Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Resource
  • Published:

Site-specific mapping of the human SUMO proteome reveals co-modification with phosphorylation

Nature Structural & Molecular Biology volume 24, pages 325–336 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Small ubiquitin-like modifiers (SUMOs) are post-translational modifications (PTMs) that regulate nuclear cellular processes. Here we used an augmented K0–SUMO proteomics strategy to identify 40,765 SUMO acceptor sites and quantify their fractional contribution for 6,747 human proteins. Structural–predictive analyses revealed that lysines residing in disordered regions are preferentially targeted by SUMO, in notable contrast to other widespread lysine modifications. In our data set, we identified 807 SUMOylated peptides that were co-modified by phosphorylation, along with dozens of SUMOylated peptides that were co-modified by ubiquitylation, acetylation and methylation. Notably, 9% of the identified SUMOylome occurred proximal to phosphorylation, and numerous SUMOylation sites were found to be fully dependent on prior phosphorylation events. SUMO-proximal phosphorylation occurred primarily in a proline-directed manner, and inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases dynamically affected co-modification. Collectively, we present a comprehensive analysis of the SUMOylated proteome, uncovering the structural preferences for SUMO and providing system-wide evidence for a remarkable degree of cross-talk between SUMOylation and other major PTMs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Ultra-deep profiling of the SUMO proteome.
Figure 2: Overview of the SUMO proteome.
Figure 3: The KxE consensus, a globally dominant phenomenon.
Figure 4: SUMO-modification phenomena in the cellular stress response.
Figure 5: Insight into SUMO-chain architecture.
Figure 6: Cross-talk between SUMO, ubiquitin, acetylation and methylation.
Figure 7: Extensive global SUMO and phosphorylation co-modification is primarily driven by proline-directed phosphorylation.
Figure 8: Cyclin-dependent kinases are involved in the regulation of phosphorylation-dependent SUMOylation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Accession codes

