Ste5, InaD, PSD95, KSR1 influence the behavior of their recruited signaling circuits.. Discovery of scaffolds For decades, scaffolds were discovered fortuitously via experiments aimed at
Trang 1Scaffolds are ‘active’ regulators of signaling modules
Anita Alexa, Ja´nos Varga and Attila Reme´nyi
Department of Biochemistry, Eo¨tvo¨s Lora´nd University, Budapest, Hungary
Introduction
Signaling adaptors, anchors, docking proteins and
scaffolds share only one common property: they can
physically bind proteins with diverse signaling-relevant
activities These diverse activities include protein and
lipid phosphorylation⁄ dephosphorylation, GTP
hydro-lysis, GDP⁄ GTP exchange, protein cleavage or
mem-brane depolarization The proteins carrying out these
modifications appear to be less elusive: currently, we
know a great deal about their function, structure and
evolution, although there is a lot to be discovered
about their recruiter molecules All recruiter proteins
possess multiple protein–protein interaction elements
(e.g modular domains or linear motifs) and they can
be regarded as ‘professional recruiter proteins’ (PRPs)
Signaling PRPs may currently be divided into four,
somewhat distinct, group of proteins [1–3] This
mini-review focuses only on signaling scaffolds and we dem-onstrate how some well-established scaffolds (e.g Ste5, InaD, PSD95, KSR1) influence the behavior of their recruited signaling circuits We conclude that modifica-tion of the scaffold through its recruited partners is a key feature of scaffolded complexes This mutual rela-tionship – which is mechanistically often mediated through post-translational modifications or by induced conformational changes in the scaffold – facilitates reg-ulation of the activities of the recruited proteins in novel ways
Discovery of scaffolds
For decades, scaffolds were discovered fortuitously via experiments aimed at studying the function and
Keywords
cellular signaling; InaD; KSR1; MAPK
module; phosphorylation of scaffold; protein
kinase; PSD95; signaling cascade; signaling
scaffold; Ste5
Correspondence
A Reme´nyi, Department of Biochemistry,
Eo¨tvo¨s Lora´nd University, Budapest, 1117
Pa´zma´ny Pe´ter se´ta´ny 1 ⁄ C, Hungary
Fax: +36 1 381 2172
Tel: +36 1 372 2500
E-mail: remenyi@elte.hu
(Received 18 May 2010, revised 18 August
2010, accepted 24 August 2010)
doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07867.x
Signaling cascades, in addition to proteins with obvious signaling-relevant activities (e.g protein kinases or receptors), also employ dedicated ‘inactive’ proteins whose functions appear to be the organization of the former com-ponents into higher order complexes through protein–protein interactions The core function of signaling adaptors, anchors and scaffolds is the recruitment of proteins into one macromolecular complex Several recent studies have demonstrated that the recruiter and the recruited molecules mutually influence each other in a scaffolded complex This yields funda-mentally novel properties for the signaling complex as a whole Because these are not merely additive to the properties of the individual compo-nents, scaffolded signaling complexes may behave as functionally distinct modules
Abbreviations
CA1–5, conserved domains or motifs in KSR proteins; CaMKII, calcium ⁄ calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II; ERK, extracellular regulated kinase; IMP, impedes mitogenic signal propagation; KSR1, kinase supressor of Ras 1; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; MEK, MAPK ⁄ ERK kinase; PDZ, PSD95-DLG1-ZO1 domain; PEST, peptide sequence rich in proline (P), glutamic acid (E), serine (S) and theronine (T); PKC, protein kinase C; PRP, professional recruiter proteins; PSD, postsynaptic density; RAF, proto-oncogene MAPK kinase kinase.
