The mechanisms that regulate the nucleocytoplasmic localization of human deubiquitinases remain largely unknown. The nuclear export receptor CRM1 binds to specific amino acid motifs termed NESs (nuclear export sequences). By using in silico prediction and experimental validation of candidate sequences, we identified 32 active NESs and 78 inactive NES-like motifs in human deubiquitinases. These results allowed us to evaluate the performance of three programs widely used for NES prediction, and to add novel information to the recently redefined NES consensus. The novel NESs identified in the present study reveal a subset of 22 deubiquitinases bearing motifs that might mediate their binding to CRM1. We tested the effect of the CRM1 inhibitor LMB (leptomycin B) on the localization of YFP (yellow fluorescent protein)- or GFP (green fluorescent protein)-tagged versions of six NES-bearing deubiquitinases [USP (ubiquitin-specific peptidase) 1, USP3, USP7, USP21, CYLD (cylindromatosis) and OTUD7B (OTU-domain-containing 7B)]. YFP–USP21 and, to a lesser extent, GFP–OTUD7B relocated from the cytoplasm to the nucleus in the presence of LMB, revealing their nucleocytoplasmic shuttling capability. Two sequence motifs in USP21 had been identified during our survey as active NESs in the export assay. Using site-directed mutagenesis, we show that one of these motifs mediates USP21 nuclear export, whereas the second motif is not functional in the context of full-length USP21.

INTRODUCTION

Ubiquitylation, the covalent attachment of one or more units of the 76-amino-acid peptide ubiquitin, is an important post-translational modification that regulates the levels, activity and localization of many cellular proteins [1]. Ubiquitylation is a reversible modification, and the removal of ubiquitin from substrates is catalysed by a group of enzymes, termed deubiquitylating enzymes or DUBs (deubiquitinases) [2]. By specifically removing ubiquitin chains, DUBs modulate the ubiquitylation status of a variety of proteins, and thereby contribute to regulate important cellular processes, such as gene expression [3], proliferation [4], repair of DNA damage [5] and apoptosis [6].

The human genome encodes approximately 90 DUBs, which can be classified into five different subclasses according to the structure of their catalytic domain [7]. A minority of human DUBs have previously been relatively well characterized. For example, USP (ubiquitin-specific peptidase) 7 has been shown to regulate the activity of the tumour-suppressor proteins p53 [8], FOXO (forkhead box O) [9] and PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homologue deleted on chromosome 10) [10]. The involvement of USP7 and other deubiquitinases in processes and pathways related to tumour development has raised the possibility that these proteins might represent interesting targets for anticancer therapy [11,12]. However, a significant hurdle towards the potential development of DUBs as therapeutic targets is the limited information still available on the basic biology of this family of proteins. In fact, despite recent advances, the physiological role and the mechanisms that regulate the function of most human DUBs are yet to be identified.

One of the aspects of DUB biology that remains poorly characterized is the regulation of their nucleocytoplasmic distribution, which, in turn, might critically regulate the accessibility of these enzymes to their substrates. In this regard, there is evidence that several DUBs may act on substrates located in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm. For example, USP21 catalyses the deubiquitylation of the nuclear histone H2A [13] and the cytoplasmic protein Rip1 (receptor-interacting protein 1) [14], but how the access of USP21 to its targets may be regulated is still unknown. Furthermore, it has been shown that DUB-mediated deubiquitylation may regulate the translocation of some substrates between the nucleus and cytoplasm [15]. However, very little is known about the mechanisms that may control the nucleocytoplasmic distribution of DUBs themselves. A systematic localization analysis of the 20 DUBs encoded by the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe has been reported recently [16], but few studies have specifically addressed the localization of DUBs in higher organisms [1719].

Transport of proteins between the nucleus and the cytoplasm is carried out by specialized receptors that bind their cargoes in one compartment and escort them through the nuclear pore complex before releasing them in the other compartment. Transport receptors recognize specific amino acid motifs that function as targeting signals in the cargo proteins [20]. Thus import receptors recognize and bind NLSs (nuclear localization signals), whereas export receptors bind to NESs (nuclear export sequences). ‘Classical’ NLSs consist of one or two short stretches of basic amino acids [21], as exemplified by the SV40 (simian virus 40) large T antigen NLS (PKKKRKV). On the other hand, the best-characterized NESs, termed ‘leucine-rich’ NESs, generally consist of a stretch of hydrophobic amino acids with a poorly conserved ‘consensus’ pattern [22]. This type of NES bridges the interaction of the cargo proteins with the export receptor CRM1 [23].

Some proteins can shuttle back and forth between the nucleus and the cytoplasm, either constitutively or in a regulated manner. Nucleocytoplasmic shuttling has long been recognized as an essential regulatory mechanism for many cellular proteins [24]. Most shuttling proteins identified to date exit the nucleus by interacting with the export receptor CRM1. Therefore, we reasoned that a comprehensive survey of CRM1-binding motifs (i.e. leucine-rich NESs) in human DUBs might represent a feasible strategy to begin to elucidate, on a whole-family scale, the mechanisms that control the nucleocytoplasmic distribution of these proteins.

A common approach to NES identification begins by examining the primary sequence of the protein(s) of interest using informatics programs, such as NetNES [25], ELM [26] or NES Finder (http://res.erasmusmc.nl/fornerodlab/), to pinpoint amino acid motifs that might constitute a NES. However, it has been shown that the NES-binding domain of CRM1 can accommodate a large variety of sequences, differing in both sequence and size [2730] and, as a result, in silico prediction of cNESs (candidate NESs) is a challenging task. In this context, it is important to note that, as far as we know, the accuracy of the different programs available for NES prediction has not yet been directly compared in a prospective manner.

To identify sequence motifs in human DUBs that might mediate their binding to CRM1, we used in silico prediction of cNESs in 85 human DUBs, followed by experimental testing of the predicted cNES in a nuclear export assay. With this two-step approach, we identified 32 novel functional NESs and 78 non-functional NES-like motifs in this protein family. This relatively large set of experimentally validated data allowed us to prospectively compare the accuracy of commonly used NES prediction programs, and to gain further insight into the amino acid features of nuclear export sequences. On the other hand, the present study reveals a subset of 22 human DUBs bearing one or more sequence motifs that might mediate their binding to the export receptor CRM1, raising the possibility that the function of some of these enzymes may be regulated by active nucleocytoplasmic shuttling. In fact, using fluorescently tagged proteins, we demonstrate the ability of YFP (yellow fluorescent protein)–USP21 and GFP (green fluorescent protein)–OTUD (OTU-domain-containing) 7B to shuttle between the nucleus and the cytoplasm. Finally, by using site-directed mutagenesis, we show that CRM1-dependent nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of YFP–USP21 is mediated by one of the novel NESs identified in our global survey. These findings reveal a mechanism that may regulate the dynamic access of this enzyme to its previously described nuclear and cytoplasmic substrates [13,14].

EXPERIMENTAL

NES prediction using bioinformatic analysis

The amino acid sequence of each of 85 human DUBs [7] was retrieved from NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein) and submitted for analysis to three different web-based NES prediction servers: NetNES (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetNES/), ELM (http://elm.eu.org/links.html) and NES Finder (http://res.erasmusmc.nl/fornerodlab/). Both ELM and NES Finder identify candidate NESs as linear sequence motifs resembling the ‘consensus’ NES, although the specific amino acid pattern defining a candidate NES differs between the two programs. The output of these programs are short amino acid sequences predicted to be cNESs. The NetNES program, on the other hand, combines neural networks and hidden Markov models to calculate a ‘NES score’ for each amino acid in the protein under analysis. The output of the NetNES program is a graphical representation of the NES score for each residue. Residues with a score exceeding the threshold value pre-determined by the program (0.5) are predicted to be part of an export sequence [25].

