Back

Proteome-wide quantification of inositol pyrophosphate-protein interactions

Richter, A.; Ruwolt, M.; Lampe, S.; Liu, F.; Furkert, D.; Fiedler, D.

2024-07-31 biochemistry
10.1101/2024.07.31.606004 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Inositol polyphosphates (InsPs) and inositol pyrophosphates (PP-InsPs) constitute a group of highly phosphorylated molecules that are involved in many cellular signaling processes. To characterize discrete signaling events of these structurally closely related molecules, a mass spectrometry approach was developed to derive apparent binding constants for these ligands on a proteome-wide scale. The method employed a series of chemically synthesized, biotinylated affinity reagents for inositol hexakisphosphate (InsP6), and the inositol pyrophosphates 1PP-InsP5, 5PP-InsP5 and 1,5(PP)2-InsP4 (also termed InsP8). Application of these affinity reagents at different concentrations, in combination with tandem mass tag (TMT) labeling, provided binding data for thousands of proteins from a mammalian cell lysate. Investigation of different enrichment conditions, where Mg2+ ions were either available or not, showcased a strong influence of Mg2+ on the protein binding capacities of PP-InsPs. Gene ontology analysis closely linked PP-InsP-interacting proteins to RNA processing in the nucleus and nucleolus. Subsequent data analysis enabled a targeted search for protein pyrophosphorylation among PP-InsP interactors, and identified four new pyrophosphorylated proteins. The data presented here constitute a valuable resource for the community, and application of the method reported here to other biological contexts will enable the exploration of PP-InsP dependent signaling pathways across species.

Published in Nature Communications (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.