Trang 2importance of some well-known signaling enzyme or
receptor activity To date, various scaffolds have been
described that are important for T-cell receptor,
mito-gen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), Wnt signaling
pathways or for postsynaptic density [4–7] Systematic
efforts to identify scaffolds are still missing The first
attempt to estimate the number and abundance of
these proteins in the human proteome was carried out
by searching the human interactome for proteins
satis-fying three basic criteria: (a) a lack of intrinsic
cata-lytic activity that is relevant for signaling, (b) direct
interaction with at least two signaling proteins
possess-ing catalytic or receptor activity, and (c) direct or
indi-rect interaction of at least two of these active signaling
proteins with each other [8,9] This analysis identified
250 potential human scaffold proteins These criteria
were chosen based on the common properties of all
known scaffold proteins, and indeed these analysis
correctly identified many known scaffolds More
importantly, this analysis has also suggested hundreds
of proteins that may function as a signaling PRP
Naturally, this type of analysis depends heavily on the
accuracy of interactome data and gene function
anno-tation, and it can not distinguish between adaptor,
anchor or scaffold proteins
Scaffolds: more than passive recruiters
Scaffold proteins
Similar to adaptor and anchoring proteins, scaffold
proteins are also platforms for higher order signaling
protein assemblies Furthermore, they may also be
associated with certain cellular compartments [10,11]
Therefore, the distinction between these groups of
proteins is not clear-cut if only their interaction
pro-files or spatial distribution patterns are considered
The following examples show that the interacting part-ners of scaffolds often modify the function, spatial localization or degradation rate of their recruiter Thus, despite scaffolds not possessing apparent signal-ing-relevant catalytic activity, they play a pivotal role
in determining the characteristic behavior of a signal-ing module as a whole (Fig 1)
One of the first classical scaffolds described in the literature was Ste5 from yeast [12] It was found that the mating pathway of Saccharomyces cerevisae required a protein with no apparent catalytic activity This protein was later shown to bind all three kinase components of the mating MAPK module [13,14] In a-type cells, the presence of alpha factor activates a G-protein-coupled receptor, Ste5 is then recruited to the cell membrane causing Ste11, the first kinase com-ponent of a three-tiered MAPK module (Ste11–Ste7– Fus3), to be activated It has always been suspected that Ste5 promotes signaling by enforcing proximity between the bound kinases [15] Further biochemical analysis revealed that Ste5 plays an important role in the mating MAPK module via at least two further mechanisms: (a) allosteric activation of Fus3 by Ste5 initiates a negative feedback on the scaffold, and (b) interaction of Fus3 with Ste5 at a different site changes the MAPK allosterically so that it can be activated by Ste7 The first mechanism downregulates basal flux through the pathway when alpha factor is not present and is necessary for the proper sensing of alpha factor gradients [16–18] The second mechanism ensures that Ste7, which also activates another MAPK, Kss1, involved in a different pathway, activates the mating specific Fus3 MAPK only when it is bound to Ste5 [19]
InaD was originally described as an anchoring pro-tein, but it can also be regarded as a scaffold [20,21] In the phototransduction system of Drosophila
A
Fig 1 Recruiting proteins influence signaling transitions between active signaling proteins Cellular signaling is an orchestrated series of transitions: an input (i) elicits an output (o) A simple transition could be, for example, when a kinase is phosphorylated by an upstream kinase or binding of a ligand elicits a conformational change in a receptor In turn, adaptors, anchors and scaffolds may modify these signal-ing transitions For example, signalsignal-ing cascades can read changes in receptor activation induced by a ligand through the use of adaptors Anchors localize signaling enzymes to certain cellular locations and modify spatial patterns of signaling enzyme activation Scaffolds and their bound partners frequently change each other’s properties and thus may form a signaling unit capable of performing novel functions specific for a certain mix of components This facilitates fundamentally new relationships between inputs and outputs compared with transitions mediated by the same active components without the scaffold Active signaling components are depicted as empty circles R denotes a receptor.