Plasmids, cloning procedures and site-directed mutagenesis

In order to evaluate the activity of the predicted DUB cNESs, a series of 110 expression plasmids based on the pRev(1.4)–GFP export assay reporter [31] were constructed. To this end, double-stranded DNA fragments encoding a 19-amino-acid sequence, encompassing the amino acids predicted as cNES and several flanking residues, were generated by annealing of two complementary oligonucleotides and extension with Klenow enzyme (Fermentas). These DNA fragments were cloned into the pRev(1.4)–GFP vector (a gift from Dr Beric Henderson, Westmead Institute for Cancer Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia) using the BamHI/PinAI restriction sites, and confirmed by DNA sequencing. Plasmids encoding several full-length DUBs were generously provided by Dr Rene Bernards (Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (USP1), Dr Pier Paolo di Fiore (University of Milan, Milan, Italy) (USP3), Dr Roger Everet (University of Glasgow, Glasgow, U.K.) (USP7), Dr David Barford (Institute of Cancer Research, London, U.K.) (CYLD) and Dr Paul C. Evans (Imperial Collage London, London, U.K.) (OTUD7B), or obtained from the laboratory of Dr John W. Harper (Harvard Medical School, Boston, U.S.A.) through Addgene (USP21). USP3, USP7 and USP21 cDNAs were amplified by PCR using high fidelity Pfu UltraII fusion HS DNA polymerase (Stratagene) and subcloned into pEYFP-C1 (Clontech) as HindIII/BamHI (USP3 and USP7) or XhoI/EcoRI (USP21) fragments.

The QuikChange® Lightning Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kit (Stratagene) was used to introduce NES-inactivating mutations into full-length YFP–USP21. The presence of the mutations was confirmed by DNA sequencing.

Cell culture, transfection and LMB (leptomycin B) treatment

HeLa cells were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 100 units/ml penicillin and 100 μg/ml streptomycin (all from Invitrogen). The cells were seeded on to sterile glass coverslips in 12-well trays 24 h before transfection. Transfections were carried out with FuGENE®6 (Roche Diagnostics) following the manufacturer's protocol. LMB (Apollo Scientific) was added to the culture medium to a final concentration of 6 ng/ml for the indicated period of time.

Fluorescence microscopy analysis

The cells expressing proteins tagged with GFP or YFP were fixed with 3.7% formaldehyde in PBS for 30 min, incubated with Hoechst 33285 (Sigma) to visualize the nuclei, washed with PBS and mounted on to microscope slides using Vectashield (Vector) 24 h after transfection. Slides were examined using a Zeiss Axioskop fluorescence microscope, and images were taken with a Nikon DS-Qi1Mc digital camera and the NIS-Elements F software.

In vivo nuclear export assay

The nuclear export assay was carried out essentially as reported previously [31]. Briefly, pRev(1.4)–GFP-based plasmids containing the candidate DUB NESs were transfected into HeLa cells. Survivin NES [32] and the empty pRev(1.4)–GFP were used as positive and negative controls respectively. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were treated for 3 h with either 10 μg/ml CHX (cycloheximide; Sigma) plus 5 μg/ml ActD (actinomycin D; Sigma) or with CHX alone. CHX is added to ensure that cytoplasmic GFP arises from nuclear export and not from new protein synthesis, whereas ActD allows the detection of weak NESs by preventing nuclear import mediated by Rev. The subcellular localization of the fluorescent proteins was determined in at least 200 cells per sample. Using the scoring system described in the original paper [31], the activity of the functional NESs was rated between 1+ and 9+. The CRM1-dependence of the functional NESs identified in the nuclear export assay was confirmed by adding LMB (6 ng/ml) to the transfected cells.

Sequence alignment and modelling

Multiple sequence alignment of DUB cNESs was carried out with ClustalW2 [33], and edited to account for conserved hydrophobic positions.

The Figures showing the structure of USP21 bound to ubiquitin were prepared with PyMOL (http://www.pymol.org).

RESULTS

In silico prediction of candidate NESs in human DUBs

In order to identify sequence motifs that might mediate the binding of human DUBs to the export receptor CRM1 we took the two-step approach illustrated in Figure 1(A): in silico prediction of cNESs, followed by experimental testing of a subset of the predicted cNESs.

In silico prediction of cNESs in human DUBs

Figure 1
In silico prediction of cNESs in human DUBs

(A) Flowchart of the two-step approach followed in the present study to identify active CRM1-dependent NESs in human DUBs. (B) Venn diagram illustrating the overlap between the cNESs predicted by the NetNES, ELM and NES Finder programs in the primary sequence of human DUBs. The total number of cNES predicted by each program is indicated between brackets, and the total number of different cNESs predicted is indicated in the lower right-hand corner. (C) Schematic representation of human USP1 (left-hand panel) detailing the location of six different amino acid motifs (open boxes) predicted to be cNESs in this protein. The program responsible for the prediction, as well as the position of the first and last residues of each motif, is indicated. On the right-hand panel are the sequences of the amino acid motifs identified as USP1 cNESs by the different programs.

Figure 1
In silico prediction of cNESs in human DUBs

(A) Flowchart of the two-step approach followed in the present study to identify active CRM1-dependent NESs in human DUBs. (B) Venn diagram illustrating the overlap between the cNESs predicted by the NetNES, ELM and NES Finder programs in the primary sequence of human DUBs. The total number of cNES predicted by each program is indicated between brackets, and the total number of different cNESs predicted is indicated in the lower right-hand corner. (C) Schematic representation of human USP1 (left-hand panel) detailing the location of six different amino acid motifs (open boxes) predicted to be cNESs in this protein. The program responsible for the prediction, as well as the position of the first and last residues of each motif, is indicated. On the right-hand panel are the sequences of the amino acid motifs identified as USP1 cNESs by the different programs.

In the first step, the primary amino acid sequence of 85 human DUBs was analysed using three web-based NES prediction programs: NetNES [25], ELM [26] and NES Finder. As summarized in Figure 1(B), and detailed in Supplementary Table S1 (at http://www.BiochemJ.org/bj/441/bj4410209add.htm), 75 cNESs were identified in the amino acid sequence of human DUBs using the NetNES program, 71 using the ELM program and 351 using the NES Finder program. In total, 428 different cNESs were identified in the analysis. Even considering that these programs use different approaches for NES prediction (see the Experimental section), the limited degree of coincidence in the cNESs predicted in human DUBs by NetNES, ELM and NES Finder was remarkable. As an example of this lack of agreement, Figure 1(C) shows the six different cNESs predicted in USP1. The amino acid motifs within this protein identified as cNESs by the different programs did not overlap. Only 63 of the 428 cNES motifs identified were predicted by more than one program, and only six were predicted by the three programs.

Experimental testing of DUB cNESs

In order to evaluate the activity of cNESs, we used the pRev(1.4)–GFP-based nuclear export assay [31]. Rev(1.4)–GFP is a chimaeric protein resulting from the fusion of an export-deficient mutant of the HIV Rev protein and GFP, which localizes to nucleoli. In the assay, active NESs are identified on the basis of their ability to mediate export of Rev(1.4)–GFP to the cytoplasm. ActD, which disrupts nucleoli and blocks nuclear import mediated by Rev NLS, can be added to reveal the activity of weaker NESs. Besides identifying active export sequences, the assay allows for the comparison of the level of activity of the different NESs, based on the degree of cytoplasmic accumulation of the Rev(1.4)-NES–GFP chimaeric proteins in the presence/absence of ActD.

The high number of candidate DUB NESs predicted in silico made it impractical to attempt the functional testing of all of them. Thus we aimed to test the 63 candidate NES predicted by more than one program (Figure 1B), and a subset of the cNESs predicted by single programs. This subset included, on one hand, the 16 sequences predicted only by NetNES with a ‘NES score’ higher than 0.7. On the other hand, we selected the first 16 sequences predicted only by ELM, and the first 16 sequences predicted only by NES Finder from the list of predicted DUB cNESs (Supplementary Table S1). In addition, the recent report that USP10 may undergo CRM1-dependent nuclear export [34], prompted us to test three cNESs predicted by the NES Finder program in this protein.

