PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons

Related Articles
Community-Nominated Targets
July 2015
Drug Discovery: Solving the Structure of an Anti-hypertension Drug Target
July 2015
Retrospective: 7,000 Structures Closer to Understanding Biology
July 2015
Design and Evolution: Unveiling Translocator Proteins
June 2015
Signaling with DivL
May 2015
Signaling: A Platform for Opposing Functions
May 2015
Signaling: Securing Lipid-Protein Partnership
May 2015
Dynamic DnaK
March 2015
Iron-Sulfur Cluster Biosynthesis
December 2014
Mitochondrion: Flipping for UCP2
December 2014
Mitochondrion: Setting a New TRAP1
December 2014
Power in Numbers
August 2014
Quorum Sensing: A Groovy New Component
August 2014
Quorum Sensing: E. coli Gets Involved
August 2014
iTRAQing the Ubiquitinome
July 2014
Microbiome: The Dynamics of Infection
September 2013
Protein-Nucleic Acid Interaction: A Modified SAM to Modify tRNA
July 2013
Protein-Nucleic Acid Interaction: Versatile Glutamate
July 2013
PDZ Domains
April 2013
Alpha-Catenin Connections
March 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: A FERM Connection
March 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Magic Structure from Microcrystals
March 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Modulating Self Recognition Affinity
March 2013
Bacterial Hemophores
January 2013
Archaeal Lipids
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Capturing Multiple Conformations
December 2012
Lethal Tendencies
October 2012
Symmetry from Asymmetry
October 2012
A signal sensing switch
September 2012
Regulatory insights
September 2012
AlkB Homologs
August 2012
Budding ensemble
August 2012
Targeting Enzyme Function with Structural Genomics
July 2012
The machines behind the spindle assembly checkpoint
June 2012
Chaperone interactions
April 2012
Pilus Assembly Protein TadZ
April 2012
Revealing the Nuclear Pore Complex
March 2012
Topping off the proteasome
March 2012
Twist to open
March 2012
Disordered Proteins
February 2012
Analyzing an allergen
January 2012
Making Lipopolysaccharide
January 2012
Pulling on loose ends
January 2012
Terminal activation
December 2011
The Perils of Protein Secretion
November 2011
Bacterial Armor
October 2011
TLR4 regulation: heads or tails?
October 2011
Ribose production on demand
September 2011
Moving some metal
August 2011
Looking for lipids
July 2011
Ribofuranosyl Binding Protein
June 2011
A molecular switch for neuronal growth
May 2011
Cell wall recycler
May 2011
Added benefits
April 2011
NMR challenges current protein hydration dogma
March 2011
Nitrile Reductase QueF
March 2011
Tip formin
March 2011
Inhibiting factor
February 2011
PASK staying active
February 2011
Tryptophanyl-tRNA Synthetase
February 2011
Regulating nitrogen assimilation
January 2011
Subtle shifts
January 2011
December 2010
Function following form
October 2010
tRNA Isopentenyltransferase MiaA
August 2010
Importance of extension for integrin
June 2010
April 2010
Alg13 Subunit of N-Acetylglucosamine Transferase
February 2010
Hemolysin BL
January 2010
December 2009
Two-component signaling
December 2009
Network coverage
November 2009
Pseudouridine Synthase TruA
November 2009
Unusual cell division
October 2009
Toxin-antitoxin VapBC-5
September 2009
Salicylic Acid Binding Protein 2
August 2009
Proofreading RNA
July 2009
Ykul structure solves bacterial signaling puzzle
July 2009
Hda and DNA Replication
June 2009
Controlling p53
May 2009
Mitotic checkpoint control
May 2009
Ribonuclease and Ribonuclease Inhibitor
April 2009
The elusive helicase
April 2009
March 2009
High-energy storage system
February 2009
A new class of bacterial E3 ubiquitination enzymes
January 2009
Poly(A) RNA recognition
January 2009
Activating BAX
December 2008
Scavenger Decapping Enzyme DcpS
November 2008
Bacteriophage Lambda cII Protein
October 2008
New metal-binding domain
October 2008
Blocking AmtB
September 2008
September 2008
Aspartate Dehydrogenase
August 2008
RNase T
July 2008
May 2008

Research Themes Cell biology

Importance of extension for integrin

PSI-SGKB [doi:10.1038/fa_psisgkb.2010.21]
Featured Article - June 2010
Short description: An extended conformation of α5ß1 integrin is important for cell spreading and adhesion complex formation.

Current models for integrin conformation depict the inactive receptor in a bent form, which upon activation becomes fully extended — the legs separate to allow downstream signalling. In the Journal of Cell Biology, Martin Humphries and colleagues now directly put this model to the test for β1 integrin; they determine the conformation of α5β1 integrin in adherent cells and demonstrate that the integrin must be extended for proper formation of focal adhesions.

The authors first tested how the conformation of α5β1 integrin affects its function. By introducing a disulphide bond between the α- and β-subunits of a recombinant, soluble α5β1 integrin fused to an Fc fragment a 'locked-together' (LT) construct was formed, in which the separation of the subunit legs is restricted and the integrin is no longer able to extend.

Binding of an activating anti-β1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) to the 'bending' region of the molecule was inhibited in the LT integrin. Moreover, mutation of various residues identified D522, located in the 'knee' region of the integrin, as the epitope for the anti-β1 mAb. This suggested that restricting leg movement causes the integrin to adopt a bent form.

In addition to leg separation, an outward movement of the hybrid domain is important for ligand-binding affinity. Using stimulatory antibodies against each subunit that stabilize the active conformation of the integrin, the authors showed that the LT integrin displays a lower affinity to ligands, indicating an association between the movements of the legs and the hybrid domain, which together maintain the high affinity receptor.

Next, FRET analysis was used, with specific reporters for the integrin headpiece and the cell membrane, to measure the distance between the two. This approach demonstrated that the ligand-bound α5β1 integrin in adhesion complexes is in an extended conformation.

But, what is the significance of this extended conformation to integrin function? Integrins regulate cell–cell and cell–extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions, which maintain proper adhesion and spreading of cells. Consistently, expression of α5β1 integrin in β1-null cells mediated their spreading and induced formation of adhesion complexes on fibronectin.

Moreover, anti-β1 monoclonal antibody bound to the integrin in these cells, which indicated a high-affinity, activated receptor in its extended form. By contrast, cells expressing the LT integrin formed clusters on the cell surface, but displayed reduced binding to anti-β1 mAb and showed reduced spreading. Consistently, binding of a stimulatory anti-α5 antibody was also inhibited in LT-expressing cells, confirming that prevention of leg separation causes the integrin to adopt an inactive and bent conformation.

Taken together, this study demonstrates that conformational changes are important for the proper functioning of integrins in adherent cells. Specifically, α5β1 integrin needs to be in an extended conformation with free leg movement for the proper spreading of cells and formation of adhesion complexes.

Iley Ozerlat


  1. J. A. Askari et al. Focal adhesions are sites of integrin extension.
    The Journal of Cell Biology (2010). doi:10.1083/jcb.200907174

Structural Biology Knowledgebase ISSN: 1758-1338
Funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health