Primary accessions

Proteomics Identifications Database

References

  1. Hendriks, I.A. et al. Uncovering global SUMOylation signaling networks in a site-specific manner. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 927–936 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Hendriks, I.A. & Vertegaal, A.C. A comprehensive compilation of SUMO proteomics. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 17, 581–595 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Enserink, J.M. SUMO and the cellular stress response. Cell Div. 10, 4 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Psakhye, I. & Jentsch, S. Protein group modification and synergy in the SUMO pathway as exemplified in DNA repair. Cell 151, 807–820 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dantuma, N.P. & van Attikum, H. Spatiotemporal regulation of post-translational modifications in the DNA damage response. EMBO J. 35, 6–23 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sahin, U., de Thé, H. & Lallemand-Breitenbach, V. PML nuclear bodies: assembly and oxidative-stress-sensitive SUMOylation. Nucleus 5, 499–507 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Flotho, A. & Melchior, F. SUMOylation: a regulatory protein modification in health and disease. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 82, 357–385 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eifler, K. & Vertegaal, A.C. SUMOylation-mediated regulation of cell cycle progression and cancer. Trends Biochem. Sci. 40, 779–793 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang, L. et al. SUMO2 is essential while SUMO3 is dispensable for mouse embryonic development. EMBO Rep. 15, 878–885 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson, E.S. Protein modification by SUMO. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 73, 355–382 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hershko, A. & Ciechanover, A. The ubiquitin system. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67, 425–479 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hay, R.T. SUMO-specific proteases: a twist in the tail. Trends Cell Biol. 17, 370–376 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vertegaal, A.C. SUMO chains: polymeric signals. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 38, 46–49 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mann, M., Kulak, N.A., Nagaraj, N. & Cox, J. The coming age of complete, accurate and ubiquitous proteomes. Mol. Cell 49, 583–590 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Olsen, J.V. et al. Quantitative phosphoproteomics reveals widespread full phosphorylation-site occupancy during mitosis. Sci. Signal. 3, ra3 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim, W. et al. Systematic and quantitative assessment of the ubiquitin-modified proteome. Mol. Cell 44, 325–340 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Choudhary, C. et al. Lysine acetylation targets protein complexes and co-regulates major cellular functions. Science 325, 834–840 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zielinska, D.F., Gnad, F., Wis´niewski, J.R. & Mann, M. Precision mapping of an in vivo N-glycoproteome reveals rigid topological and sequence constraints. Cell 141, 897–907 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Larsen, S.C. et al. Proteome-wide analysis of arginine monomethylation reveals widespread occurrence in human cells. Sci. Signal. 9, rs9 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Martello, R. et al. Proteome-wide identification of the endogenous ADP-ribosylome of mammalian cells and tissue. Nat. Commun. 7, 12917 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schimmel, J. et al. Uncovering SUMOylation dynamics during cell cycle progression reveals FoxM1 as a key mitotic SUMO target protein. Mol. Cell 53, 1053–1066 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Becker, J. et al. Detecting endogenous SUMO targets in mammalian cells and tissues. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 525–531 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Matic, I. et al. Site-specific identification of SUMO2 targets in cells reveals an inverted SUMOylation motif and a hydrophobic-cluster SUMOylation motif. Mol. Cell 39, 641–652 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tammsalu, T. et al. Proteome-wide identification of SUMO2 modification sites. Sci. Signal. 7, rs2 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lamoliatte, F. et al. Large-scale analysis of lysine SUMOylation by SUMO remnant immunoaffinity profiling. Nat. Commun. 5, 5409 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eifler, K. & Vertegaal, A.C. Mapping the SUMOylated landscape. FEBS J. 282, 3669–3680 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Xiao, Z. et al. System-wide analysis of SUMOylation dynamics in response to replication stress reveals novel SUMO target proteins and acceptor lysines relevant for genome stability. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 14, 1419–1434 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hendriks, I.A., Treffers, L.W., Verlaan-de Vries, M., Olsen, J.V. & Vertegaal, A.C. SUMO2 orchestrates chromatin modifiers in response to DNA damage. Cell Rep. 10, 1778–1791 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Linding, R. et al. Systematic discovery of in vivo phosphorylation networks. Cell 129, 1415–1426 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hendriks, I.A. & Vertegaal, A.C. A high-yield double-purification proteomics strategy for the identification of SUMO sites. Nat. Protoc. 11, 1630–1649 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nagaraj, N. et al. Deep proteome and transcriptome mapping of a human cancer cell line. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 548 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Batth, T.S., Francavilla, C. & Olsen, J.V. Off-line high-pH reversed-phase fractionation for in-depth phosphoproteomics. J. Proteome Res. 13, 6176–6186 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rodriguez, M.S., Dargemont, C. & Hay, R.T. SUMO1 conjugation in vivo requires both a consensus modification motif and nuclear targeting. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 12654–12659 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Danielsen, J.M. et al. Mass spectrometric analysis of lysine ubiquitylation reveals promiscuity at site level. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 10, 003590 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mahajan, R., Delphin, C., Guan, T., Gerace, L. & Melchior, F. A small ubiquitin-related polypeptide involved in targeting RanGAP1 to nuclear pore complex protein RanBP2. Cell 88, 97–107 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Matunis, M.J., Coutavas, E. & Blobel, G. A novel ubiquitin-like modification modulates the partitioning of the Ran-GTPase-activating protein RanGAP1 between the cytosol and the nuclear pore complex. J. Cell Biol. 135, 1457–1470 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mahajan, R., Gerace, L. & Melchior, F. Molecular characterization of the SUMO1 modification of RanGAP1 and its role in nuclear envelope association. J. Cell Biol. 140, 259–270 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kamitani, T. et al. Identification of three major sentrinization sites in PML. J. Biol. Chem. 273, 26675–26682 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Golebiowski, F. et al. System-wide changes to SUMO modifications in response to heat shock. Sci. Signal. 2, ra24 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cox, J. et al. Accurate proteome-wide label-free quantification by delayed normalization and maximal peptide ratio extraction, termed MaxLFQ. