1, suggesting that they may have different non-histone substrates. In several publications, assignments between PKMTs and methylated histone or non-histone target sites have been reported, but in some cases the data are questionable. This could lead to wrong interpretation of biological processes and misleading of follow-up studies. It has been shown for two examples in this study, that substrate specificity analysis can be used to identify problematic assignments between PKMT and methylation events, which need to be studied experimentally to confirm the published findings. Vougiouklakis et al. (2015) reported that SUV4-20H1 methylates ERK1 at K302 and K361, but these target sites do not fit to the specificity profile of SUV4-20H1. Indeed, I could not detect methylation of ERK1 by SUV4-20H1 or SUV4-20H2 at peptide and protein level although positive controls showed the expected methylation. Dhami et al. (2013) reported that Numb protein is methylated by SET8 at K158 and K163, which was not in agreement with the specificity data of SET8. In this thesis, Numb peptide and protein methylation was studied using recombinant SET8 purified from E.coli or HEK293 cells. In both cases, no methylation of Numb could be observed. These data suggest that these assignments of methylation substrates and PKMTs are likely not correct. Whole genome and whole transcriptome sequencing projects have frequently found somatic mutations in epigenetic enzymes in cancers. Somatic cancer mutations can have loss-of-function or gain-of-function effects on the enzymatic properties of PKMTs. Especially gain-of-function effects are a challenge in understanding their role in carcinogenesis. In this study, the effects of somatic cancer mutations found in the SET domain of MLL1 and MLL3 were analyzed. Four somatic cancer mutations of MLL1 and three of MLL3 were selected for analysis on the basis of their location close to binding sites of AdoMet, peptide or the interaction partners. The investigation of somatic cancer mutations in MLL1 and MLL3 indicated that each specific mutation has its unique effect on the enzymatic activity, product or substrate specificity and principle regulatory mechanism indicating that each mutant needs specific in depth experimental investigation in order to understand its carcinogenic effect. Moreover, inhibitor studies demonstrated that each mutant needs to be experimentally studied to allow for the development of mutation specific therapeutic strategies.