Despite repeated attempts, four sequences could not be cloned in the pRev(1.4)–GFP vector and, thus, the final number of DUB cNESs tested was 110. Figure 2 shows representative examples of the results obtained in the export assay. The pRev(1.4)–GFP empty vector was used as a negative control, and a NES identified previously in Survivin [32] was included as a positive control. As shown in Figure 2, the DUB cNESs FIN6, ELM33 and ELM3, but not FIN1, were capable of relocating Rev(1.4)–GFP to the cytoplasm. This cytoplasmic relocation was efficiently reverted by the specific CRM1 inhibitor LMB. These results, therefore, validated the sequences FIN6, ELM33 and ELM3 as active CRM1-dependent NESs. Using the nuclear export assay scoring system, ELM3 was assigned the highest export activity (9+), whereas FIN6 (3+) and ELM33 (7+) were weaker NESs in this experimental setting. Supplementary Table S2 (at http://www.BiochemJ.org/bj/441/bj4410209add.htm) provides a detailed account of the results obtained with the 110 DUB cNESs tested, including the export activity score of those sequences that tested positive in the assay. In total, 32 of the sequences tested were validated as functional NESs, whereas 78 sequences (including the three USP10 cNESs) were inactive and therefore represent non-functional NES-like motifs.

Experimental testing of DUB cNESs using the Rev(1.4)–GFP nuclear export assay in HeLa cells

Figure 2
Experimental testing of DUB cNESs using the Rev(1.4)–GFP nuclear export assay in HeLa cells

Images show representative examples of HeLa cells transfected with pRev(1.4)–GFP-derived plasmids containing four different DUB cNESs. The empty pRev(1.4)–GFP vector was used as a negative control, and a plasmid containing the active NES of Survivin was used as a positive control. CHX was used to prevent protein synthesis, ensuring that cytoplasmic GFP arises from export and not from newly synthesized protein. ActD was used to disrupt nucleoli and block Rev NLS-mediated import, thus allowing detection of weaker NESs. LMB was used to block CRM1-dependent nuclear export. The FIN1 cNES was unable to relocate Rev(1.4)–GFP to the cytoplasm, even in the presence of ActD, and was therefore classified as negative. The FIN6, ELM33 and ELM3 cNESs tested positive in the assay, leading to different degrees of Rev(1.4)–GFP cytoplasmic accumulation. Each positive NES was assigned an export activity score, indicated between brackets, by counting more than 200 cells per sample in the presence or absence of ActD. LMB treatment readily prevented the cytoplasmic relocation of Rev(1.4)–GFP induced by the FIN6, ELM33 and ELM3 sequences, demonstrating their dependence on the CRM1 export pathway.

Figure 2
Experimental testing of DUB cNESs using the Rev(1.4)–GFP nuclear export assay in HeLa cells

Images show representative examples of HeLa cells transfected with pRev(1.4)–GFP-derived plasmids containing four different DUB cNESs. The empty pRev(1.4)–GFP vector was used as a negative control, and a plasmid containing the active NES of Survivin was used as a positive control. CHX was used to prevent protein synthesis, ensuring that cytoplasmic GFP arises from export and not from newly synthesized protein. ActD was used to disrupt nucleoli and block Rev NLS-mediated import, thus allowing detection of weaker NESs. LMB was used to block CRM1-dependent nuclear export. The FIN1 cNES was unable to relocate Rev(1.4)–GFP to the cytoplasm, even in the presence of ActD, and was therefore classified as negative. The FIN6, ELM33 and ELM3 cNESs tested positive in the assay, leading to different degrees of Rev(1.4)–GFP cytoplasmic accumulation. Each positive NES was assigned an export activity score, indicated between brackets, by counting more than 200 cells per sample in the presence or absence of ActD. LMB treatment readily prevented the cytoplasmic relocation of Rev(1.4)–GFP induced by the FIN6, ELM33 and ELM3 sequences, demonstrating their dependence on the CRM1 export pathway.

Accuracy of NES prediction programs

Table 1 summarizes the results of the export assay in relation to the program(s) that predicted each cNES. Of note, the percentage of positive hits among the 110 cNESs tested was considerably higher for those cNESs predicted by multiple programs than for those predicted by a single program (39.3% compared with 16.3%).

Table 1
Results of the nuclear export assay on human DUB cNESs in relation to the program(s) that identified each sequence as a candidate NESs

Positive hits expected if every predicted cNESs had been tested, estimated by extrapolating the percentage of experimentally validated NES in each category. N+E+F, cNESs predicted by the three programs; N+E, cNESs predicted by NetNES and ELM; N+F, cNESs predicted by NetNES and NES Finder; E+F, cNESs predicted by ELM and NES Finder; N, cNESs predicted only by NetNES; E, cNESs predicted only by ELM; F, cNESs predicted only by NES Finder.

Program(s) Number of cNESs predicted Export assay results: positive/tested (%) Estimated total positive 
Multiple programs    
 N+E+F 5/6 (83.3) 
 N+E 1/1 (100) 
 N+F 25 8/24 (33.3) 
 E+F 31 10/30 (33.3) 10 
Single program    
 N 43 2/15 (13.3) 
 E 33 5/15 (33.3) 11 
 F 289 1/19 (5.3) 15 
Total multiple programs 63 24/61 (39.3) 24 
Total single program 365 8/49 (16.3) 32 
Total 428 32/110 (29) 56 
Program(s) Number of cNESs predicted Export assay results: positive/tested (%) Estimated total positive 
Multiple programs    
 N+E+F 5/6 (83.3) 
 N+E 1/1 (100) 
 N+F 25 8/24 (33.3) 
 E+F 31 10/30 (33.3) 10 
Single program    
 N 43 2/15 (13.3) 
 E 33 5/15 (33.3) 11 
 F 289 1/19 (5.3) 15 
Total multiple programs 63 24/61 (39.3) 24 
Total single program 365 8/49 (16.3) 32 
Total 428 32/110 (29) 56 

In order to use these results to compare the accuracy of the prediction programs, we first extrapolated the percentage of experimentally validated NESs in each category to estimate the number of positive hits expected if the 428 predicted cNESs had been tested (‘Estimated total positive’ column in Table 1). Next, a two-by-two contingency matrix was generated for each program, with four possible outcomes for a given sequence (Figure 3A). A sequence predicted as a cNES by the program constitutes a TP (true positive) if it was positive in the export assay, and a FP (false positive) if it tested negative in the export assay. A sequence not predicted as a cNES by the program (but predicted as a cNES by at least one of the other two programs) constitutes a TN (true negative) if it was negative in the export assay and a FN (false negative) if it tested positive in the export assay. The sensitivity, specificity and PPV (positive predictive value) of each program were calculated as indicated in Figure 3(A). It must be noted that, in order to calculate these accuracy metrics, we needed to make the assumption that every potential NES in the amino acid sequence of human DUBs was predicted as a cNES by at least one of the programs (i.e. that all of the possible TNs and FPs were taken into account).

Accuracy of the NetNES, ELM and NES Finder programs for NES prediction

Figure 3
Accuracy of the NetNES, ELM and NES Finder programs for NES prediction

(A) Calculation of the program accuracy metrics. Example of a general two-by-two contingency matrix used to relate the results of the nuclear export assay to the cNES prediction produced by each program. Four outcomes are possible for each of the 428 predicted cNES sequences in human DUBs: TP, if predicted by the program and active in the assay; FP, if predicted by the program, but inactive in the assay; FN, if not predicted by the program, but active in the assay; and TN, if not predicted by the program and inactive in the assay. The TP, TN, FN and FP values were used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity and PPV of the prediction program by applying the formulae indicated to the right-hand side of the matrix. (B) Contingency matrices for the NetNES, ELM and NES Finder programs derived from the data summarized in Table 1. E. a., export assay.

Figure 3
Accuracy of the NetNES, ELM and NES Finder programs for NES prediction

(A) Calculation of the program accuracy metrics. Example of a general two-by-two contingency matrix used to relate the results of the nuclear export assay to the cNES prediction produced by each program. Four outcomes are possible for each of the 428 predicted cNES sequences in human DUBs: TP, if predicted by the program and active in the assay; FP, if predicted by the program, but inactive in the assay; FN, if not predicted by the program, but active in the assay; and TN, if not predicted by the program and inactive in the assay. The TP, TN, FN and FP values were used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity and PPV of the prediction program by applying the formulae indicated to the right-hand side of the matrix. (B) Contingency matrices for the NetNES, ELM and NES Finder programs derived from the data summarized in Table 1. E. a., export assay.

