It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
While several computational methods have been developed to predict the functional relevance of phosphorylation sites, experimental analysis of the interdependency between protein phosphorylation and Protein–Protein Interactions (PPIs) remains challenging. Here, we describe an experimental strategy to establish interdependencies between protein phosphorylation and complex formation. This strategy is based on three main steps: (i) systematically charting the phosphorylation landscape of a target protein; (ii) assigning distinct proteoforms of the target protein to different protein complexes by native complex separation (AP-BNPAGE) and protein correlation profiling; and (iii) analyzing proteoforms and complexes in cells lacking regulators of the target protein. We applied this strategy to YAP1, a transcriptional co-activator for the control of organ size and tissue homeostasis that is highly phosphorylated and among the most connected proteins in human cells. We identified multiple YAP1 phosphosites associated with distinct complexes and inferred how both are controlled by Hippo pathway members. We detected a PTPN14/LATS1/YAP1 complex and suggest a model how PTPN14 inhibits YAP1 via augmenting WW domain-dependent complex formation and phosphorylation by LATS1/2.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details







1 Department of Biology, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
2 Department of Biology, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
3 Department of Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
4 Department of Biology, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Quantitative Biosciences Institute (QBI), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; J. David Gladstone Institutes, San Francisco, CA, USA
5 Apoptosis and Proliferation Control Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, UK