Abstract
Proteomic studies have yielded detailed lists of the proteins present in a cell. Comparatively little is known, however, about how these proteins interact and are spatially arranged within the 'functional modules' of the cell: that is, the 'molecular sociology' of the cell. This gap is now being bridged by using emerging experimental techniques, such as mass spectrometry of complexes and single-particle cryo-electron microscopy, to complement traditional biochemical and biophysical methods. With the development of integrative computational methods to exploit the data obtained, such hybrid approaches will uncover the molecular architectures, and perhaps even atomic models, of many protein complexes. With these structures in hand, researchers will be poised to use cryo-electron tomography to view protein complexes in action within cells, providing unprecedented insights into protein-interaction networks.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blundell, T. L. & Johnson, L. Protein Crystallography (Academic, New York, 1976).
Wimberley, B. T. et al. Structure of the 30S ribosomal subunit. Nature 407, 327–339 (2000).
Ban, N., Nissen, P., Hansen, J., Moore, P. B. & Steitz, T. A. The complete atomic structure of the large ribosomal subunit at 2.4 Å. Science 289, 905–920 (2000).
Schluenzen, F. et al. Structure of functionally activated small ribosomal subunit at 3.3 Å resolution. Cell 102, 615–623 (2000).
Malhotra, A. & Harvey, S. C. A quantitative model of the Escherichia coli 16S RNA in the 30S ribosomal subunit. J. Mol. Biol. 240, 308–340 (1994).
Alber, F., Kim, M. F. & Sali, A. Structural characterization of assemblies from overall shape and subcomplex compositions. Structure 13, 435–445 (2005).
Alber, F. et al. Determining the architectures of macromolecular assemblies. Nature 450, 683–694 (2007).
Sali, A., Glaeser, R., Earnest, T. & Baumeister, W. From words to literature in structural proteomics. Nature 422, 216–225 (2003).
Hernandez, H., Dziembowski, A., Taverner, T., Seraphin, B. & Robinson, C. V. Subunit architecture of multimeric complexes isolated directly from cells. EMBO Rep. 7, 605–610 (2006).
Davis, F. P. et al. Protein complex compositions predicted by structural similarity. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 2943–2952 (2006).
van Dijk, A. D. et al. Modeling protein–protein complexes involved in the cytochrome c oxidase copper-delivery pathway. J. Proteome Res. 6, 1530–1539 (2007).
Todd, A. E., Marsden, R. L., Thornton, J. M. & Orengo, C. A. Progress of structural genomics initiatives: an analysis of solved target structures. J. Mol. Biol. 348, 1235–1260 (2005).
Alber, F., Eswar, N. & Sali, A. in Practical Bioinformatics 1950–1954 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2004).
Sivasubramanian, A., Chao, G., Pressler, H. M., Wittrup, K. D. & Gray, J. J. Structural model of the mAb 806–EGFR complex using computational docking followed by computational and experimental mutagenesis. Structure 14, 401–414 (2006).
Rossmann, M. G., Morais, M. C., Leiman, P. G. & Zhang, W. Combining X-ray crystallography and electron microscopy. Structure 13, 355–362 (2005).
Fotin, A. et al. Structure of an auxilin-bound clathrin coat and its implications for the mechanism of uncoating. Nature 432, 649–653 (2004).
Mitchell, P., Petfalski, E., Shevchenko, A., Mann, M. & Tollervey, D. The exosome: a conserved eukaryotic RNA processing complex containing multiple 3′→5′ exoribonucleases. Cell 91, 457–466 (1997).
Baumeister, W., Walz, J., Zuhl, F. & Seemuller, E. The proteasome: paradigm of a self-compartmentalizing protease. Cell 92, 367–380 (1998).
Lim, R. Y. & Fahrenkrog, B. The nuclear pore complex up close. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 18, 342–347 (2006).
Beck, M., Lucic, V., Forster, F., Baumeister, W. & Medalia, O. Snapshots of nuclear pore complexes in action captured by cryo-electron tomography. Nature 449, 611–615 (2007).
Alber, F. et al. The molecular architecture of the nuclear pore complex. Nature 450, 695–701 (2007).
Meinhart, A. & Cramer, P. Recognition of RNA polymerase II carboxy-terminal domain by 3′-RNA-processing factors. Nature 430, 223–226 (2004).
Liu, Q., Greimann, J. C. & Lima, C. D. Reconstitution, activities, and structure of the eukaryotic RNA exosome. Cell 127, 1223–1237 (2006).
