Structural insights into tetraspanin CD9 function

1. Charrin, S., Jouannet, S., Boucheix, C. & Rubinstein, E. Tetraspanins at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 127, 3641–3648 (2014).

2. Reimann, R., Kost, B. & Dettmer, J. Tetraspanins in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 545 (2017).

3. Huang, S. et al. The phylogenetic analysis of tetraspanins projects the evolution of cell–cell interactions from unicellular to multicellular organisms. Genomics 86, 674–684 (2005).

4. Hemler, M. E. Tetraspanin proteins mediate cellular penetration, invasion, and fusion events and define a novel type of membrane microdomain. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 19, 397–422 (2003).

5. Stuck, M. W., Conley, S. M. & Naash, M. I. PRPH2/RDS and ROM-1: historical context, current views and future considerations. Prog. Retinal Eye Res. 52, 47–63 (2016).

6. Wu, X. R. et al. Uroplakins in urothelial biology, function, and disease. Kidney Int. 75, 1153–1165 (2009).

7. Miyado, K. et al. Requirement of CD9 on the egg plasma membrane for fertilization. Science 287, 321–324 (2000).

8. Le Naour, F., Rubinstein, E., Jasmin, C., Prenant, M. & Boucheix, C. Severely reduced female fertility in CD9-deficient mice. Science 287, 319–321 (2000).

9. Kaji, K. et al. The gamete fusion process is defective in eggs of Cd9-deficient mice. Nat. Genet. 24, 279–282 (2000).

10. Zuidscherwoude, M. et al. The tetraspanin web revisited by super-resolution microscopy. Sci. Rep. 5, 12201 (2015).

11. Zimmerman, B. et al. Crystal structure of a full-length human tetraspanin reveals a cholesterol-binding pocket. Cell 167, 1041–1051 (2016).

12. Umeda, R., Nishizawa, T. & Nureki, O. Crystallization of the human tetraspanin protein CD9. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. F 75, 254–259 (2019).

13. Zhang, X. A. & Huang, C. Tetraspanins and cell membrane tubular structures. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 69, 2843–2852 (2012).

14. Dahmane, S. et al. Nanoscale organization of tetraspanins during HIV-1 budding by correlative dSTORM/AFM. Nanoscale 11, 6036–6044 (2019).

15. Hahn, A. et al. Structure of a complete ATP synthase dimer reveals the molecular basis of inner mitochondrial membrane morphology. Mol. Cell 63, 445–456 (2016).

16. Blum, T. B., Hahn, A., Meier, T., Davies, K. M. & Kühlbrandt, W. Dimers of mitochondrial ATP synthase induce membrane curvature and self-assemble into rows. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4250–4255 (2019).

17. Aimon, S. et al. Membrane shape modulates transmembrane protein distribution. Dev. Cell 28, 212–218 (2014).

18. McMahon, H. T. & Boucrot, E. Membrane curvature at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 128, 1065–1070 (2015).

19. Hemler, M. E. Tetraspanin functions and associated microdomains. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6, 801–811 (2005).

20. Bari, R. et al. Tetraspanins regulate the protrusive activities of cell membrane. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 415, 619–626 (2011).

21. Runge, K. E. et al. Oocyte CD9 is enriched on the microvillar membrane and required for normal microvillar shape and distribution. Dev. Biol. 304, 317–325 (2007).

22. Claas, C., Stipp, C. S. & Hemler, M. E. Evaluation of prototype transmembrane 4 superfamily protein complexes and their relation to lipid rafts. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 7974–7984 (2001).

23. Charrin, S. et al. The major CD9 and CD81 molecular partner. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 14329–14337 (2001).

24. Glazar, A. I. & Evans, J. P. Immunoglobulin superfamily member IgSF8 (EWI- 2) and CD9 in fertilisation: evidence of distinct functions for CD9 and a CD9- associated protein in mammalian sperm-egg interaction. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 21, 293–303 (2009).

25. Rocha-Perugini, V. et al. The CD81 partner EWI-2wint inhibits hepatitis C virus entry. PLoS ONE 3, e1866 (2008).

26. Chambrion, C. & Le Naour, F. The tetraspanins CD9 and CD81 regulate CD9P1-induced effects on cell migration. PLoS ONE 5, e11219 (2010).