The contingency matrices for the NetNES, ELM and NES Finder programs are shown in Figure 3(B). The results included in these matrices are derived from the ‘cNESs predicted’ and ‘Estimated total positive’ columns of Table 1. The accuracy metrics of the three programs calculated from these matrices are shown in Table 2. According to our estimation, the ELM program demonstrated the highest PPV (38%), whereas the lowest PPV (10.8%) corresponded with the NES Finder program (Table 2).

Table 2
Accuracy metrics calculated for the three NES prediction programs used in the present study.
Program Sensitivity Specificity PPV 
NetNES 35.7 85.2 26.6 
ELM 48.2 88.1 38 
NES Finder 67.8 15.8 10.8 
Program Sensitivity Specificity PPV 
NetNES 35.7 85.2 26.6 
ELM 48.2 88.1 38 
NES Finder 67.8 15.8 10.8 

Amino acid sequence features of DUB cNESs

In an attempt to gain further insight into the sequence determinants of CRM1-dependent NESs, we used sequence alignment methodology to examine the amino acid features of the 110 DUB cNESs tested in the light of the NES consensus redefined recently on the basis of novel structural information [30].

Alignment of those sequences that tested positive in the nuclear export assay (Figure 4A) highlighted some of the common features of CRM1-binding motifs [27, 30, 35] described previously, including the presence of hydrophobic (frequently leucine) residues at four or five positions (Φ0–Φ4), and a prevalence of acidic residues in the vicinity of Φ0. Interestingly, our analysis revealed a further common characteristic of many DUB NESs: the hydrophobic nature of the residue previous to Φ2 in several of these sequences. We also noted that, although the presence of two residues between the Φ2 and Φ3 hydrophobic residues (Φ2-X23 spacing) has been reported to be preferred [30], a significant proportion of validated DUB NESs showed a Φ2-X33 spacing. In spite of sharing some common characteristics, five different subsets of positive DUB NESs with distinguishing features could be established. Thus 11 out of 32 positive NES (P-I group in Figure 4A) strictly followed the Φ0–Φ4 consensus defined by Güttler et al. [30], whereas a second group of ten sequences, also with a Φ0–Φ4 pattern (P-II), was characterized by an alternative Φ0-X31 spacing instead of the reported Φ0-X21. Seven other sequences formed a group of NESs lacking the leading hydrophobic residue Φ0 and therefore having a Φ1–Φ4 pattern (P-III). A single sequence, NET8, conformed to the Rev-type consensus (P-IV). Finally, two experimentally validated sequences, predicted only by the NetNES program, did not fit any of the consensus patterns mentioned above (P-V).

Multiple sequence alignment of DUB cNES motifs showing amino acid sequence features.

Figure 4
Multiple sequence alignment of DUB cNES motifs showing amino acid sequence features.

The name given to each motif (cNES ID) is indicated to the left-hand side of each sequence, and the hydrophobic residues that conform to the NES consensus are highlighted in grey. (A) DUB cNESs that tested positive in the nuclear export assay. Five different groups of active NESs could be established based on the pattern and spacing of hydrophobic residues: P-I, Φ0-X21-X32-X2–33-X-Φ4; P-II, Φ0-X31-X32-X2–33-X-Φ4; P-III, Φ1-X32-X2–33-X-Φ4; P-IV, Rev-type consensus; and P-V, non-consensus. (B) DUB cNESs with a Φ0–Φ4 pattern that tested negative in the nuclear export assay. The presence of proline residues (highlighted in bold) between residues Φ1 and Φ3 may account for the lack of activity of several of these sequences (N-I group) by preventing them from adopting a proper CRM1-binding conformation. Other sequences (N-II group) do not have proline residues between Φ1 and Φ3, but are inactive in spite of fitting the Φ0–Φ4 consensus pattern.

Figure 4
Multiple sequence alignment of DUB cNES motifs showing amino acid sequence features.

The name given to each motif (cNES ID) is indicated to the left-hand side of each sequence, and the hydrophobic residues that conform to the NES consensus are highlighted in grey. (A) DUB cNESs that tested positive in the nuclear export assay. Five different groups of active NESs could be established based on the pattern and spacing of hydrophobic residues: P-I, Φ0-X21-X32-X2–33-X-Φ4; P-II, Φ0-X31-X32-X2–33-X-Φ4; P-III, Φ1-X32-X2–33-X-Φ4; P-IV, Rev-type consensus; and P-V, non-consensus. (B) DUB cNESs with a Φ0–Φ4 pattern that tested negative in the nuclear export assay. The presence of proline residues (highlighted in bold) between residues Φ1 and Φ3 may account for the lack of activity of several of these sequences (N-I group) by preventing them from adopting a proper CRM1-binding conformation. Other sequences (N-II group) do not have proline residues between Φ1 and Φ3, but are inactive in spite of fitting the Φ0–Φ4 consensus pattern.

Not surprisingly, many of the predicted cNES sequences that tested negative in the export assay displayed several common NES features. In fact, 20 of the 78 non-functional NES-like motifs followed the Φ0–Φ4 consensus pattern, with either the Φ0-X21 or the alternative Φ0-X31 spacings (Figure 4B). Twelve of these sequences (N-I group) had proline residues between Φ1 and Φ3, which would prevent them from adopting the proper conformation for CRM1 binding [27,30], and would therefore explain their lack of export activity. However, there is not such an obvious reason for the lack of activity of the other eight cNESs with a Φ0–Φ4 pattern (N-II).

A subset of human DUBS bear active NESs

The 32 experimentally validated cNESs identified in our assay reveal a subset of 22 human DUBs bearing amino acid motifs with the potential to mediate their binding to the export receptor CRM1. Figure 5 shows the location of these motifs in the corresponding DUBs. A single NES was identified in most DUBs, but two large proteins, USP9X and USP24, were found to bear four and five NESs respectively. This observation is in line with previous findings that several independent NESs may contribute to the nuclear export of large proteins such as FANCA (Fanconi anaemia protein A) or pericentrin [36,37].

Human DUBs bearing active NESs

Figure 5
Human DUBs bearing active NESs

Schematic representation of 22 human DUBs showing the position of amino acid motifs (hatched boxes) that tested positive in the nuclear export assay. The position of the first and last residues of the NES motifs (as tested in the export assay) are indicated. The amino acid sequence and export activity score of each motif are detailed in Supplementary Table S2 (at http://www.BiochemJ.org/bj/441/bj4410209add.htm).

Figure 5
Human DUBs bearing active NESs

Schematic representation of 22 human DUBs showing the position of amino acid motifs (hatched boxes) that tested positive in the nuclear export assay. The position of the first and last residues of the NES motifs (as tested in the export assay) are indicated. The amino acid sequence and export activity score of each motif are detailed in Supplementary Table S2 (at http://www.BiochemJ.org/bj/441/bj4410209add.htm).

Several DUB NESs were located near the N-terminal (e.g. USP1 and USP15) or C-terminal (e.g. USP7 and OTUD4) ends of the protein. Other NESs, such as those identified in OTUD7A and OTUD7B, were located in the middle of the protein. The location of these sequences within the full-length protein may be a relevant feature, as it has been proposed that NESs located near the N- or C-terminal ends of a protein are more likely to be operational in their physiological context [28,30].

The presence of one or more active NESs in their primary sequence suggests that some of these DUBs may undergo active CRM1-mediated nuclear export. It is important to note, however, that the activity of the reported NESs, thus far validated in the context of the Rev(1.4)–GFP chimaeric protein, needs to be assessed in the context of the full-length DUB, to determine their physiological importance.

Effect of CRM1 inhibition on the localization of NES-bearing DUBs

In order to begin addressing the potential role of these sequences in the context of their cognate full-length proteins, we investigated the effect that inhibition of the CRM1-mediated export pathway has on the nucleocytoplasmic distribution of several NES-bearing human DUBs.

