Snarepins Are Functionally Resistant to Disruption by Nsf and αSNAP

Cellular Biochemistry and Biophysics Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021, USA.
The Journal of Cell Biology (Impact Factor: 9.69). 06/2000; 149(5):1063-72.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT SNARE (SNAP [soluble NSF (N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion protein) attachment protein] receptor) proteins are required for many fusion processes, and recent studies of isolated SNARE proteins reveal that they are inherently capable of fusing lipid bilayers. Cis-SNARE complexes (formed when vesicle SNAREs [v-SNAREs] and target membrane SNAREs [t-SNAREs] combine in the same membrane) are disrupted by the action of the abundant cytoplasmic ATPase NSF, which is necessary to maintain a supply of uncombined v- and t-SNAREs for fusion in cells. Fusion is mediated by these same SNARE proteins, forming trans-SNARE complexes between membranes. This raises an important question: why doesn't NSF disrupt these SNARE complexes as well, preventing fusion from occurring at all? Here, we report several lines of evidence that demonstrate that SNAREpins (trans-SNARE complexes) are in fact functionally resistant to NSF, and they become so at the moment they form and commit to fusion. This elegant design allows fusion to proceed locally in the face of an overall environment that massively favors SNARE disruption.

Download full-text


Available from: James A McNew, Jul 01, 2015
  • Source
    Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 02/2014; 7:6. DOI:10.3389/fnmol.2014.00006
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptors (SNAREs) form a four-helix coiled-coil bundle that juxtaposes two bilayers and drives a basal level of membrane fusion. The Sec1/Munc18 (SM) protein binds to its cognate SNARE bundle and accelerates the basal fusion reaction. The question of how the topological arrangement of the SNARE helices affects the reactivity of the fusion proteins remains unanswered. Here we address the problem for the first time in a reconstituted system containing both SNAREs and SM proteins. We find that to be fusogenic a SNARE topology must support both basal fusion and SM stimulation. Certain topological combinations of exocytic SNAREs result in basal fusion but cannot support SM stimulation, whereas other topologies support SM stimulation without inducing basal fusion. It is striking that of all the possible topological combinations of exocytic SNARE helices, only one induces efficient fusion. Our results suggest that the intracellular membrane fusion complex is designed to fuse bilayers according to one genetically programmed topology.
    Molecular biology of the cell 06/2011; 22(14):2612-9. DOI:10.1091/mbc.E11-03-0190 · 5.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Soluble N-ethyl-maleimide sensitive fusion protein attachment protein receptors (SNAREs) are hypothesized to trigger membrane fusion by complexing in trans through their membrane-distal N termini and zippering toward their membrane-embedded C termini, which in turn drives the two membranes together. In this study, we use a set of truncated SNAREs to trap kinetically stable, partially zipped trans-SNARE complexes on intact organelles in the absence of hemifusion and content mixing. We show that the C-terminal zippering of SNARE cytoplasmic domains controls the onset of lipid mixing but not the subsequent transition from hemifusion to full fusion. Moreover, we find that a partially zipped nonfusogenic trans-complex is rescued by Sec17, a universal SNARE cochaperone. Rescue occurs independently of the Sec17-binding partner Sec18, and it exhibits steep cooperativity, indicating that Sec17 engages multiple stalled trans-complexes to drive fusion. These experiments delineate distinct functions within the trans-complex, provide a straightforward method to trap and study prefusion complexes on native membranes, and reveal that Sec17 can rescue a stalled, partially zipped trans-complex.
    The Journal of Cell Biology 06/2009; 185(3):535-49. DOI:10.1083/jcb.200811082 · 9.69 Impact Factor