Egea, P. F. et al. Substrate twinning activates the signal recognition particle and its receptor. Nature 427, 215–221 (2004).
Bonvin, A. M., Boelens, R. & Kaptein, R. NMR analysis of protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 9, 501–508 (2005).
Zuiderweg, E. R. Mapping protein–protein interactions in solution by NMR spectroscopy. Biochemistry 41, 1–7 (2002).
McCoy, M. A. & Wyss, D. F. Structures of protein–protein complexes are docked using only NMR restraints from residual dipolar coupling and chemical shift perturbations. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 2104–2105 (2002).
Wuthrich, K. The way to NMR structures of proteins. Nature Struct. Biol. 8, 923–925 (2001).
Rieping, W., Habeck, M. & Nilges, M. Inferential structure determination. Science 309, 303–306 (2005).
Vachette, P., Koch, M. H. & Svergun, D. I. Looking behind the beamstop: X-ray solution scattering studies of structure and conformational changes of biological macromolecules. Methods Enzymol. 374, 584–615 (2003).
Nagar, B. & Kuriyan, J. SAXS and the working protein. Structure 13, 169–170 (2005).
Tidow, H. et al. Quaternary structures of tumor suppressor p53 and a specific p53 DNA complex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 12324–12329 (2007).
Grishaev, A., Wu, J., Trewhella, J. & Bax, A. Refinement of multidomain protein structures by combination of solution small-angle X-ray scattering and NMR data. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127, 16621–16628 (2005).
Rosenberg, O. S., Deindl, S., Sung, R. J., Nairn, A. C. & Kuriyan, J. Structure of the autoinhibited kinase domain of CaMKII and SAXS analysis of the holoenzyme. Cell 123, 849–860 (2005).
Sondermann, H., Nagar, B., Bar-Sagi, D. & Kuriyan, J. Computational docking and solution X-ray scattering predict a membrane-interacting role for the histone domain of the Ras activator son of sevenless. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 16632–16637 (2005).
Yamagata, A. & Tainer, J. A. Hexameric structures of the archaeal secretion ATPase GspE and implications for a universal secretion mechanism. EMBO J. 26, 878–890 (2007).
Hainfeld, J. F. & Powell, R. D. New frontiers in gold labeling. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 48, 471–480 (2000).
Pye, V. E. et al. Structural insights into the p97–Ufd1–Npl4 complex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 467–472 (2007).
Guan, J. Q., Almo, S. C., Reisler, E. & Chance, M. R. Structural reorganization of proteins revealed by radiolysis and mass spectrometry: G-actin solution structure is divalent cation dependent. Biochemistry 42, 11992–12000 (2003).
Anand, G. S. et al. Identification of the protein kinase A regulatory RIα-catalytic subunit interface by amide H/2H exchange and protein docking. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 13264–13269 (2003).
Lee, T. et al. Docking motif interactions in MAP kinases revealed by hydrogen exchange mass spectrometry. Mol. Cell 14, 43–55 (2004).
Yan, Y. & Marriott, G. Analysis of protein interactions using fluorescence technologies. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 7, 635–640 (2003).
Muller, E. G. et al. The organization of the core proteins of the yeast spindle pole body. Mol. Biol. Cell 16, 3341–3352 (2005).
Gavin, A. C. et al. Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery. Nature 440, 631–636 (2006).
Sharon, M., Taverner, T., Ambroggio, X. I., Deshaies, R. J. & Robinson, C. V. Structural organization of the 19S proteasome lid: insights from MS of intact complexes. PLoS Biol. 4, e267 (2006).
Parrish, J. R., Gulyas, K. D. & Finley, R. L. Yeast two-hybrid contributions to interactome mapping. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 17, 387–393 (2006).
Uetz, P. et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Nature 403, 623–627 (2000).
Michnick, S. W., Ear, P. H., Manderson, E. N., Remy, I. & Stefan, E. Universal strategies in research and drug discovery based on protein-fragment complementation assays. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 569–582 (2007).
Landgraf, C. et al. Protein interaction networks by proteome peptide scanning. PLoS Biol. 2, e14 (2004).
MacBeath, G. & Schreiber, S. L. Printing proteins as microarrays for high-throughput function determination. Science 289, 1760–1763 (2000).
Piehler, J. New methodologies for measuring protein interactions in vivo and in vitro . Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 15, 4–14 (2005).
Collins, S. R. et al. Functional dissection of protein complexes involved in yeast chromosome biology using a genetic interaction map. Nature 446, 806–810 (2007).
Krogan, N. J., Cagney, G., Haiyuan, Y., Zhong, G. & Guo, X. Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Nature 440, 637–643 (2006).