Given the limited availability of DUB-specific commercial antibodies validated for immunofluorescence, we decided to use GFP- or YFP-tagged versions of USP1, USP3, USP7, USP21, CYLD and OTUD7B to determine their nucleocytoplasmic distribution in transfected cells. As shown in Figure 6(A), GFP–USP1, YFP–USP3 and YFP–USP7 showed a prominent nuclear localization, whereas YFP–USP21, GFP–CYLD and GFP–OTUD7B were located predominantly in the cytoplasm. These results are consistent with previous reports describing the steady-state localization of some of these proteins [3842]. Incubation with the specific CRM1 inhibitor LMB for 3 h did not alter the distribution of the nuclear DUBs or that of GFP–CYLD, which remained in the cytoplasm. In contrast, LMB induced a clear relocation of the other two cytoplasmic DUBs, YFP–USP21 and GFP–OTUD7B, to the nucleus, revealing their ability to shuttle between nucleus and cytoplasm, and indicating that CRM1-mediated export plays a role in maintaining the cytoplasmic localization of these two DUBs. A time-course, semi-quantitative analysis (Figure 6B) showed that YFP–USP21 displayed a more rapid and pronounced response to LMB than GFP–OTUD7B. This observation, and the findings reported previously that USP21 may deubiquitinate both nuclear and cytoplasmic substrates [13,14] prompted us to select this protein for further analysis.

Effect of CRM1 inhibition on the localization of NES-bearing human DUBs

Figure 6
Effect of CRM1 inhibition on the localization of NES-bearing human DUBs

(A) Representative examples of the nucleocytoplasmic localization of GFP- or YFP-tagged versions of the indicated DUBs in HeLa cells untreated (left-hand set of panels) or treated for 3 h with 6 ng/ml of the CRM1 inhibitor LMB (right-hand set of panels). GFP–USP1, YFP–USP3 and YFP–USP7 were located in the nucleus of untreated and LMB-treated cells. The localization of YFP–USP21, GFP–CYLD and GFP–OTUD7B was predominantly cytoplasmic in untreated cells. After LMB treatment, GFP–CYLD remained in the cytoplasm, but YFP–USP21 and GFP–OTUD7B partially relocated to the nucleus. (B) Semi-quantitative time-course analysis of the LMB-induced nuclear relocation of YFP–USP21 and GFP–OTUD7B. Histograms show the percentage of transfected cells showing predominantly nuclear (N), predominantly cytoplasmic (C) or equally nuclear and cytoplasmic (NC) distribution of these proteins. Results are means±S.D. for three independent experiments, and the total number of cells examined in each condition is indicated (n). YFP–USP21 showed a faster and more pronounced relocation to the nucleus than GFP–OTUD7B.

Figure 6
Effect of CRM1 inhibition on the localization of NES-bearing human DUBs

(A) Representative examples of the nucleocytoplasmic localization of GFP- or YFP-tagged versions of the indicated DUBs in HeLa cells untreated (left-hand set of panels) or treated for 3 h with 6 ng/ml of the CRM1 inhibitor LMB (right-hand set of panels). GFP–USP1, YFP–USP3 and YFP–USP7 were located in the nucleus of untreated and LMB-treated cells. The localization of YFP–USP21, GFP–CYLD and GFP–OTUD7B was predominantly cytoplasmic in untreated cells. After LMB treatment, GFP–CYLD remained in the cytoplasm, but YFP–USP21 and GFP–OTUD7B partially relocated to the nucleus. (B) Semi-quantitative time-course analysis of the LMB-induced nuclear relocation of YFP–USP21 and GFP–OTUD7B. Histograms show the percentage of transfected cells showing predominantly nuclear (N), predominantly cytoplasmic (C) or equally nuclear and cytoplasmic (NC) distribution of these proteins. Results are means±S.D. for three independent experiments, and the total number of cells examined in each condition is indicated (n). YFP–USP21 showed a faster and more pronounced relocation to the nucleus than GFP–OTUD7B.

CRM1-dependent nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of USP21 is mediated by its N-terminal NES

We aimed to identify the sequence determinants of USP21 nuclear export, focusing on the two active NES motifs identified in this protein by our global survey. As shown in Figure 7(A), one of these motifs (ELM20) is located close to the N-terminal end of the protein, whereas the second one (NET20) is located in the middle of the protein, embedded within its catalytic USP domain. The activity score of these motifs in the nuclear export assay was 4+ and 9+ respectively. Mutant versions of these motifs were generated, where the Φ3 and Φ4 residues were changed to alanine, and tested in the export assay (Figure 7B). The results confirmed that these mutations effectively abrogate the export activity of ELM20 and NET20 motifs (Figure 7B). Next, the corresponding point mutations (L142/144A to inactivate ELM20, and L313/315A to inactivate NET20) were separately introduced into full-length YFP–USP21 using site-directed mutagenesis (Figure 7C), and the nucleocytoplasmic localization of the mutant proteins was examined. As shown in Figure 7(C), the YFP–USP21L142/144A mutant displayed a predominantly nuclear localization, whereas the YFP–USP21L313/315A mutant was located in the cytoplasm, like the wild-type protein.

The N-terminal NES is necessary and sufficient for YFP–USP21 export

Figure 7
The N-terminal NES is necessary and sufficient for YFP–USP21 export

(A) Schematic representation of the USP21 protein structure showing the catalytic domain (highlighted in blue) and the two active NES motifs, termed ELM20 and NET20 (hatched boxes), identified in this DUB by our global survey. The position and export activity score of each motif is indicated above. (B) The amino acid sequence of the wild-type and mutant variants of ELM20 and NET20 are indicated, with the hydrophobic residues that conform to the consensus shaded grey. In the NES mutants, the Φ3 and Φ4 residues were replaced by alanine residues (red). Below, images of the nuclear export assay showing that the alanine residue replacements introduced render ELM20 and NET20 sequences inactive. (C). Schematic representation of YFP–USP21 wild-type and mutant variants with NES-inactivating mutations. The sequence changes are indicated above. The L142/144A mutant bears the two ELM20-inactivating point mutations. The L313/315A mutant bears the two NET20-inactivating changes. Below, images show representative examples of HeLa cells expressing wild-type and the NES-mutant versions of YFP–USP21. Wild-type YFP–USP21 and the L313/315A mutant are located in the cytoplasm. In contrast, the L142/144A mutant shows a predominantly nuclear localization. Histograms indicate the percentage of transfected cells showing predominantly nuclear (N), predominantly cytoplasmic (C) or equally nuclear and cytoplasmic (NC) distribution of these proteins. (D) Full view of the structure of the USP21 USP domain, encompassing residues 209–563, bound to ubiquitin (PDB code 3I3T). The NET20 motif (residues 301–319) is highlighted in magenta, the rest of the USP21 sequence is in green, and ubiquitin is in blue. A ribbon representation (left-hand panel) and a surface representation (right-hand panel) are shown to illustrate the partial occlusion of NET20 by ubiquitin. (E) Close-up of the NET20 segment showing that the side chains of most hydrophobic residues in this motif (shown in stick representation) are oriented towards the inside of the protein.

Figure 7
The N-terminal NES is necessary and sufficient for YFP–USP21 export

(A) Schematic representation of the USP21 protein structure showing the catalytic domain (highlighted in blue) and the two active NES motifs, termed ELM20 and NET20 (hatched boxes), identified in this DUB by our global survey. The position and export activity score of each motif is indicated above. (B) The amino acid sequence of the wild-type and mutant variants of ELM20 and NET20 are indicated, with the hydrophobic residues that conform to the consensus shaded grey. In the NES mutants, the Φ3 and Φ4 residues were replaced by alanine residues (red). Below, images of the nuclear export assay showing that the alanine residue replacements introduced render ELM20 and NET20 sequences inactive. (C). Schematic representation of YFP–USP21 wild-type and mutant variants with NES-inactivating mutations. The sequence changes are indicated above. The L142/144A mutant bears the two ELM20-inactivating point mutations. The L313/315A mutant bears the two NET20-inactivating changes. Below, images show representative examples of HeLa cells expressing wild-type and the NES-mutant versions of YFP–USP21. Wild-type YFP–USP21 and the L313/315A mutant are located in the cytoplasm. In contrast, the L142/144A mutant shows a predominantly nuclear localization. Histograms indicate the percentage of transfected cells showing predominantly nuclear (N), predominantly cytoplasmic (C) or equally nuclear and cytoplasmic (NC) distribution of these proteins. (D) Full view of the structure of the USP21 USP domain, encompassing residues 209–563, bound to ubiquitin (PDB code 3I3T). The NET20 motif (residues 301–319) is highlighted in magenta, the rest of the USP21 sequence is in green, and ubiquitin is in blue. A ribbon representation (left-hand panel) and a surface representation (right-hand panel) are shown to illustrate the partial occlusion of NET20 by ubiquitin. (E) Close-up of the NET20 segment showing that the side chains of most hydrophobic residues in this motif (shown in stick representation) are oriented towards the inside of the protein.