Trang 3melanogaster, InaD is important for fast recovery to
the resting state after light-induced activation, which in
turn is pivotal for visual resolution InaD is a
multi-PSD95-DLG1-ZO1 (PDZ) domain-containing protein
that gathers together a number of signaling molecules
to form a signaling circuit When light activates the
rhodopsin receptor, phospholipase C is activated and
generates diacylglycerol This opens a Ca2+ channel,
Trp, causing membrane depolarization Diacylglycerol
also activates protein kinase C (PKC) bound to the
scaffold In turn, PKC phosphorylates the Trp
chan-nel, which renders the channel inactive, terminating
the signal This recruitment of positive
(phospholi-pase C) and feed-forward inhibitors (PKC) into a
sig-naling complex accounts for the generation of ion-flux
pulses separated by only a few milliseconds [22] In
addition, the presence of the scaffold enables a
sophis-ticated mechanism for adaptation to high-input and
low-input conditions In low-light conditions, one of
the PDZ domains of the InaD resides in an open
con-formation During repeated stimulation of the pathway
(under high-light conditions) the activation of PKC
also results in phosphorylation of the scaffold, which
in turn suffers a conformational change, turning the
PDZ domain into a closed conformation and releasing
its previously bound partner – most probably
phos-pholipase C This decreases the flux through the
path-way, resulting in long-term adaptation [23] Thus,
InaD as a scaffold enables the signaling circuit under-lying phototransduction to perform with good time resolution and to adapt to different conditions
Postsynaptic density protein (PSD) 95 is another example of a scaffold whose modification by its bound partners is important for a signaling circuit as a whole PSD95, in conjunction with other scaffolds such as Shank1–3, Homer, PSD93 and guanylate kinase-asso-ciated protein, contributes to the organization of a multiprotein complex at the postsynaptic contact zone comprised of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor and a-amino-3-hydroxy-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptor, small G-protein regulators (e.g synaptic Ras GTPase-activating protein), cell adhesion molecules, cytoskeletal elements (actin, tubulin) and enzymes (e.g calcium⁄ calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II [CaM-KII]) [24] CaMKII is one of the most important regu-latory proteins in the PSD and it phosphorylates other postsynaptic proteins clustered into the complex, including PSD95 itself For example, PSD95 is phos-phorylated at Ser73 of its PDZ1 domain by CaMKII, which causes the dissociation of one subunit (NR2A)
of the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor from PSD95 [25] Moreover, there are now several documented examples
in which phosphorylation events on the scaffold ultimately influence the composition of the PSD [26–33] (Fig 2) Although the exact details are largely unknown, it is conceivable that these dynamic
Fig 2 Phosphorylation of PSD95 on specific sites influence its postsynaptic protein clustering ability PSD95 is substrate to numerous protein kinases under physiological conditions Phosphorylation can either inhibit (upper) or enhance (lower) the postsynaptic clustering ability
of the PSD95 scaffold by several mechanisms (e.g influencing protein degradation, occlusion of binding sites or induced conformational changes) For example, phosphorylation by cyclin-dependent kinase 5 in the peptide sequence rich in proline (P), glutamic acid (E), serine (S), and theronine (T) (PEST) sequence may influence the degradation of PSD95 [26], whereas phosphorylation by CAMKII is known to inhibit long-term potentiation and may interfere with ligand binding of the PDZ1 domain [27] Phosphorylation events in a region between the PDZ2 and PDZ3 domains by p38c or JNK1 may cause internal conformational changes that influence binding to other proteins; more specifically the scaffold’s association with the cytoskeleton [28,29] or the internalization of a-amino-3-hydroxy-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptor [30,31], respectively Finally, phosphorylation by Abl in the regulatory hinge region between the Src-homology (SH)3 and guanylate kinase (GuKc) domains may influence the interaction pattern of the SH3–GuKc supramodule [32,33] PSD95 is a multidomain protein containing an L27 domain, a PEST sequence, PDZ1–3 domains, an SH3 domain and an inactive GuKc L27 domain facilitates oligomerization, the PEST sequence is required for ubiquitinylation and hence for regulated degradation, PDZ domains bind to N-methyl- D -aspartate receptor, a-amino-3-hydroxy-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptor and synaptic Ras GTPase-activating protein; SH3 and GuKc forms a supra-module mediating self-association or binding to adaptor proteins.)