27. Stipp, C. S., Kolesnikova, T. V. & Hemler, M. E. EWI-2 regulates alpha3beta1 integrin-dependent cell functions on laminin-5. J. Cell Biol. 163, 1167–1177 (2003).

28. Kolesnikova, T. V. et al. EWI-2 modulates lymphocyte integrin alpha4beta1 functions. Blood 103, 3013–3019 (2004).

29. Stipp, C. S., Kolesnikova, T. V. & Hemler, M. E. EWI-2 is a major CD9 and CD81 partner and member of a novel Ig protein subfamily. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 40545–40554 (2001).

30. Montpellier, C. et al. Interacting regions of CD81 and two of its partners, EWI-2 and EWI-2wint, and their effect on hepatitis C virus infection. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 13954–13965 (2011).

31. Charrin, S. et al. Multiple levels of interactions within the tetraspanin web. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 304, 107–112 (2003).

32. Inoue, N., Nishikawa, T., Ikawa, M. & Okabe, M. Tetraspanin-interacting protein IGSF8 is dispensable for mouse fertility. Fertil. Steril. 98, 465–470 (2012).

33. Jankovičová, J., Simon, M., Antalíková, J., Cupperová, P. & Michalková, K. Role of tetraspanin CD9 molecule in fertilization of mammals. Physiol. Res. 64, 279–293 (2015).

34. Zhu, G.-Z. et al. Residues SFQ (173-175) in the large extracellular loop of CD9 are required for gamete fusion. Development 129, 1995–2002 (2002).

35. Li, R. et al. Dimerization of the transmembrane domain of integrin α IIb subunit in cell membranes. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 26666–26673 (2004).

36. Berger, B. W. et al. Consensus motif for integrin transmembrane helix association. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 703–708 (2010).

37. Teese, M. G. & Langosch, D. Role of GxxxG motifs in transmembrane domain interactions. Biochemistry 54, 5125–5135 (2015).

38. Kleiger, G., Grothe, R., Mallick, P. & Eisenberg, D. GXXXG and AXXXA: common α-helical interaction motifs in proteins, particularly in extremophiles. Biochemistry 41, 5990–5997 (2002).

39. Andreu, Z. & Yáñez-Mó, M. Tetraspanins in extracellular vesicle formation and function. Front. Immunol. 5, 442 (2014).

40. Sala-Valdés, M. et al. EWI-2 and EWI-F link the tetraspanin web to the actin cytoskeleton through their direct association with ezrin-radixin-moesin proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 19665–19675 (2006).

41. Kolesnikova, T. V. et al. Glioblastoma inhibition by cell surface immunoglobulin protein EWI-2, in vitro and in vivo. Neoplasia 11, 77–86 (2009).

42. Caffrey, M. & Cherezov, V. Crystallizing membrane proteins using lipidic mesophases. Nat. Protoc. 4, 706–731 (2009).

43. Šali, A., Potterton, L., Yuan, F., van Vlijmen, H. & Karplus, M. Evaluation of comparative protein modeling by MODELLER. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 23, 318–326 (1995).

44. Humphrey, W., Dalke, A. & Schulten, K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graph. 14, 33–38 (1996).

45. Stansfeld, P. J. et al. MemProtMD: automated insertion of membrane protein structures into explicit lipid membranes. Structure 7, 1350–1361 (2015).

46. Best, R. B. et al. Optimization of the additive CHARMM all-atom protein force field targeting improved sampling of the backbone φ, ψ and side-chain χ1 and χ2 dihedral angles. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 8, 3257–3273 (2012).

47. Klauda, J. B. et al. Update of the CHARMM all-atom additive force field for lipids: validation on six lipid types. J. Phys. Chem. B 114, 7830–7843 (2010).

48. Van Der Spoel, D. et al. GROMACS: fast, flexible, and free. J. Comput. Chem. 26, 1701–1718 (2005).

49. McGibbon, R. T. & Pande, V. S. Variational cross-validation of slow dynamical modes in molecular kinetics. J. Chem. Phys. 142, 124015 (2015).

50. Bussi, G., Donadio, D. & Parrinello, M. Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. J. Chem. Phys. 126, 014101 (2007).

51. Nosé, S. A unified formulation of the constant temperature molecular dynamics methods. J. Chem. Phys. 81, 511–519 (1984).

