Evaluation of Nod-like receptor (NLR) effector domain interactions

52Citations
Citations of this article
102Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Members of the Nod-like receptor (NLR) family recognize intracellular pathogens and recruit a variety of effector molecules, including pro-caspases and kinases, which in turn are implicated in cytokine processing and NF-kB activation. In order to elucidate the intricate network of NLR signaling, which is still fragmentary in molecular terms, we applied comprehensive yeast two-hybrid analysis for unbiased evaluation of physical interactions between NLRs and their adaptors (ASC, CARD8) as well as kinase RIPK2 and inflammatory caspases (C1, C2, C4, C5) under identical conditions. Our results confirmed the interaction of NOD1 and NOD2 with RIPK2, and between NLRP3 and ASC, but most importantly, our studies revealed hitherto unrecognized interactions of NOD2 with members of the NLRP subfamily. We found that NOD2 specifically and directly interacts with NLRP1, NLRP3 and NLRP12. Furthermore, we observed homodimerization of the RIPK2 CARD domains and identified residues in NOD2 critical for interaction with RIPK2. In conclusion, our work provides further evidence for the complex network of protein-protein interactions underlying NLR function. © 2009 Wagner et al.

Figures

  • Figure 1. The interaction matrix. In an ‘‘each against all’’ approach an overall number of 676 (26626) effector domain combinations were analyzed. A ‘‘+’’ indicates an interaction between a particular pair, whereas ‘‘2’’ symbolizes no interaction. In total, the approach yielded 25 distinct associations, which actually corresponded to 7 unique pairs of interacting proteins, as well as 5 homodimerizations. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004931.g001
  • Table 1. NLR protein-protein interactions.
  • Figure 2. Strength of selected interactions in terms of HIS3 reporter gene activation. The maximum concentration of 3- aminotrizol supporting visible growth of transformants is indicated. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004931.g002
  • Figure 3. RIPK2 CARD forms homodimers/-oligomers. Left panel, Yeast two-hybrid analysis revealed that RIPK2 CARD (residues 427–527) forms homodimers/-oligomers (column 1 on SD/-4). Lamin c (Lam c) was used as control (column 5). Right panel, GST pull down assay. Specific binding of 35S-labeled RIPK2 CARD (residues 427–527) was observed to recombinant expressed GST-RIPK2 CARD (residues 427–527), whereas binding to GSTLam c was not detected. SD/-2: SD/-Leu/-Trp, SD/-4: SD/-Ade/-His/-Leu/-Trp. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004931.g003
  • Figure 4. Interaction of distinct NOD2 mutants with RIPK2. Left panel, Yeast two-hybrid analysis. NOD2 CARD1+2 interacts with RIPK2 CARD (column 1). No interactions were observed for NOD2 variants harboring a disrupted acidic patch (transformation 2, 3, and 4). An unrelated mutation not affecting the interaction interface had no effect (column 5). Right panel, Autoradiography of an in vitro transcription/translation of NOD2 proteins. NOD2 constructs were expressed using similar amounts of DNA and lysates. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004931.g004
  • Table 2. Cloning of constructs.
  • Figure 5. NOD2 directly interacts with NLRP1, NLRP3, and NLRP12. Left panel, Yeast two-hybrid analysis of NOD2 CARDs (residues 1–267) showed interaction with NLRP1,-3 and -12, but not with other NLRP proteins (NLRP2, -7, -10, or -11; column 1). Lam c was used as a negative control (column 2). Interestingly, NOD2 mutant E69K maintained the binding to NLRP1, -3, and -12 (column 3), whereas NOD2 D70K (column 4) as well as the NOD2 triple mutant (3xmut, column 5) did not. An unrelated mutation not located within the prospective interaction interface had no effect (column 6). Right panel, Physical interaction of NOD2 and NLRP3 in human cells. Western analysis of lysates (IN) and immunoprecipitated complexes (IP) from HEK293T cells, transiently transfected with expression plasmid encoding human HA-NOD2 and FLAG-NLRP3. NLRP3 was immunoprecipitated from cell lysates using a FLAG-epitope specific antibody. Proteins were detected using anti-HA and anti-FLAG antibodies, respectively. As negative control, proteins were immunoprecipitated with FLAG-epitope specific antibody from lysates of HEK293T cells transiently transfected with HA-NOD2, but not FLAG-NLRP3. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004931.g005
  • Figure 6. NOD2 interaction with distinct NLRP members. Upper panel, A ‘‘+’’ indicates an interaction, ‘‘2’’ symbolizes no interaction (n.d.: not done). A short isoform of NOD2 (NOD2-S, residues 1–180), maintains the interaction with NLRP1, -3, and -12. Furthermore, a linker region within NLRP1 (residues 92–341) proved sufficient for interaction with NOD2. Lower panel, Schematic illustration of particular NOD2/NLRP1 constructs and their respective interactions. FIIND: Function to find domain. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004931.g006

Cited by Powered by Scopus

1364Citations
1866Readers

This article is free to access.

1079Citations
862Readers
Get full text

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wagner, R. N., Proell, M., Kufer, T. A., & Schwarzenbacher, R. (2009). Evaluation of Nod-like receptor (NLR) effector domain interactions. PLoS ONE, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004931

Readers over time

‘09‘10‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 39

48%

Researcher 31

38%

Professor / Associate Prof. 10

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

1%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54

64%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 13

15%

Medicine and Dentistry 11

13%

Immunology and Microbiology 7

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0