DNA Helicases: Molecular watchdogs on genome patrol
- Harvard Medical School, United States
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States
Helicases are enzymes that are best known for unwinding the DNA double helix in preparation for it to be replicated. These helicases, which consist of six protein subunits that form a closed ring, work by sliding along one strand of the DNA molecule. Other helicases function as single subunits. These monomeric helicases, which also work by sliding along DNA or RNA molecules, perform many other functions in cells. To date, there are many aspects of these monomeric helicases that remain poorly understood, including how they specialize to perform different tasks within a cell.
Now, in eLife, Taekjip Ha and co-workers at the University of Illinois in Urbana Champaign and Princeton University—including Ruobo Zhou as the first author—have used biophysical techniques to investigate the Pif1 helicase from budding yeast (Zhou et al., 2014). Pif1 is the representative member of a family of monomeric helicases that are conserved from bacteria to humans. Pif1 is ‘a jack of all trades’: it inhibits enzymes that extend the ends of chromosomes (Boule et al., 2005); it helps to link fragments of newly copied DNA (Okazaki fragments) into a continuous strand (Boule and Zakian, 2006; Bochman et al., 2010); and it helps to swap genetic material between chromosomes (Wilson et al., 2013). Pif1 is also thought to prevent the DNA replication machinery from becoming stalled by DNA structures called ‘G-quadruplexes’ (Paeschke et al., 2011, 2013).
To monitor the activity of individual molecules of Pif1, Zhou et al. designed double-stranded DNA molecules with a single-stranded overhang at one end, and used a technique called Förster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET for short; Roy et al., 2008) to follow how the distance between the two ends of the overhang changed with time (Figure 1). These single-molecule FRET experiments revealed that the Pif1 monomer bound to the junction between the single-stranded and double-stranded DNA, and that it repeatedly ‘reeled in’ the single-stranded overhang, most likely in one-base steps (Figure 1A). Zhou et al. called this activity ‘patrolling’ and showed that an individual Pif1 molecule could complete hundreds of rounds of patrolling (which showed that it was very stably anchored to the junction).
Figure 1
Pif1 patrolling and its diverse genome-maintenance tasks.
(A) Experimental set-up of the single-molecule experiments in Zhou et al. A helicase substrate consisting of a short DNA double helix (red and blue) with a 3′ overhang (blue) was attached to a glass coverslip (grey). A technique called FRET was used to monitor how the distance between the two ends of the overhang changed over time: this involved adding two organic dyes, a donor (green star) and an acceptor (orange star), to the ends of the overhang and recording how the amount of light emitted by the donor and the acceptor changed with time. Zhou et al. found that Pif1 anchored itself to the junction between the double-stranded DNA and the overhang, and periodically patrolled the single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) overhang by repeatedly reeling it in and forming loops. (B) The patrolling activity discovered by Zhou et al. provides a common basis for the diverse functions performed by Pif1 in living cells. (i) It unwinds G-quadruplexes in G-rich regions and facilitates the joining of the Okazaki fragments synthesized by the lagging strand polymerase. (ii) It inhibits the activity of telomerases at double-stranded DNA breaks and also at the ends of chromosomes. (iii) Pif1 also unwinds hybrids of RNA (shown in dark green) and DNA at so-called R-loops.
How does this patrolling activity relate to the multitude of tasks that Pif1 performs in a cell? Zhou et al. challenged the helicase with three obstacles that it might encounter in living cells: double-stranded DNA, RNA-DNA hybrids, and G-quadruplexes. This last obstacle—which forms when a stretch of DNA containing several consecutive guanine or ‘G’ bases folds back upon itself to form a stable three-dimensional structure—can prevent gene expression and slow down DNA replication. Zhou et al. reveal that Pif1 can efficiently unfold any G-quadruplexes that it encounters as it patrols single-stranded DNA. Although these structures rapidly refold after the Pif1 has passed, repeated patrolling by Pif1 ensures that G-quadruplexes remain unfolded.
Pif1 is known to facilitate the replication of DNA sequences that are rich in G bases and therefore prone to forming G-quadruplexes (Paeschke et al., 2011, 2013). Pif1 might do this by anchoring itself to an end of a newly replicated DNA fragment and clearing out G-quadruplexes that would otherwise obstruct the DNA replication machinery (Figure 1B). Similarly, Pif1 could periodically patrol single-stranded DNA at the ends of chromosomes to unwind G-quadruplexes and evict the enzymes that extend these regions (Boule and Zakian, 2007; Paeschke et al., 2013).
Zhou et al. also found that monomeric Pif1 can slowly unwind a RNA-DNA hybrid, but cannot unwind double-stranded DNA. Given that RNA-DNA hybrids are at least as stable as a DNA double helix (Lesnik and Freier, 1995), this finding supports previous work which suggested that Pif1 specifically recognizes and unwinds RNA-DNA hybrids (Figure 1B; Boule and Zakian, 2007). Zhou et al. also found that increasing the concentration of the enzyme could enable Pif1 to unwind double-stranded DNA, but suggest that this was due to multiple copies of Pif1 working together—something that has been observed for other monomeric helicases (Lohman et al., 2008).
Eukaryotic genomes encode a large number of monomeric helicases (Lohman et al., 2008), which suggests that these enzymes each perform specialized tasks. To test this idea, Zhou et al. compared Pif1 with another monomeric helicase called PcrA, which also translocates along single-stranded DNA and displaces proteins bound to this DNA (Park et al., 2010). Although PcrA also patrolled DNA, it could not disrupt G-quadruplexes—indicating that periodic patrolling of single-stranded DNA alone is not sufficient to unwind G-quadruplexes. The findings of Zhou et al. also suggest that monomeric helicases possess unique adaptations suited for their own specialized task.
Zhou, Ha and colleagues have uncovered a basic mechanism by which helicases belonging to the Pif1 family might carry out a wide range of genome-maintenance tasks. In light of these findings, several questions arise: Do individual molecules of Pif1 work in the same way in living cells? Can multiple copies of Pif1 join forces and work together in vivo and how is this process regulated? It will be interesting to know if Pif1 can patrol far enough to span the distance between neighboring Okazaki fragments. Moreover, can the helicase patrol when anchored to an RNA-DNA hybrid, as found at the 5′ end of Okazaki fragments?
References
-
Roles of Pif1-like helicases in the maintenance of genomic stabilityNucleic Acids Research 34:4147–4153.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl561
-
The yeast Pif1p DNA helicase preferentially unwinds RNA-DNA substratesNucleic Acids Research 35:5809–5818.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm613
-
Relative thermodynamics stability of DNA, RNA, and DNA: RNA hybrid duplexes: relationship with base composition and structureBiochemistry 34:10807–10815.
-
Non-hexameric DNA helicases and translocases: mechanisms and regulationNature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 9:391–401.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2394
-
A practical guide to single-molecule FRETNature Methods 5:507–516.https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1208
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2014, Chistol and Walter
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,270
- views
-
- 64
- downloads
-
- 3
- 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)
DNA Helicases: Molecular watchdogs on genome patrol
eLife 3:e02854.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02854
Further reading
-
- Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
- Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.
-
- Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.