These results indicate that the N-terminal NES motif of USP21 (E134LGAALSRLALRPEPPTLR152) is both necessary and sufficient to ensure CRM1-mediated export of the protein, and represents a physiologically relevant NES. In order to also seek potential determinants of its nuclear entry, we examined the USP21 sequence for cNLSs (candidate nuclear localization signals) using the PSORTII [43] and cNLS Mapper [44] programs. Each program identified one cNLS near the amino terminal end of USP21 (Supplementary Figure S1 at http://www.BiochemJ.org/bj/441/bj4410209add.htm). However, deletion of a 70-amino-acid region encompassing both cNLSs reduced, but did not abrogate, LMB-induced nuclear entry of YFP–USP21 (71–565). This result suggests that, unlike its NES-mediated nuclear export, nuclear import of USP21 may be mediated by multiple sequence determinants. These may include N-terminal basic NLSs, but also potential binding domains for other NLS-containing proteins that may contribute to USP21 nuclear entry through a ‘piggyback’ mechanism.

DISCUSSION

Human DUBs are emerging as critical regulators of several important cellular processes [36], and potential therapeutic targets [11,12]. However, many aspects of DUB biology remain largely unknown, including the mechanisms that regulate their subcellular localization. As a first step towards characterizing these mechanisms, we report here in the present paper results of a family-wide survey of active CRM1-dependent NESs in human DUBs.

Using three web-based prediction programs to analyse the primary amino acid sequence of 85 human DUBs, we identified 428 sequence motifs as candidate NESs, 110 of which were subsequently tested using a nuclear export assay [31]. To our knowledge, the present study represents the first functional analysis of a relatively large series of candidate NESs in a protein family. Of the cNESs tested, 32 of the 110 were active in the assay, whereas 78 sequences were inactive. Three of the candidate NES motifs found to be inactive (ELM4, FIN15 and NET37) encompassed sequences tested previously by other groups [17,18]. Remarkably, whereas the lack of activity of ELM4 and NET37 reported in the present paper was consistent with previous findings, a short amino acid sequence (VEVYLLELKL) included within the FIN15 motif was reported previously to be a weak, but active, NES [17].

Only 63 of the 428 cNES motifs identified in silico were predicted by more than one program, illustrating the serious challenge of bioinformatic NES identification. In this regard, the performance of currently available NES prediction programs (NetNES, ELM and NES Finder) has never been, as far as we know, prospectively compared. We carried out such a comparison by calculating the sensitivity, specificity and PPV of these programs. It is important to note that these accuracy metrics, although useful, have intrinsic limitations [45], and also that several assumptions needed to be made in order to calculate them. Therefore the values obtained should be regarded as an estimation. With these caveats in mind, our analysis points to ELM as the best-performing tool for NES prediction among the three tested in the present paper. Even when using ELM, however, our estimation is that less than 40% of the predicted cNES are active in a functional assay. Interestingly, we noticed a higher percentage of positive hits among the cNESs predicted by multiple programs than among those predicted by a single program. Thus combining the results of different prediction programs might be a simple approach to prioritize for testing those cNESs most likely to be functional.

The difficulty in identifying CRM1-dependent NESs in silico stems largely from the ability of the receptor to accommodate a large variety of sequences into its NES-binding hydrophobic groove. A recent study has led to the revision of the NES consensus motif to include five hydrophobic residues (Φ0–Φ4 pattern) [30]. To gain further understanding on the characteristics of CRM1-dependent NESs, we examined the amino acid features of the novel set of 32 active NESs and 78 inactive NES-like motifs identified in human DUBs.

Consistent with the redefined consensus, most experimentally validated DUB NESs (21 out of 32) fit a Φ0–Φ4 pattern. Importantly, nearly half of the active NESs with this pattern showed a three amino acid spacing between residues Φ0 and Φ1. This Φ0-X31 spacing would be compatible with the conformation adopted by the NES sequences from snurportin [29] and PKI [30], and might even favour a more canonical geometry of the first turn of the α-helix. Therefore we propose that the possibility of a Φ0-X31 spacing should be included in the NES consensus. Further illustrating the ability of CRM1 to bind a wide range of sequences, 11 experimentally validated NESs failed to fit the Φ0–Φ4 consensus, having instead a Φ1–Φ4 pattern, a Rev-type pattern or fail to resemble any of these patterns. Conversely, several cNESs bearing a Φ0–Φ4 pattern tested negative. The inactivity of some of these motifs could be ascribed to the presence of proline residues between Φ1 and Φ3, as reported previously [27,30]. We speculate that the lack of activity of other NES-like motifs could be due to a combination of several ‘unfavourable’ features, such as having a suboptimal set of hydrophobic residues [30], and/or lacking acidic amino acids in the vicinity of Φ0. The 78 experimentally confirmed inactive NES-like motifs may be useful as a ‘negative control group’ in the future refining of NES prediction algorithms.

The identification of sequence motifs that might bridge their interaction with CRM1 raises the possibility that a subset of human DUBs may be actively exported to the cytoplasm by this receptor. To begin addressing this possibility, we evaluated the nucleocytoplasmic distribution of six GFP- or YFP-tagged human DUBs in the presence or absence of the specific CRM1 inhibitor LMB. USP1, USP3 and USP7 showed a prominently nuclear localization in both untreated and LMB-treated cells, whereas CYLD remained in the cytoplasm even in the presence of LMB. Although these observations do not necessarily rule out the possibility that these DUBs are exported by CRM1, they suggest that other mechanisms may be more relevant in determining their final nucleocytoplasmic distribution. These mechanisms may include rapid nuclear import of USP1, USP3 and USP7, and cytoplasmic retention of CYLD, probably mediated by its B box domain [41]. Since human DUBs are known to be part of multiprotein complexes [46], retention in the nucleus or cytoplasm by interacting partners might be a common factor modulating their localization.

Importantly, LMB induced the nuclear relocation of YFP–USP21 and, to a lesser extent, of GFP–OTUD7B, thus identifying them as novel CRM1-dependent shuttling proteins. In particular, the rapid and pronounced nuclear accumulation of YFP–USP21 suggests that CRM1-dependent shuttling may be a relevant regulatory mechanism for this protein, facilitating the dynamic access of this enzyme to its nuclear and cytoplasmic substrates [13,14]. Two USP21 sequence motifs (ELM20, E134LGAALSRLALRPEPPTLR152 and NET20, D301AQEFLKLLMERLHLEINR319) tested positive in the nuclear export assay. By using site-directed mutagenesis in the context of the full-length protein, we show that the ELM20 motif constitutes a physiologically relevant NES, whose mutational inactivation disrupts USP21 nuclear export. In contrast, mutation of the NET20 motif, which is embedded within the USP21 catalytical USP domain, does not alter USP21 localization. The finding that the NET20 motif appeared to be irrelevant for the export of full-length USP21 was surprising, given the high activity score of this motif in the export assay. This experimental observation, however, can be easily reconciled with the available crystal structure of the USP21 USP domain bound to ubiquitin (PDB code 3I3T). As shown in Figure 7(D), the region corresponding to NET20 (residues 301–319) is relatively buried in the structure and partly occluded by the ubiquitin moiety. More importantly, as illustrated in Figure 7(E), several residues that should make contacts with CRM1 (such as Met310, corresponding with the Φ2 position of the NES consensus) are engaged in packing interactions within the hydrophobic core of the protein. Furthermore, interaction between USP21 Glu304 and ubiquitin Arg72 has recently been shown to be essential for USP21-mediated deubiquitylation [47]. These interactions would, therefore, render the NET20 motif unable to mediate USP21/CRM1 binding. Although there is no structural information available for the N-terminal region of USP21 where the ELM20 sequence resides, the results of the present study suggest that this NES is exposed and available for CRM1 binding. These observations underscore the need to experimentally validate, on a case-by-case basis, the role that the NES motifs identified by our survey play in the localization of each DUB. It is conceivable that some of these motifs, like NET20, may be masked or fail to acquire the proper conformation for CRM1 binding in their original protein context. Others, like ELM20, will constitute physiologically relevant NESs.