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 13, 2513–2526 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Kirisako, T. et al. A ubiquitin ligase complex assembles linear polyubiquitin chains. EMBO J. 25, 4877–4887 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Tatham, M.H. et al. RNF4 is a poly-SUMO-specific E3 ubiquitin ligase required for arsenic-induced PML degradation. Nat. Cell Biol. 10, 538–546 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lallemand-Breitenbach, V. et al. Arsenic degrades PML or PML-RARα through a SUMO-triggered RNF4-ubiquitin-mediated pathway. Nat. Cell Biol. 10, 547–555 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hietakangas, V. et al. PDSM, a motif for phosphorylation-dependent SUMO modification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 45–50 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Picard, N. et al. Identification of estrogen receptor (as a SUMO1 target reveals a novel phosphorylated SUMOylation motif and regulation by glycogen synthase kinase 3β. Mol. Cell. Biol. 32, 2709–2721 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Hayakawa, F. & Privalsky, M.L. Phosphorylation of PML by mitogen-activated protein kinases plays a key role in arsenic trioxide–mediated apoptosis. Cancer Cell 5, 389–401 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Nakayama, M., Kikuno, R. & Ohara, O. Protein-protein interactions between large proteins: two-hybrid screening using a functionally classified library composed of long cDNAs. Genome Res. 12, 1773–1784 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Bernier-Villamor, V., Sampson, D.A., Matunis, M.J. & Lima, C.D. Structural basis for E2-mediated SUMO conjugation revealed by a complex between ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme Ubc9 and RanGAP1. Cell 108, 345–356 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Macauley, M.S. et al. Beads-on-a-string, characterization of ETS1 SUMOylated within its flexible N-terminal sequence. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 4164–4172 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pichler, A. et al. SUMO modification of the ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2-25K. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 12, 264–269 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Yavuz, A.S. & Sezerman, O.U. Predicting SUMOylation sites using support vector machines based on various sequence features, conformational flexibility and disorder. BMC Genomics 15 (Suppl. 9), S18 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Iakoucheva, L.M. et al. The importance of intrinsic disorder for protein phosphorylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1037–1049 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Yau, R. & Rape, M. The increasing complexity of the ubiquitin code. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 579–586 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ye, Y. et al. Ubiquitin chain conformation regulates recognition and activity of interacting proteins. Nature 492, 266–270 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Ulrich, H.D. The fast-growing business of SUMO chains. Mol. Cell 32, 301–305 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wang, Y., Tang, C., Wang, E. & Wang, J. Polyubiquitin chain linkage topology selects the functions from the underlying binding landscape. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003691 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Lundby, A. et al. Quantitative maps of protein phosphorylation sites across 14 different rat organs and tissues. Nat. Commun. 3, 876 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tyanova, S., Cox, J., Olsen, J., Mann, M. & Frishman, D. Phosphorylation variation during the cell cycle scales with structural propensities of proteins. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1002842 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Nguyen, L.K., Kolch, W. & Kholodenko, B.N. When ubiquitination meets phosphorylation: a systems biology perspective of EGFR-MAPK signaling. Cell Commun. Signal. 11, 52 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Bracken, C.P. et al. Regulation of cyclin D1 RNA stability by SNIP1. Cancer Res. 68, 7621–7628 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Rappsilber, J., Mann, M. & Ishihama, Y. Protocol for micropurification, enrichment, pre-fractionation and storage of peptides for proteomics using StageTips. Nat. Protoc. 2, 1896–1906 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Vizcaíno, J.A. et al. ProteomeXchange provides globally coordinated proteomics data submission and dissemination. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 223–226 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Cox, J. et al. Andromeda: a peptide search engine integrated into the MaxQuant environment. J. Proteome Res. 10, 1794–1805 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Cox, J. & Mann, M. MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 1367–1372 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Tyanova, S. et al. The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data. Nat. Methods 13, 731–740 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Horn, H. et al. KinomeXplorer: an integrated platform for kinome biology studies. Nat. Methods 11, 603–604 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Hornbeck, P.V. et al. PhosphoSitePlus, 2014: mutations, PTMs and recalibrations. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D512–D520 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Dosztányi, Z., Csizmók, V., Tompa, P. & Simon, I. The pairwise energy content estimated from amino acid composition discriminates between folded and intrinsically unstructured proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 347, 827–839 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Magnan, C.N. & Baldi, P. SSpro/ACCpro 5: almost perfect prediction of protein secondary structure and relative solvent accessibility using profiles, machine learning and structural similarity. Bioinformatics 30, 2592–2597 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Colaert, N., Helsens, K., Martens, L., Vandekerckhove, J. & Gevaert, K. Improved visualization of protein consensus sequences by iceLogo. Nat. Methods 6, 786–787 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Impens, F., Radoshevich, L., Cossart, P. & Ribet, D. Mapping of SUMO sites and analysis of SUMOylation changes induced by external stimuli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 12432–12437 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Hendriks, I.A., D'Souza, R.C., Chang, J.G., Mann, M. & Vertegaal, A.C. System-wide identification of wild-type SUMO2 conjugation sites. Nat. Commun. 6, 7289 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank members of the NNF-CPR for fruitful discussions and careful reading of the manuscript and the CPR Mass Spectrometry Platform for instrument support and assistance. The work was in part supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research (to M.L.N.), the Novo Nordisk Foundation (grants NNF14CC0001 and NNF13OC0006477 (to M.L.N.)) and the Danish Council of Independent Research, grant agreement number DFF 4002-00051 (Sapere Aude) and grant agreement number DFF 4183-00322A (to M.L.N.). I.A.H. is supported by the European Molecular Biology Organization (grant ALTF 503-2016). A.C.O.V. is supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the European Research Council (ERC grant 310913). The authors thank C.N. Magnan for running the ACCpro predictions and J.B. Hein for advice on CDK inhibitors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Proteomics, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research (NNF-CPR), Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Ivo A Hendriks, Clifford Young & Michael L Nielsen