Trang 4post-translational modifications drive, or at least
con-tribute to, the physiological mechanisms underlying
learning in various neuronal types
Kinase supressor of Ras 1 (KSR1) is a further
exam-ple of a multiprotein comexam-plex organizator that behaves
as a dynamic scaffold KSR proteins are scaffolds
in the extracellular-regulated kinase (ERK)⁄ MAPK
pathway [34,35] Upon Ras activation, KSR1 brings MAPK kinases (MEK1⁄ 2) to the plasma membrane in close proximity to the proto-oncogene MAPK kinase kinase (RAF) [36] The localization of KSR1 in mam-malian cells is regulated by a variety of protein interac-tions and phosphorylation⁄ dephosphorylation events
In quiescent cells, KSR1 is highly phosphorylated on
C
Fig 3 Conformational changes of KSR1 during MAPK signaling and its regulation by phosphorylation (A) In unstimulated cells, KSR1 exists
in an inhibited state in the cytoplasm, with its C1 domain masked by IMP [38] and 14-3-3 proteins [37] Dephosphorylation of 14-3-3 binding sites and degradation of IMP is needed to enable KSR1 activation (B) After the receipt of a growth signal, KSR1 and b-RAF translocate to the membrane with the help of their C1 domains The G-protein-binding domain of b-RAF also contributes to its activation, probably by reliev-ing the kinase from autoinhibition, whereas the role of the homologous domain in KSR1 is unknown Once at the cell membrane, the two proteins dimerize with their kinase domains, leading to b-RAF kinase activation [44] Several additional binding partners (e.g CNK, Hyp, KSR1 CA1 domain) [45] and phosphorylation events, for example, in the activation loop, contribute to the stabilization and activation of the MEK1⁄ 2 phosphorylating complex (C) Prolonged exposure to mitogenic stimuli leads to desensitization by feedback ERK1 ⁄ 2, the MAPK ultimately activated by this pathway is capable of binding to the KSR ⁄ RAF complex and it can phosphorylate both partners at multiple sites These sites promote the disassembly of the MEK1⁄ 2 phosphorylating complex [41], thus attenuating the mitogenic signal Phosphorylation sites on the scaffold important for the different conformational transitions are highlighted in red, phosphorylation sites on b-RAF with gray Position of the FxFP linear MAPK docking motif is shown in orange in KSR1 on (C) KSR1 is a multidomain protein containing five distinct regions that are conserved across various species: CA1, N-terminal region, contributing to binding of KSR1 to b-RAF; CA2: G-protein-binding-like domain with unknown function; CA3, C1 domain that binds lipids; CA4, hinge region with serine-rich sequence, possibly important for allowing various conformational transitions; and CA5, pseudokinase domain similar to the kinase domain of b-RAF, it allows dimerization with b-RAF Note that the domain architecture of b-RAF is similar to that of KSR1, indicating their possible common origin.