In summary, the results of the present study provide novel basic information relevant to the field of NES definition and prediction, and provide a starting point for the analysis of the mechanisms that regulate the nucleocytoplasmic distribution of human DUBs.

Abbreviations

     
  • ActD

    actinomycin D

  •  
  • CHX

    cycloheximide

  •  
  • DUB

    deubiquitinase

  •  
  • FN

    false negative

  •  
  • FP

    false positive

  •  
  • GFP

    green fluorescent protein

  •  
  • LMB

    leptomycin B

  •  
  • NES

    nuclear export sequence

  •  
  • cNES

    candidate NES

  •  
  • NLS

    nuclear localization signal

  •  
  • cNLS

    candidate NLS

  •  
  • OTUD

    OTUdomain-containing

  •  
  • PPV

    positive predictive value

  •  
  • TN

    true negative

  •  
  • TP

    true positive

  •  
  • USP

    ubiquitin-specific peptidase

  •  
  • YFP

    yellow fluorescent protein

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Iraia García-Santisteban participated in the design of the study and performed experiments. Sonia Bañuelos analysed and interpreted the data, and contributed to the writing of the paper. Jose Antonio Rodríguez participated in the design of the study, performed experiments, analysed and interpreted the data, and wrote the paper.

We thank Ana Zubiaga for her continuous support and encouragement, and J.L. Zugaza for critical comments on the paper. We appreciate the generous gift of plasmids from the following investigators: Dr Beric Henderson (University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia), Dr Rene Bernards (Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Dr Pier Paolo di Fiore (University of Milan, Milan, Italy), Dr Roger Everet (University of Glasgow, Glasgow, U.K.), Dr David Barford (Institute of Cancer Research, London, U.K.), Dr Paul C. Evans (Imperial College London, London, U.K.) and Dr John W. Harper (Harvard Medical School, Boston, U.S.A.). We appreciate the technical support by the staff from the High Resolution Microscopy Facility (Sgiker-UPV/EHU) and the DNA Sequencing Facility (Sgiker-UPV/EHU).

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Basque Government Department of Industry [grant numbers SAIOTEK S-PE07UN17, S-PE09UN65 and ETORTEK BioGUNE2010 (to J.A.R.)] and the Spanish Government MICINN [grant number BFU2009-13245 (to J.A.R.)], and a fellowship from the Department of Education of the Basque Government (to I.G.-S.).

References

References
1
Grabbe
C.
Husnjak
K.
Dikic
I.
The spatial and temporal organization of ubiquitin networks
Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.
2011
, vol. 
12
 (pg. 
295
-
307
)
2
Komander
D.
Clague
M. J.
Urbé
S.
Breaking the chains: structure and function of the deubiquitinases
Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.
2009
, vol. 
10
 (pg. 
550
-
563
)
3
Frappier
L.
Verrijzer
C. P.
Gene expression control by protein deubiquitinases
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
2011
, vol. 
21
 (pg. 
207
-
213
)
4
Song
L.
Rape
M.
Reverse the curse: the role of deubiquitination in cell cycle control
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
2008
, vol. 
20
 (pg. 
156
-
163
)
5
Bergink
S.
Jentsch
S.
Principles of ubiquitin and SUMO modifications in DNA repair
Nature
2009
, vol. 
458
 (pg. 
461
-
467
)
6
Ramakrishna
S.
Suresh
B.
Baek
K. H.
The role of deubiquitinating enzymes in apoptosis
Cell. Mol. Life Sci.
2011
, vol. 
68
 (pg. 
15
-
26
)
7
Nijman
S. M.
Luna-Vargas
M. P.
Velds
A.
Brummelkamp
T. R.
Dirac
A. M.
Sixma
T. K.
Bernards
R.
A genomic and functional inventory of deubiquitinating enzymes
Cell
2005
, vol. 
123
 (pg. 
773
-
786
)
8
Li
M.
Chen
D.
Shiloh
A.
Luo
J.
Nikolaev
A. Y.
Qin
J.
Gu
W.
Deubiquitination of p53 by HAUSP is an important pathway for p53 stabilization
Nature
2002
, vol. 
416
 (pg. 
648
-
653
)
9
van der Horst
A.
de Vries-Smits
A. M.
Brenkman
A. B.
van Triest
M. H.
van den Broek
N.
Colland
F.
Maurice
M. M.
Burgering
B. M.
FOXO4 transcriptional activity is regulated by monoubiquitination and USP7/HAUSP Nat
Cell Biol.
2006
, vol. 
8
 (pg. 
1063
-
1073
)
10
Song
M. S.
Salmena
L.
Carracedo
A.
Egia
A.
Lo-Coco
F.
Teruya-Feldstein
J.
Pandolfi
P. P.
The deubiquitinylation and localization of PTEN are regulated by a HAUSP-PML network
Nature
2008
, vol. 
455
 (pg. 
813
-
817
)
11
Nicholson
B.
Marblestone
J. G.
Butt
T. R.
Mattern
M. R.
Deubiquitinating enzymes as novel anticancer targets
Future Oncol.
2007
, vol. 
3
 (pg. 
191
-
199
)
12
Hoeller
D.
Dikic
I.
Targeting the ubiquitin system in cancer therapy
Nature
2009
, vol. 
458
 (pg. 
438
-
444
)
13
Nakagawa
T.
Kajitani
T.
Togo
S.
Masuko
N.
Ohdan
H.
Hishikawa
Y.
Koji
T.
Matsuyama
T.
Ikura
T.
Muramatsu
M.
Ito
T.
Deubiquitylation of histone H2A activates transcriptional initiation via trans-histone cross-talk with H3K4 di- and trimethylation
Genes Dev.
2008
, vol. 
22
 (pg. 
37
-
49
)
14
Xu
G.
Tan
X.
Wang
H.
Sun
W.
Shi
Y.
Burlingame
S.
Gu
X.
Cao
G.
Zhang
T.
Qin
J.
Yang
J.
Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 21 inhibits tumor necrosis factor α-induced nuclear factor κB activation via binding to and deubiquitinating receptor-interacting protein 1
J. Biol. Chem.
2010
, vol. 
285
 (pg. 
969
-
978
)
15
Salmena
L.
Pandolfi
P. P.
Changing venues for tumour suppression: balancing destruction and localization by monoubiquitylation
Nat. Rev. Cancer
2007
, vol. 
7
 (pg. 
409
-
413
)
16
Kouranti
I.
McLean
J. R.
Feoktistova
A.
Liang
P.
Johnson
A. E.
Roberts-Galbraith
R. H.
Gould
K. L.
A global census of fission yeast deubiquitinating enzyme localization and interaction networks reveals distinct compartmentalization profiles and overlapping functions in endocytosis and polarity
PLoS Biol.
2010
, vol. 
8
 pg. 
e1000471
 
17
Soboleva
T. A.
Jans
D. A.
Johnson-Saliba
M.
Baker
R. T.
Nuclear–cytoplasmic shuttling of the oncogenic mouse UNP/USP4 deubiquitylating enzyme
J. Biol. Chem.
2005
, vol. 
280
 (pg. 
745
-
752
)
18
Macedo-Ribeiro
S.
Cortes
L.
Maciel
P.
Carvalho
A. L.
Nucleocytoplasmic shuttling activity of ataxin-3
PLoS ONE
2009
, vol. 
4
 pg. 
e5834
 