  2. Department of Disease Systems Biology, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    David Lyon & Lars J Jensen

  3. Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands

    Alfred C O Vertegaal

Authors
  1. Ivo A Hendriks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Lyon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clifford Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lars J Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alfred C O Vertegaal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael L Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

I.A.H. and M.L.N. designed the experiments; I.A.H. optimized the K0-SUMO workflow, implemented sample fractionation, performed all experiments, measured all samples on MS and processed all MS raw data; I.A.H. and C.Y. optimized MS methodology; D.L. and L.J.J. performed structural predictions; I.A.H. and M.L.N. performed bioinformatics analyses; A.C.O.V. and I.A.H. conceived the original biochemical K0-SUMO methodology; M.L.N. supervised and conceived the project; and I.A.H. and M.L.N. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael L Nielsen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 SUMO site peptide detection across multiple replicates.

(A) The MaxQuant Andromeda scores assigned to the identified SUMO sites, with control-condition and stress-induced sites indicated separately. (B) The number of SUMO sites detected by the exact number of replicates. MS/MS detection and evidence-matching detection are indicated. (C) As B, but with the number of sites detected in at least the number of replicates.

Supplementary Figure 2 Full coverage of all previously identified SUMO sites and proteins.

(A) Venn diagram visualizing identified SUMO sites in this study as compared to the three largest published SUMO-site studies. In this case, only 530 out of 5,213 SUMO sites were not found in this study. (B) Schematic representation of all previously MS-identified SUMO sites, and their re-identification in this study. Blue: re-identified in this work, red: not identified in this work. The number at the top of the bars indicates the exact number of SUMO sites not identified. (C) Venn diagram comparison of all SUMO sites identified in this study, all SUMO sites MS-identified in any other published study, and all ubiquitin sites MS-identified in any other study (data derived from PhosphoSitePlus (PSP). (D) Same as A, but for SUMO target proteins. In this case, only 145 out of 1,880 SUMO target proteins were not found in this study. (E) Same as B, but for SUMO target proteins. Note that external studies include non-site and endogenous studies. (F) Venn diagram comparison of all SUMO target proteins identified in this study, all SUMO target proteins identified in any other published study, all proteins identified in a deep total proteome study, and all proteins scored at least 3 out of 5 by UniProt.

Supplementary Figure 3 Data-reproducibility assessment.

(A) The number of SUMO sites detected on average and cumulatively for all experiments. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD). MS/MS detection and evidence-matching detection are indicated. (B) As A, but with cellular treatments or cell lines merged. (C) Pearson correlation analysis of SUMO sites identified in all replicates. “Same experiment” indicates correlation between the four replicates, “Other experiment” indicates correlation to all other-condition replicates. Error bars represent SD. (D) Principal component analysis of SUMO sites identified in all replicates. (E) Venn diagram visualizing the number of SUMO sites in any combination of treatments, compensated for matching evidence between runs. (F) Same as E, but compensated for matching evidence between runs.

Supplementary Figure 4 Global SUMO functions and stress dynamics.

(A) Term enrichment analysis visualizing terms that were significantly enriched for all (6,747) SUMO target proteins, as compared to the entire human proteome. Numbers in parentheses indicate participation size and category size. Score is a relative factor derived from enrichment ratio and significance. All changes were significant by Fisher Exact testing with Benjamini–Hochberg multiple-hypotheses corrected P<0.02. (B) The top 500 control-condition specific SUMO sites, as derived through profile clustering after Z-scoring and extraction of sites with the smallest Pearson distance, were compared through term enrichment analysis against all (40,765) SUMO sites detected in this study. Enriched terms are displayed in blue, and depleted terms in red. Numbers in parentheses indicate participation size and category size. Score is a relative factor derived from enrichment ratio and significance. All changes were significant by Fisher Exact testing with Benjamini–Hochberg multiple-hypotheses corrected P<0.02. (C) Same as B, but for Bortezomib treatment. (D) Same as B, but for heat shock. (E) Same as B, but for MG132 treatment, and using the top 1,000 sites. (F) Same as B, but for HeLa-exclusive sites. (G) Same as B, but for U2OS-exclusive sites.