Collins, S. R. et al. Toward a comprehensive atlas of the physical interactome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Mol. Cell. Proteomics 6, 439–450 (2007).
Bauer, A. & Kuster, B. Affinity purification — mass spectrometry. Powerful tools for the characterization of protein complexes. Eur. J. Biochem. 270, 570–578 (2003).
Rappas, M. et al. Structural insights into the activity of enhancer-binding proteins. Science 307, 1972–1975 (2005).
Poliakov, A. et al. Macromolecular mass spectrometry and electron microscopy as complementary tools for investigation of the heterogeneity of bacteriophage portal assemblies. J. Struct. Biol. 157, 371–383 (2007).
Hernandez, H. & Robinson, C. V. Determining the stoichiometry and interactions of macromolecular assemblies from mass spectrometry. Nature Protoc. 2, 715–726 (2007).
Lorentzen, E. et al. The archaeal exosome core is a hexameric ring structure with three catalytic subunits. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 12, 575–581 (2005).
Buttner, K., Wenig, K. & Hopfner, K. P. Structural framework for the mechanism of archaeal exosomes in RNA processing. Mol. Cell 20, 461–471 (2005).
Aloy, P. et al. Structure-based assembly of protein complexes in yeast. Science 303, 2026–2029 (2004).
Voges, D., Zwickl, P. & Baumeister, W. The 26S proteasome: a molecular machine designed for controlled proteolysis. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 68, 1015–1068 (1999).
Groll, M. et al. Structure of 20S proteasome from yeast at 2.4 Å resolution. Nature 386, 463–471 (1997).
Sprangers, R. & Kay, L. E. Quantitative dynamics and binding studies of the 20S proteasome by NMR. Nature 445, 618–622 (2007).
Hanna, J. & Finley, D. A proteasome for all occasions. FEBS Lett. 581, 2854–2861 (2007).
Scheres, S. H. W. et al. Disentangling conformational states of macromolecules in 3D-EM through likelihood optimization. Nature Methods 4, 27–29 (2007).
Nickell, S. et al. Automated cryoelectron microscopy of 'single particles' applied to the 26S proteasome. FEBS Lett. 581, 2751–2756 (2007).
Davy, A. et al. A protein–protein interaction map of the Caenorhabditis elegans 26S proteasome. EMBO Rep. 2, 821–828 (2001).
Ferrell, K., Wilkinson, C. R., Dubiel, W. & Gordon, C. Regulatory subunit interactions of the 26S proteasome, a complex problem. Trends Biochem. Sci. 25, 83–88 (2000).
Hinshaw, J. E., Carragher, B. O. & Milligan, R. A. Architecture and design of the nuclear pore complex. Cell 69, 1133–1141 (1992).
Rout, M. P. et al. The yeast nuclear pore complex: composition, architecture, and transport mechanism. J. Cell Biol. 148, 635–651 (2000).
Devos, D. et al. Simple fold composition and modular architecture of the nuclear pore complex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 2172–2177 (2006).
Koster, A. J. et al. Perspectives of molecular and cellular electron tomography. J. Struct. Biol. 120, 276–308 (1997).
Nickell, S., Kofler, C., Leis, A. P. & Baumeister, W. A visual approach to proteomics. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 7, 225–230 (2006).
Baumeister, W. From proteomic inventory to architecture. FEBS Lett. 579, 933–937 (2005).
Benesch, J. L., Ruotolo, B. T., Simmons, D. A. & Robinson, C. V. Protein complexes in the gas phase: technology for structural genomics and proteomics. Chem. Rev. 107, 3544–3567 (2007).
Lowe, J. et al. Crystal structure of the 20S proteasome from the archaeon T. acidophilum at 3.4 Å resolution. Science 268, 533–539 (1995).
Unno, M. et al. The structure of the mammalian 20S proteasome at 2.75 Å resolution. Structure 10, 609–618 (2002).
Kwon, Y. D., Nagy, I., Adams, P. D., Baumeister, W. & Jap, B. K. Crystal structures of the Rhodococcus proteasome with and without its pro-peptides: implications for the role of the pro-peptide in proteasome assembly. J. Mol. Biol. 335, 233–245 (2004).
Ortiz, J. O., Forster, F., Kurner, J., Linaroudis, A. A. & Baumeister, W. Mapping 70S ribosomes in intact cells by cryoelectron tomography and pattern recognition. J. Struct. Biol. 156, 334–341 (2006).
Gabashvili, I. S. et al. Solution structure of the E. coli 70S ribosome at 11.5 Å resolution. Cell 100, 537–549 (2000).