52. Hoover, W. G. Canonical dynamics: equilibrium phase-space distributions. Phys. Rev. A 31, 1695–1697 (1985).

53. Parrinello, M. & Rahman, A. Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: a new molecular dynamics method. J. Appl. Phys. 52, 7182–7190 (1981).

54. Hess, B., Bekker, H., Berendsen, H. J. C. & Fraaije, J. G. E. M. LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 18, 1463–1472 (1997).

55. Darden, T., York, D. & Pedersen, L. Particle mesh Ewald: an N log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J. Chem. Phys. 98, 10089 (1993).

56. McGibbon, R. T. et al. MDTraj: a modern open library for the analysis of molecular dynamics trajectories. Biophys. J. 109, 1528–1532 (2015).

57. Harrigan, M. P. et al. MSMBuilder: statistical models for biomolecular dynamics. Biophys. J. 112, 10–15 (2017).

58. Hernández, C. X., Harrigan, M. P., Sultan, M. M. & Pande, V. S. MSMExplorer: data visualizations for biomolecular dynamics. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 188 (2017).

59. Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).

60. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (Springer, New York, 2009).

61. Hirata, K. et al. Achievement of protein micro-crystallography at SPring-8 beamline BL32XU. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 425, 012002 (2013).

62. Hirata, K. et al. ZOO: an automatic data-collection system for high- throughput structure analysis in protein microcrystallography. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D 75, 138–150 (2019).

63. Yamashita, K., Hirata, K. & Yamamoto, M. KAMO: towards automated data processing for microcrystals. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D 74, 441–449 (2018).

64. Kabsch, W. XDS. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D 66, 125 (2010).

65. Vonrhein, C., Blanc, E., Roversi, P. & Bricogne, G. in Macromolecular Crystallography Protocols. Vol. 2 215–230 (Humana Press, 2007).

66. Adams, P. D. et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D 66, 213–221 (2010).

67. Niwa, H., Yamamura, K. & Miyazaki, J. Efficient selection for high-expression transfectants with a novel eukaryotic vector. Gene 108, 193–199 (1991).

68. Kato, K. et al. Structural and functional insights into IZUMO1 recognition by JUNO in mammalian fertilization. Nat. Commun. 7, 12198 (2016).

69. Yamagata, K. et al. Sperm from the calmegin-deficient mouse have normal abilities for binding and fusion to the egg plasma membrane. Dev. Biol. 250, 348–357 (2002).

70. Inoue, N., Ikawa, M., Isotani, A. & Okabe, M. The immunoglobulin superfamily protein Izumo is required for sperm to fuse with eggs. Nature 434, 234–238 (2005).

71. Satouh, Y., Nozawa, K., Yamagata, K., Fujimoto, T. & Ikawa, M. Viable offspring after imaging of Ca2+ oscillations and visualization of the cortical reaction in mouse eggs. Biol. Reprod. 96, 563–575 (2017).

72. Goehring, A. et al. Screening and large-scale expression of membrane proteins in mammalian cells for structural studies. Nat. Protoc. 9, 2574–2585 (2014).

73. Kubala, M. H., Kovtun, O., Alexandrov, K. & Collins, B. M. Structural and thermodynamic analysis of the GFP:GFP-nanobody complex. Protein Sci. 19, 2389–2401 (2010).

74. Hino, T. et al. G-protein-coupled receptor inactivation by an allosteric inverse-agonist antibody. Nature 482, 237–240 (2012).

75. Köhler, G. & Milstein, C. Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity. Nature 256, 495–497 (1975).

76. Zheng, S. Q. et al. MotionCor2: anisotropic correction of beam-induced motion for improved cryo-electron microscopy. Nat. Methods 14, 331–332 (2017).

77. Rohou, A. & Grigorieff, N. CTFFIND4: fast and accurate defocus estimation from electron micrographs. J. Struct. Biol. 192, 216–221 (2015).

78. Kimanius, D., Forsberg, B. O., Scheres, S. H. & Lindahl, E. Accelerated cryo- EM structure determination with parallelisation using GPUs in RELION-2. Elife 5, e18722 (2016).

79. Zivanov, J. et al. New tools for automated high-resolution cryo-EM structure determination in RELION-3. Elife 7, e42166 (2018).

80. Kelley, L. A., Mezulis, S., Yates, C. M., Wass, M. N. & Sternberg, M. J. E. The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. Nat. Protoc. 10, 845–858 (2015).