Mechanistic Questions About E3 Function

One of the central mechanistic questions regarding ubiquitination has been whether the reaction utilizes general acid/base catalysis, possibly in a manner analogous to the catalysis of peptide-bond cleavage. For example, an acidic catalytic residue could deprotonate the substrate lysine and make it a better nucleophile for attacking the ubiquitin thioester bond. In addition, a basic catalytic residue could polarize the thioester bond making the carbonyl carbon a better electrophile, and 

Ubiquitin-protein ligases promote not only the attachment of ubiquitin to the protein substrates but also the extension of the ubiquitin chain. What determines the choice between mono- vs. polyubiquitination is not well understood. It is possible that certain E3s catalyze only mono-ubiquitination. Alternatively, factors other than E3s might be responsible for the attachment of a single ubiquitin. Eor example, ubiquitin-binding accessory proteins have been suggested to block extension of the ubiquitin chain [25], whereas E3-associated ubiquitin hydrolase could trim down the polyubiquitin chain. The identification and characterization of ubiquitin E2 variant proteins (UEVs) have provided an explanation for the assembly of K63-linked polyubiquitin chains [26, 27]. As discussed later, UEVs can be considered as special E3s, with the ubiquitin chain as their substrates. 

The E6AP HECT Domain in Complex With UbcH7 

Similar to other HECT E3s, E6AP consists of a - 40-kDa C-terminal HECT domain and an N-terminal region containing sequences involved in binding E6-p53, 

Surface representation of the E6AP HECT domain, showing that conserved HECT domain residues map to the catalytic cleft defined by 

---