Trang 5two residues (Ser297 and Ser392 in mouse KSR1) by
kinases bound to the scaffold 14-3-3 dimers binding
to these phosphorylated sites retain the KSR1 complex
in the cytosol [37] An E3 ubiquitin ligase, impedes
mitogenic signal propagation (IMP), also contributes
to sequestration of the scaffold [38] IMP masks the
C1 domain of KSR1, which is responsible for
plasma-membrane targeting Activated Ras causes many
conformation changes in the preassembled complex:
Ras binds IMP, which promotes its degradation Ras
binding also facilitates the formation of an active
serine⁄ threonine protein phosphatase 2A holoenzyme
on the KSR1-platform, which in turn
dephosphory-lates one of the 14-3-3 binding sites These processes
make the C1 domain of KSR1 accessible and help
make it to move to the plasma membrane
Interest-ingly, release of 14-3-3 dimer opens the scaffold’s
FXFP docking site for activated ERK [39], so all the
active components of the RAF–MEK–ERK signaling
module are colocalized at the site of action through
KSR1 Moreover, the phosphorylation state of the
molecule also influences the stability of KSR1:
phos-phorylation at Ser392 and Thr274 decreases KSR1
sta-bility [40] Phosphorylation also has an impact on the
termination of KSR1-scaffolded signaling events; after
binding of activated ERK2 to the FXFP motif, the
MAPK is able to phosphorylate KSR1, which leads to
the dissociation of the KSR1-b–RAF complex
releas-ing it from the plasma membrane [41] (Fig 3)
In all the above cases, the recruited proteins
influ-ence the behavior of the recruiter in an important,
signaling-relevant manner The recruited active
compo-nents change the localization, protein level or
interac-tion pattern of their scaffold This allows for recruited
signaling activities to be regulated in novel ways: the
yeast mating MAPK module may be better suited to
respond to gradients of its stimulant in yeast, or the
phototransduction system may obtain better resolution
and adaptability in the fruit fly In the case of PSD95
and KSR1, they play an important role in generating
localized and highly dynamic activation patterns of
their involved signaling circuits
Are scaffolds derived from passive
tethering elements or from inactivated
active components?
Passive recruitment appears to be a simpler task
com-pared with the more active role that scaffolds may
play It is an interesting possibility that the highly
sophisticated mutual influence of recruiter and
recruited, which is a hallmark of this group of
proteins, may have evolved from passively tethering
proteins through evolutionary finetuning Conversely, scaffolds may have also originated from former enzy-matically active components that lost their catalytic activity, but kept some of the connections and the regulatory features (e.g localization, degradation or phosphorylation patterns) of their ancestors [8]
Conclusion
In the past, newly discovered proteins binding multiple signaling enzymes or receptors were casually termed scaffolds – if they did not show resemblance to already known adaptors or anchors Although recruitment of multiple signaling enzymes is indeed the core function
of all PRPs, recent studies have demonstrated that scaffolds do a lot more beyond this core function In addition to integrating signaling proteins into higher order circuits, they efficiently change the dose– response and dynamic properties of signaling cascades [42,43] During the last decade, we have learned that scaffolds are rather ‘active’ PRPs, although not in an enzymatic, but more in a regulatory sense These may distinguish them from simple adaptor or anchor functions
Acknowledgements