Supplementary Figure 5 STRING network analysis of SUMO and phosphorylation co-modified proteins.

STRING visualization of all SUMO and phosphorylation co-modified proteins. Thickness of connecting lines represents STRING interaction significance. Thickness of the line around the nodes represents number of co-modified peptides, size of the nodes represents co-modification degree, and similarly colored nodes were found to be highly interconnected through MCODE clustering. Only proteins that were connected to the network at high STRING confidence (>0.7) are displayed, and SUMO family members were removed to prevent clustering bias.

Supplementary Figure 6 CDK inhibition reveals SUMO-phospho dynamics.

(A) Term enrichment analysis portraying terms that were significantly enriched (blue) or depleted (red) for (454) SUMO target proteins co-modified with phosphorylation, as compared to all (6,747) SUMO target proteins identified in this study. Co-modification in all cases was observed at the peptide level, with both modifications directly detected through MS/MS. Numbers in parentheses indicate participation size and category size. Score is a relative factor derived from enrichment ratio and significance. All changes were significant by Fisher Exact testing with Benjamini–Hochberg multiple-hypotheses corrected P<0.02. (B) Same as Fig. 7D, but using 67,810 phosphorylation sites detected in at least 3 studies as a reference set (data derived from PSP). (C) Visualization of the predicted structural properties of subsets of lysine residues within the context of SUMO-phospho co-modification. Enrichment is compared to the average properties of all lysine residues within SUMO target proteins. All displayed values were significant by Fisher Exact testing with Benjamini–Hochberg multiple-hypotheses corrected P<0.02. (D) Overview of the CDK inhibition follow-up experiment. SUMO site enrichments were performed in HeLa and U2OS, under standard growth (Control) conditions and in response to CDK1- and CDK2 inhibition (CDKi). Experiments were performed in quadruplicate (n=4 cell culture replicates), and all replicates were analyzed by mass spectrometry as single-shots as well as fractions. (E) Venn diagram visualizing the number of MS/MS-identified SUMO sites in the CDKi experiment. (F) Same as E, but visualizing by site MS/MS-identified SUMO target proteins. (G) Hierarchical clustering analysis of Z-scored intensity values of SUMO sites detected in the CDKi experiment. Clustering hierarchy is indicated at the top. Black: <-0.5 SD (absent or depleted), blue: 0.5 SD (present), cyan: >1.5 SD (enriched). (H) Same as G, but only for SUMO-phospho co-modified sites.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–6 and Supplementary Note 1 (PDF 2237 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

A list of all 40,765 identified SUMOylation sites, complete with qualitative and quantitative information. (XLSX 63397 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

A list of all 6,747 identified SUMO target proteins, complete with qualitative and quantitative information. (XLSX 11425 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

An extensive comparison of SUMOylation sites identified in this study to 9 other site-specific SUMOylation studies. (XLSX 13903 kb)

Supplementary Table 4

An extensive comparison of SUMO target proteins identified in this study to 10 other SUMO proteomics studies, mapped to the entire human proteome. (XLSX 3188 kb)

Supplementary Table 5

An overview of all term enrichment comparisons made across this study, in order to assess functional differences between selected groups of SUMO target proteins and sites. (XLSX 820 kb)

Supplementary Table 6

Full-scale prediction of the structural context of all lysine residues within SUMO target proteins identified in this study. (XLSX 7071 kb)

Supplementary Table 7

A list of all identified SUMO peptides co-modified with ubiquitin, acetyl, or methyl, complete with qualitative and quantitative information. (XLSX 130 kb)

Supplementary Table 8

A list of all 807 identified SUMO-phospho peptides, complete with qualitative and quantitative information. (XLSX 896 kb)

Supplementary Table 9

A list of all 8,044 identified SUMOylation sites in the CDKi follow-up experiment, complete with qualitative and quantitative information. (XLSX 8551 kb)

Supplementary Table 10

A list of all 2,104 identified SUMO target proteins in the CDKi follow-up experiment, complete with qualitative and quantitative information. (XLSX 1871 kb)

Supplementary Table 11

A list of all 350 identified SUMO-phospho peptides in the CDKi follow-up experiment, complete with qualitative and quantitative information. (XLSX 396 kb)

Supplementary Data Set 1

Six fully annotated MS/MS spectra corresponding to the six SUMO sites identified on endogenous NEDD8. (PDF 1102 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hendriks, I., Lyon, D., Young, C. et al. Site-specific mapping of the human SUMO proteome reveals co-modification with phosphorylation. Nat Struct Mol Biol 24, 325–336 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3366

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3366

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing