Structural basis for recognition and remodeling of the TBP:DNA:NC2 complex by Mot1

  1. Agata Butryn
  2. Jan M Schuller
  3. Gabriele Stoehr
  4. Petra Runge-Wollmann
  5. Friedrich Förster
  6. David T Auble
  7. Karl-Peter Hopfner  Is a corresponding author
  1. Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany
  3. University of Virginia Health System, United States
  4. Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Germany

Abstract

Swi2/Snf2 ATPases remodel substrates such as nucleosomes and transcription complexes to control a wide range of DNA associated processes, but detailed structural information on the ATP-dependent remodeling reactions is largely absent. The single subunit remodeler Mot1 dissociates TATA box-binding protein (TBP):DNA complexes, offering a useful system to address the structural mechanisms of Swi2/Snf2 ATPases. Here we report the crystal structure of the N-terminal domain of Mot1 in complex with TBP, DNA, and the transcription regulator NC2. Our data show that Mot1 reduces DNA:NC2 interactions and unbends DNA as compared to the TBP:DNA:NC2 state, suggesting that Mot1 primes TBP:NC2 displacement in an ATP-independent manner. Electron microscopy and cross-linking data suggest that the Swi2/Snf2 domain of Mot1 associates with the upstream DNA and the histone fold of NC2, thereby revealing parallels to some nucleosome remodelers. This study provides a structural framework for how a Swi2/Snf2 ATPase interacts with its substrate DNA:protein complex.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Agata Butryn

    Gene Center, Department of Biochemistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jan M Schuller

    Department of Molecular Structural Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Gabriele Stoehr

    Gene Center, Department of Biochemistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Petra Runge-Wollmann

    Gene Center, Department of Biochemistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Friedrich Förster

    Department of Molecular Structural Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. David T Auble

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Karl-Peter Hopfner

    Gene Center, Department of Biochemistry, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Germany
    For correspondence
    hopfner@genzentrum.lmu.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. John Kuriyan, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Version history

  1. Received: March 11, 2015
  2. Accepted: August 8, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 10, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 11, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Butryn et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,894
    views
  • 436
    downloads
  • 19
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Agata Butryn
  2. Jan M Schuller
  3. Gabriele Stoehr
  4. Petra Runge-Wollmann
  5. Friedrich Förster
  6. David T Auble
  7. Karl-Peter Hopfner
(2015)
Structural basis for recognition and remodeling of the TBP:DNA:NC2 complex by Mot1
eLife 4:e07432.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07432

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07432

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christian Galicia, Giambattista Guaitoli ... Wim Versées
    Research Article

    Roco proteins entered the limelight after mutations in human LRRK2 were identified as a major cause of familial Parkinson’s disease. LRRK2 is a large and complex protein combining a GTPase and protein kinase activity, and disease mutations increase the kinase activity, while presumably decreasing the GTPase activity. Although a cross-communication between both catalytic activities has been suggested, the underlying mechanisms and the regulatory role of the GTPase domain remain unknown. Several structures of LRRK2 have been reported, but structures of Roco proteins in their activated GTP-bound state are lacking. Here, we use single-particle cryo-electron microscopy to solve the structure of a bacterial Roco protein (CtRoco) in its GTP-bound state, aided by two conformation-specific nanobodies: NbRoco1 and NbRoco2. This structure presents CtRoco in an active monomeric state, featuring a very large GTP-induced conformational change using the LRR-Roc linker as a hinge. Furthermore, this structure shows how NbRoco1 and NbRoco2 collaborate to activate CtRoco in an allosteric way. Altogether, our data provide important new insights into the activation mechanism of Roco proteins, with relevance to LRRK2 regulation, and suggest new routes for the allosteric modulation of their GTPase activity.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Arne Elofsson, Ling Han ... Luca Jovine
    Research Article

    A crucial event in sexual reproduction is when haploid sperm and egg fuse to form a new diploid organism at fertilization. In mammals, direct interaction between egg JUNO and sperm IZUMO1 mediates gamete membrane adhesion, yet their role in fusion remains enigmatic. We used AlphaFold to predict the structure of other extracellular proteins essential for fertilization to determine if they could form a complex that may mediate fusion. We first identified TMEM81, whose gene is expressed by mouse and human spermatids, as a protein having structural homologies with both IZUMO1 and another sperm molecule essential for gamete fusion, SPACA6. Using a set of proteins known to be important for fertilization and TMEM81, we then systematically searched for predicted binary interactions using an unguided approach and identified a pentameric complex involving sperm IZUMO1, SPACA6, TMEM81 and egg JUNO, CD9. This complex is structurally consistent with both the expected topology on opposing gamete membranes and the location of predicted N-glycans not modeled by AlphaFold-Multimer, suggesting that its components could organize into a synapse-like assembly at the point of fusion. Finally, the structural modeling approach described here could be more generally useful to gain insights into transient protein complexes difficult to detect experimentally.