AR is supported by a Wellcome Trust International Senior Fellowship (081665⁄ Z ⁄ 06 ⁄ Z), a Marie Curie International Reintegration Grant (205436) within the 7th European Community Framework Programme, and by the NKTH-OTKA H07-A 74216 grant We are grateful to Andra´s Zeke for useful discussions and for critically reading the manuscript
References
1 Buday L & Tompa P (2010) Functional classification of scaffold proteins and related molecules FEBS J 277, 4348–4355
2 Logue JS & Scott JD (2010) Organizing signal transduc-tion through A-kinase anchoring proteins (AKAPs) FEBS J 277, 4370–4375
3 Brummer T, Schmitz-Peiffer C & Daly RJ (2010) Docking proteins FEBS J 277, 4356–4369
4 Shaw AS & Filbert EL (2009) Scaffold proteins and immune-cell signalling Nat Rev Immunol 9, 47–56
5 Dard N & Peter M (2006) Scaffold proteins in MAP kinase signaling: more than simple passive activating platforms BioEssay 28, 146–156
6 Angers S & Moon RT (2009) Proximal events in Wnt signal transduction Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10, 468–477
Trang 67 Boeckers TM (2006) The postsynaptic density Cell
Tis-sue Res 326, 409–422
8 Zeke A, Lukacs M, Lim WA & Remenyi A (2009)
Scaffolds: interaction platforms for cellular signalling
circuits Trends Cell Biol 19, 364–374
9 Ramirez F & Albrecht M (2010) Finding scaffold
pro-teins in interactomes Trends Cell Biol 20, 2–4
10 Baillie GS, Scott JD & Houslay MD (2005)
Compart-mentalisation of phosphodiesterases and protein kinase
A: opposites attract FEBS Lett 579, 3264–3270
11 Brown MD & Sacks DB (2009) Protein scaffolds in
MAP kinase signalling Cell Signal 21, 462–469
12 Choi KI, Satterberg B, Lyons DM & Elion EA (1994)
Ste5 tethers multiple protein kinases in the MAP kinase
cascade required for mating in S cerevisiae Cell 78,
499–512
13 Printen JA & Sprague GF Jr (1994) Protein–protein
interactions in the yeast pheromone response pathway:
Ste5p interacts with all members of the MAP kinase
cascade Genetics 138, 609–619
14 Park SH, Zarrinpar A & Lim WA (2003) Rewiring
MAP kinase pathways using alternative scaffold
assem-bly mechanisms Science 299, 1061–1064
15 Ferrell JE & Cimprich KA (2003) Enforced proximity
in the function of a famous scaffold Mol Cell 11, 289–
291
16 Bhattacharyya RP, Remenyi A, Good MC, Bashor CJ,
Falick AM & Lim WA (2006) The Ste5 scaffold
allos-terically modulates signaling output of the yeast mating
pathway Science 311, 822–826
17 Hao N, Nayak S, Behar M, Shanks RH, Nagiec MJ,
Errede B, Hasty J, Elston TC & Dohlman HG (2008)
Regulation of cell signaling dynamics by the protein
kinase-scaffold Ste5 Mol Cell 30, 649–656
18 Malleshaiah MK, Shahrezaei V, Swain PS & Michnick
SW (2010) The scaffold protein Ste5 directly controls a
switch-like mating decision in yeast Nature 465, 101–
105
19 Good M, Tang G, Singleton J, Remenyi A & Lim WA
(2009) The Ste5 scaffold directs mating signaling by
catalytically unlocking the Fus3 MAP kinase for
activation Cell 136, 1085–1097
20 Scott K & Zuker CS (1998) Assembly of the Drosophila
phototransduction cascade into a signalling complex
shapes elementary responses Nature 395, 805–808
21 Huber A (2001) Scaffolding proteins organize
multimo-lecular protein complexes for sensory signal
transduc-tion Eur J Neurosci 14, 769–776
22 Popescu DC, Ham AJL & Shieh BH (2006) Scaffolding
protein INAD regulates deactivation of vision by
pro-moting phosphorylation of transient receptor J
Neuro-sci 26, 8570–8577
23 Montell C (2007) Dynamic regulation of the INAD
signaling scaffold becomes crystal clear Cell 131, 19–
21
24 Sheng A & Hoogenraad CC (2007) The postsynaptic architecture of excitatory synapses: a more quantitative view Annu Rev Biochem 76, 823–847
