The structural kinetics of switch-1 and the neck linker explain the functions of kinesin-1 and Eg5

Kinesins perform mechanical work to power a variety of cellular functions, from mitosis to organelle transport. Distinct functions shape distinct enzymologies, and this is illustrated by comparing kinesin-1, a highly processive transport motor that can work alone, to Eg5, a minimally processive mitotic motor that works in large ensembles. Although crystallographic models for both motors reveal similar structures for the domains involved in mechanochemical transduction—including switch-1 and the neck linker—how movement of these two domains is coordinated through the ATPase cycle remains unknown. We have addressed this issue by using a novel combination of transient kinetics and time-resolved fluorescence, which we refer to as “structural kinetics,” to map the timing of structural changes in the switch-1 loop and neck linker. We find that differences between the structural kinetics of Eg5 and kinesin-1 yield insights into how these two motors adapt their enzymologies for their distinct functions.There are more than 42 kinesin genes in the human genome, representing 14 distinct classes (1). All are members of the P-loop NTPase superfamily of nucleotide triphosphate hydrolases (2–4). Like other NTPases, kinesins share a conserved Walker motif nucleotide-binding fold (2, 4) that consists of a central twisted β-sheet and three nucleotide-binding loops, which are termed switch-1, switch-2, and the P-loop. Kinesins also share a common microtubule (MT) binding interface, which isomerizes between states that either bind MTs weakly or strongly, and a mechanical element, termed the neck linker (NL). The NL has been proposed to isomerize between two conformations: one that is flexible and termed undocked, and the other that is ordered and termed docked, where it interacts with a cleft in the motor domain formed by the twisted β-sheet and is oriented along the MT axis (5–7). NL isomerization (5, 8) is hypothesized to be the force-generating transition in kinesin motors (6, 7, 9–11), and its position has also been proposed to coordinate the ATPase cycles of processive kinesin dimers by regulating nucleotide binding and hydrolysis (11).Spectroscopic and structural studies have led to a model to explain how kinesins generate force (5–7, 9, 10, 12–15) (summarized in SI Appendix, Fig. S1), which proposes that the conformations of the nucleotide binding site, the MT-binding interface, and the NL are all determined by the state of the catalytic site. It predicts that when unbound to the MT, the motor contains ADP in its catalytic site and its NL is undocked. MT binding accelerates ADP dissociation, thereby allowing ATP to bind, the NL to dock, and mechanical work to be performed. ATP hydrolysis and phosphate release are then followed by dissociation from the MT to complete the cycle (5, 7–10, 14). This model also argues that: (i) NL docking of the MT-attached motor domain moves the tethered, trailing head into a forward position, where it undergoes a biased diffusional search to attach to the next MT-binding site (11, 14); (ii) switch-1, which coordinates the γ-phosphate of ATP, alternates between two conformations, referred to as “open” and “closed,” and the NL alternates between docked and undocked (5, 6, 10, 13–15); and (iii) coordination between the conformations of switch-1 and the NL regulates the timing of the ATPase cycles of the two motor domains in processive kinesin dimers (11). However, the model fails to explain several features of kinesins. For example, it predicts that ATP does not bind to kinesin when the NL is docked. This prediction is inconsistent with studies of both Eg5 and kinesin-1, which suggest ATP binds more readily when the NL is docked (11, 16, 17). The model also predicts that the NL should be docked after ATP binding. However, electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) probes attached to the NL show a significant population of both mobile and immobile NL states in the presence of both pre- and posthydrolytic ATP analogs (5). Furthermore, the model cannot explain the load dependence of stall, detachment, and back stepping, all of which require a branched pathway (11).To resolve these uncertainties, we have measured the kinetics of the structural changes that occur in switch-1 and the NL with nucleotide binding while the motor is bound to the MT in an experimental design that we refer to as “structural kinetics.” We carried out these experiments using an novel spectroscopic approach, termed transient time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer, (TR)²FRET, that allows us to monitor the kinetics and thermodynamics of both the undocked/docked transition in the NL and the open/closed transition in switch-1 that accompany the process of nucleotide binding. These experiments explain differences in the enzymologies of kinesin-1 and Eg5 and suggest an interesting role for the L5 loop in controlling the timing of conformational changes in the Eg5 switch-1 and NL.