Sharon, M. & Robinson, C. V. The role of mass spectrometry in structure elucidation of dynamic protein complexes. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 76, 167–193 (2007).
Ilag, L. L. et al. Heptameric (L12)6/L10 rather than canonical pentameric complexes are found by tandem MS of intact ribosomes from thermophilic bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad Sci. USA 102, 8192–8197 (2005).
Aebersold, R. & Mann, M. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Nature 422, 198–207 (2003).
Synowsky, S. A., van den Heuvel, R. H., Mohammed, S., Pijnappel, P. W. & Heck, A. J. Probing genuine strong interactions and post-translational modifications in the heterogeneous yeast exosome protein complex. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 5, 1581–1592 (2006).
Back, J. W., de Jong, L., Muijsers, A. O. & de Koster, C. G. Chemical cross-linking and mass spectrometry for protein structural modeling. J. Mol. Biol. 331, 303–313 (2003).
Vasilescu, J. & Figeys, D. Mapping protein–protein interactions by mass spectrometry. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 17, 394–399 (2006).
von Helden, G., Wyttenbach, T. & Bowers, M. T. Conformation of macromolecules in the gas phase: use of matrix-assisted laser desorption methods in ion chromatography. Science 267, 1483–1485 (1995).
Ruotolo, B. T. et al. Evidence for macromolecular protein rings in the absence of bulk water. Science 310, 1658–1661 (2005).
Ruotolo, B. T. et al. Ion mobility–mass spectrometry reveals long-lived, unfolded intermediates in the dissociation of protein complexes. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 46, 8001–8004 (2007).
Henderson, R. Realizing the potential of electron cryo-microscopy. Q. Rev. Biophys. 37, 3–13 (2004).
Suloway, C. et al. Automated molecular microscopy: the new Leginon system. J. Struct. Biol. 151, 41–60 (2005).
Johnson, J. E. & Chiu, W. DNA packaging and delivery machines in tailed bacteriophages. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 17, 237–243 (2007).
Taylor, D. J. et al. Structures of modified eEF2 80S ribosome complexes reveal the role of GTP hydrolysis in translocation. EMBO J. 26, 2421–2431 (2007).
Vaughan, C. K. et al. Structure of an Hsp90–Cdc37–Cdk4 complex. Mol. Cell 23, 697–707 (2006).
Woodhead, J. L. et al. Atomic model of a myosin filament in the relaxed state. Nature 436, 1195–1199 (2005).
Wang, H. W. & Nogales, E. Nucleotide-dependent bending flexibility of tubulin regulates microtubule assembly. Nature 435, 911–915 (2005).
Stark, H. & Luhrmann, R. Cryo-electron microscopy of spliceosomal components. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 35, 435–457 (2006).
Fath, S., Mancias, J. D., Bi, X. & Goldberg, J. Structure and organization of coat proteins in the COPII cage. Cell 129, 1325–1336 (2007).
Mitra, K. & Frank, J. Ribosome dynamics: insights from atomic structure modeling into cryo-electron microscopy maps. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 35, 299–317 (2006).
Acknowledgements
We thank F. Alber, F. Foerster, M. Topf, D. Devos, J. Aitchison, C. Akey, M. Rout, B. Chait, R. Russell, H. Hernández, D. Matak-Vinkovic, M. Sharon, T. Taverner, J. Ortiz and S. Nickell. We also thank R. M. Glaeser for critical review of the manuscript. We are grateful to C. Johnson, S. Parker, C. Scheidegger and C. Silva of the Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute (University of Utah), and to R. K. Morley of RayScale, for help with preparing some of the images. We acknowledge funding from Interaction Proteome and 3D Repertoire (both funded by the European Commission), the Forum for European Structural Proteomics, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Correspondence should be addressed to the authors (cvr24@cam.ac.uk; sali@salilab.org; baumeist@biochem.mpg.de).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Robinson, C., Sali, A. & Baumeister, W. The molecular sociology of the cell. Nature 450, 973–982 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06523
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06523
This article is cited by
-
Nuclear compartmentalization as a mechanism of quantitative control of gene expression
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology (2021)
-
Quantifying the heterogeneity of macromolecular machines by mass photometry
Nature Communications (2020)
-
Optomechanical mass spectrometry
Nature Communications (2020)
-
Liquid electron microscopy: then, now and future
Applied Microscopy (2019)
-
Exploiting locational and topological overlap model to identify modules in protein interaction networks
BMC Bioinformatics (2019)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.