25 Gardoni F, Polli F, Cattabenin F & Di Luca M (2006) Calcium–calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II phos-phorylation modulates PSD-95 Eur J Neurosci 24, 2694–2704
26 Morabito MA, Sheng M & Tsai LH (2004) Cyclin-dependent kinase 5 phosphorylates the N-terminal domain of the postsynaptic density protein PSD-95 in neurons J Neurosci 24, 865–874
27 Steiner P, Higley MJ, Xu W, Czervionke BL, Malenka
RC & Sabatini BL (2008) Destabilization of the post-synaptic density by PSD-95 serine 73 phosphorylation inhibits spine growth and synaptic plasticity Neuron 60, 788–802
28 Sabio G, Reuver S, Feijoo C, Hasegawa M, Thomas
GM, Centeno F, Kuhlendahl S, Leal-Ortiz S, Goedert
M, Garner C et al (2004) Stress- and mitogen-induced phosphorylation of the synapse-associated protein SAP90⁄ PSD-95 by activation of SAPK3 ⁄ p38gamma and ERK1⁄ ERK2 Biochem J 380, 19–30
29 Sabio G, Arthur JS, Kuma Y, Peggie M, Carr J, Murray-Tait V, Centeno F, Goedert M, Morrice NA & Cuenda A (2005) p38gamma regulates the localisation
of SAP97 in the cytoskeleton by modulating its interaction with GKAP EMBO J 24, 1134–1145
30 Kim MJ, Futai K, Jo J, Hayashi Y, Cho K & Sheng M (2007) Synaptic accumulation of PSD-95 and synaptic function regulated by phosphorylation of serine-295 of PSD-95 Neuron 56, 488–502
31 Farı´as GG, Alfaro IE, Cerpa W, Grabowski CP, Godoy JA, Bonansco C & Inestrosa NC (2009) Wnt-5a⁄ JNK signaling promotes the clustering of PSD-95 in hippocampal neurons J Biol Chem 284, 15857–15866
32 Feng W & Zhang M (2009) Organization and dynamics
of PDZ-domain-related supramodules in the postsynap-tic density Nat Rev Neurosci 10, 87–99
33 de Arce KP, Varela-Nallar L, Farias O, Cifuentes A, Bull P, Couch BA, Koleske AJ, Inestrosa NC & Alvarez AR (2010) Synaptic clustering of PSD-95 is regulated by c-Abl through tyrosine phosphorylation
J Neurosci 30, 3728–3738
34 Morrison DK (2001) KSR: a MAPK scaffold of the Ras pathway? J Cell Sci 114, 1609–1612
35 Roy F, Laberge G, Douziech M, Ferland-McCollough
D & Therrien M (2002) KSR is a scaffold required for activation of the ERK⁄ MAPK module Genes Dev 16, 427–438
36 Ory S, Zhou M, Conrads TP, Veenstra TD & Morrison
DK (2003) Protein phosphatase 2A positively regulates Ras signaling by dephosphorylating KSR1 and Raf-1 on critical 14-3-3 binding sites Curr Biol 13, 1356–1364
Trang 737 Mu¨ller J, Ory S, Copeland T, Piwnica-Worms H &
Morrison DK (2001) C-TAK1 regulates Ras signaling
by phosphorylating the MAPK scaffold, KSR1 Mol
Cell 8, 983–993
38 Matheny SA, Chen C, Kortum RL, Razidlo GL, Lewis
RE & White MA (2004) Ras regulates assembly of
mitogenic signaling complexes through the effector
pro-tein IMP Nature 427, 256–260
39 Jacobs D, Glossip D, Xing H, Muslin AJ & Komfeld K
(1999) Multiple docking sites on substrate proteins form
a modular system that mediates recognition by ERK
MAP kinase Genes Dev 13, 163–175
40 Razidlo GL, Kortum RL, Haferbier JL & Lewis RE
(2004) Phosphorylation regulates KSR1 stability, ERK
activation, and cell proliferation J Biol Chem 279(46),
47808–47814
41 McKay MM, Ritt DA & Morrison DK (2009) Signal-ing dynamics of the KSR1 scaffold complex Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106, 11022–11027
42 Locasale JW & Chakraborty AK (2008) Regulation of signal duration and the statistical dynamics of kinase activation by scaffold proteins PLos Comput Biol 4, e10000099
43 Pincet F (2007) Membrane recruitment of scaffolded proteins drives specific signaling PLoS ONE 2, e977
44 Rajakulendran T, Sahmi M, Lefrancois M, Sicheri F & Therrien M (2009) A dimerization-dependent mecha-nism drives RAF catalytic activation Nature 461, 542– 546
45 Claperon A & Therrien M (2007) KSR and CNK: two scaffolds regulating RAS-mediated RAF activation Oncogene 26, 3143–3158