19
Pastori
V.
Sangalli
E.
Coccetti
P.
Pozzi
C.
Nonnis
S.
Tedeschi
G.
Fusi
P.
CK2 and GSK3 phosphorylation on S29 controls wild-type ATXN3 nuclear uptake
Biochem. Biophys. Acta
2010
, vol. 
1802
 (pg. 
583
-
592
)
20
Görlich
D.
Kutay
U.
Transport between the cell nucleus and the cytoplasm
Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.
1999
, vol. 
15
 (pg. 
607
-
660
)
21
Lange
A.
Mills
R. E.
Lange
C. J.
Stewart
M.
Devine
S. E.
Corbett
A. H.
Classical nuclear localization signals: definition, function, and interaction with importin α
J. Biol. Chem.
2007
, vol. 
282
 (pg. 
5101
-
5105
)
22
Mattaj
I. W.
Müller
C. W.
Solving the NES problem
Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.
2010
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
1288
-
1289
)
23
Hutten
S.
Kehlenbach
R. H.
CRM1-mediated nuclear export: to the pore and beyond
Trends Cell Biol.
2007
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
193
-
201
)
24
Gama-Carvalho
M.
Carmo-Fonseca
M.
The rules and roles of nucleocytoplasmic shuttling proteins
FEBS Lett.
2001
, vol. 
498
 (pg. 
157
-
163
)
25
la Cour
T.
Kiemer
L.
Mølgaard
A.
Gupta
R.
Skriver
K.
Brunak
S.
Analysis and prediction of leucine-rich nuclear export signals
Protein Eng. Des. Sel.
2004
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
527
-
536
)
26
Gould
C. M.
Diella
F.
Via
A.
Puntervoll
P.
Gemünd
C.
Chabanis-Davidson
S.
Michael
S.
Sayadi
A.
Bryne
J. C.
Chica
C.
, et al. 
ELM: the status of the 2010 eukaryotic linear motif resource
Nucleic Acids Res.
2010
, vol. 
38
 (pg. 
D167
-
D180
)
27
Kosugi
S.
Hasebe
M.
Tomita
M.
Yanagawa
H.
Nuclear export signal consensus sequences defined using a localization-based yeast selection system
Traffic
2008
, vol. 
9
 (pg. 
2053
-
2062
)
28
Dong
X.
Biswas
A.
Süel
K. E.
Jackson
L. K.
Martinez
R.
Gu
H.
Chook
Y. M.
Structural basis for leucine-rich nuclear export signal recognition by CRM1
Nature
2009
, vol. 
458
 (pg. 
1136
-
1141
)
29
Monecke
T.
Güttler
T.
Neumann
P.
Dickmanns
A.
Görlich
D.
Ficner
R.
Crystal structure of the nuclear export receptor CRM1 in complex with Snurportin1 and RanGTP
Science
2009
, vol. 
324
 (pg. 
1087
-
1091
)
30
Güttler
T.
Madl
T.
Neumann
P.
Deichsel
D.
Corsini
L.
Monecke
T.
Ficner
R.
Sattler
M.
Görlich
D.
NES consensus redefined by structures of PKI-type and Rev-type nuclear export signals bound to CRM1
Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.
2010
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
1367
-
1376
)
31
Henderson
B. R.
Eleftheriou
A.
A comparison of the activity, sequence specificity, and CRM1-dependence of different nuclear export signals
Exp. Cell Res.
2000
, vol. 
256
 (pg. 
213
-
224
)
32
Engelsma
D.
Rodríguez
J. A.
Fish
A.
Giaccone
G.
Fornerod
M.
Homodimerization antagonizes nuclear export of survivin
Traffic
2007
, vol. 
8
 (pg. 
1495
-
1502
)
33
Larkin
M. A.
Blackshields
G.
Brown
N. P.
Chenna
R.
McGettigan
P. A.
McWilliam
H.
Valentin
F.
Wallace
I. M.
Wilm
A.
Lopez
R.
, et al. 
Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0
Bioinformatics
2007
, vol. 
23
 (pg. 
2947
-
2948
)
34
Yuan
J.
Luo
K.
Zhang
L.
Cheville
J. C.
Lou
Z.
USP10 regulates p53 localization and stability by deubiquitinating p53
Cell
2010
, vol. 
140
 (pg. 
384
-
396
)
35
Kutay
U.
Güttinger
S.
Leucine-rich nuclear-export signals: born to be weak
Trends Cell Biol.
2005
, vol. 
15
 (pg. 
121
-
124
)
36
Ferrer
M.
Rodriguez
J. A.
Spierings
E. A.
de Winter
J. P.
Giaccone
G.
Kruyt
F. A. E.
Identification of multiple nuclear export sequences in Fanconi anemia group A protein that contribute to CRM1-dependent nuclear export
Hum. Mol. Genet.
2005
, vol. 
14
 (pg. 
1271
-
1281
)
37
Liu
Q.
Yu
J.
Zhuo
X.
Jiang
Q.
Zhang
C.
Pericentrin contains five NESs and an NLS essential for its nucleocytoplasmic trafficking during the cell cycle
Cell Res.
2010
, vol. 
20
 (pg. 
948
-
962
)
38
Nijman
S. M.
Huang
T. T.
Dirac
A. M.
Brummelkamp
T. R.
Kerkhoven
R. M.
D'Andrea
A. D.
Bernards
R.
The deubiquitinating enzyme USP1 regulates the Fanconi anemia pathway
Mol. Cell
2005
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
331
-
339
)
39
Nicassio
F.
Corrado
N.
Vissers
J. H.
Areces
L. B.
Bergink
S.
Marteijn
J. A.
Geverts
B.
Houtsmuller
A. B.
Vermeulen
W.
Di Fiore
P. P.
Citterio
E.
Human USP3 is a chromatin modifier required for S phase progression and genome stability
Curr. Biol.
2007
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
1972
-
1977
)
40
Fernández-Montalván
A.
Bouwmeester
T.
Joberty
G.
Mader
R.
Mahnke
M.
Pierrat
B.
Schlaeppi
J. M.
Worpenberg
S.
Gerhartz
B.
Biochemical characterization of USP7 reveals post-translational modification sites and structural requirements for substrate processing and subcellular localization
FEBS J.
2007
, vol. 
274
 (pg. 
4256
-
4270
)
41
Komander
D.
Lord
C. J.
Scheel
H.
Swift
S.
Hofmann
K.
Ashworth
A.
Barford
D.
The structure of the CYLD USP domain explains its specificity for Lys63-linked polyubiquitin and reveals a B box module
Mol. Cell
2008
, vol. 
29
 (pg. 
451
-
464
)
42
Enesa
K.
Zakkar
M.
Chaudhury
H.
Luong
le A.
Rawlinson
L.
Mason
J. C.
Haskard
D. O.
Dean
J. L.
Evans
P. C.
NF-κB suppression by the deubiquitinating enzyme Cezanne: a novel negative feedback loop in pro-inflammatory signaling
J. Biol. Chem.
2008
, vol. 
283
 (pg. 
7036
-
7045
)
43
Nakai
K.
Horton
P.
PSORT: a program for detecting sorting signals in proteins and predicting their subcellular localization
Trends Biochem. Sci.
1999
, vol. 
24
 (pg. 
34
-
36
)
44
Kosugi
S.
Hasebe
M.
Tomita
M.
Yanagawa
H.
Systematic identification of cell cycle-dependent yeast nucleocytoplasmic shuttling proteins by prediction of composite motifs
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
2009
, vol. 
106
 (pg. 
10171
-
10176
)
45
Baldi
P.
Brunak
S.
Chauvin
Y.
Andersen
C. A. F.
Nielsen
H.
Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: an overview
Bioinformatics
2000
, vol. 
16
 (pg. 
412
-
424
)
46
Sowa
M. E.
Bennett
E. J.
Gygi
S. P.
Harper
J. W.
Defining the human deubiquitinating enzyme interaction landscape
Cell
2009
, vol. 
138
 (pg. 
389
-
403
)
47
Ye
Y.
Akutsu
M.
Reyes-Turcu
F.
Enchev
R. I.
Wilkinson
K. D.
Komander
D.
Polyubiquitin binding and cross-reactivity in the USP domain deubiquitinase USP21
EMBO Rep.
2011
, vol. 
12
 (pg. 
350
-
357
)

Supplementary data