Determinants of receptor tyrosine phosphatase homophilic adhesion: structural comparison of PTPRK and PTPRM extracellular domains

The type IIB receptor protein tyrosine phosphatases (R2B RPTPs) are cell surface transmembrane proteins that engage in cell adhesion via their extracellular domains (ECDs) and cell signaling via their cytoplasmic phosphatase domains. The ECDs of R2B RPTPs form stable, homophilic, trans interactions between adjacent cell membranes. Previous work has demonstrated how one family member, PTPRM, forms homodimers; however, the determinants of homophilic specificity remain unknown. We have solved the X-ray crystal structure of the membrane-distal, N-terminal domains of PTPRK that form a head-to-tail dimer consistent with intermembrane adhesion. Comparison with the PTPRM structure demonstrates inter-domain conformational differences that may define homophilic specificity. Using small-angle X-ray scattering we determined the solution structures of the full-length ECDs of PTPRM and PTPRK, identifying that both are rigid, extended molecules that differ in their overall long-range conformation. Furthermore, we identify one residue, W351, within the interaction interface that differs between PTPRM and PTPRK and show that mutation to glycine, the equivalent residue in PTPRM, abolishes PTPRK dimer formation in vitro . This comparison of two members of the receptor tyrosine phosphatase family suggest that homophilic specificity is driven by a combination of shape complementarity and specific but limited sequence differences. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Cell-cell contacts are dynamically regulated, in part, by the actions of tyrosine kinases and phosphatases. The R2B family of receptor tyrosine phosphatases combine an adhesive extracellular domain with intracellular catalytic domains that bind and dephosphorylate key cell adhesion and polarity proteins. Previous work demonstrated that the extracellular domains form head-to-tail homodimers but, as the interface was composed of residues conserved across the family, homophilic specificity determinants remained unclear. We have used a range of structural techniques including X-ray crystallography, small angle X-ray scattering and AlphaFold modelling to demonstrate that, despite their similarity, two members of the R2B family possess significant differences in their overall shape. Our results support that a combination of subtle shape and sequence variations may determine homophilic binding. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.