MutS/MutL crystal structure reveals that the MutS sliding clamp loads MutL onto DNA

  1. Flora S Groothuizen
  2. Ines Winkler
  3. Michele Cristóvão
  4. Alexander Fish
  5. Herrie H K Winterwerp
  6. Annet Reumer
  7. Andreas D Marx
  8. Nicolaas Hermans
  9. Robert A Nicholls
  10. Garib N Murshudov
  11. Joyce H G Lebbink
  12. Peter Friedhoff
  13. Titia K Sixma  Is a corresponding author
  1. Netherlands Cancer Institute, Netherlands
  2. Justus-Liebig-University, Germany
  3. Erasmus Medical Center, Netherlands
  4. MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, United Kingdom

Abstract

To avoid mutations in the genome, DNA replication is generally followed by DNA mismatch repair (MMR). MMR starts when a MutS homolog recognizes a mismatch and undergoes an ATP-dependent transformation to an elusive sliding clamp state. How this transient state promotes MutL homolog recruitment and activation of repair is unclear. Here we present a crystal structure of the MutS/MutL complex using a site-specifically crosslinked complex and examine how large conformational changes lead to activation of MutL. The structure captures MutS in the sliding clamp conformation, where tilting of the MutS subunits across each other pushes DNA into a new channel, and reorientation of the connector domain creates an interface for MutL with both MutS subunits. Our work explains how the sliding clamp promotes loading of MutL onto DNA, to activate downstream effectors. We thus elucidate a crucial mechanism that ensures that MMR is initiated only after detection of a DNA mismatch.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Flora S Groothuizen

    Division of Biochemistry and CGC.nl, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ines Winkler

    Institute for Biochemistry, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Michele Cristóvão

    Institute for Biochemistry, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Alexander Fish

    Division of Biochemistry and CGC.nl, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Herrie H K Winterwerp

    Division of Biochemistry and CGC.nl, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Annet Reumer

    Division of Biochemistry and CGC.nl, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Andreas D Marx

    Institute for Biochemistry, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Nicolaas Hermans

    Department of Genetics, Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Robert A Nicholls

    Structural Studies Division, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Garib N Murshudov

    Structural Studies Division, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Joyce H G Lebbink

    Department of Genetics, Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Peter Friedhoff

    Institute for Biochemistry, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Titia K Sixma

    Division of Biochemistry and CGC.nl, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    t.sixma@nki.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Groothuizen 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

  • 5,769
    views
  • 1,161
    downloads
  • 92
    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. Flora S Groothuizen
  2. Ines Winkler
  3. Michele Cristóvão
  4. Alexander Fish
  5. Herrie H K Winterwerp
  6. Annet Reumer
  7. Andreas D Marx
  8. Nicolaas Hermans
  9. Robert A Nicholls
  10. Garib N Murshudov
  11. Joyce H G Lebbink
  12. Peter Friedhoff
  13. Titia K Sixma
(2015)
MutS/MutL crystal structure reveals that the MutS sliding clamp loads MutL onto DNA
eLife 4:e06744.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06744

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06744

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jinsai Shang, Douglas J Kojetin
    Research Advance

    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yuanyuan Wang, Fan Xu ... Yongning He
    Research Article

    SCARF1 (scavenger receptor class F member 1, SREC-1 or SR-F1) is a type I transmembrane protein that recognizes multiple endogenous and exogenous ligands such as modified low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) and is important for maintaining homeostasis and immunity. But the structural information and the mechanisms of ligand recognition of SCARF1 are largely unavailable. Here, we solve the crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of human SCARF1, which show that SCARF1 forms homodimers and its epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domains adopt a long-curved conformation. Then, we examine the interactions of SCARF1 with lipoproteins and are able to identify a region on SCARF1 for recognizing modified LDLs. The mutagenesis data show that the positively charged residues in the region are crucial for the interaction of SCARF1 with modified LDLs, which is confirmed by making chimeric molecules of SCARF1 and SCARF2. In addition, teichoic acids, a cell wall polymer expressed on the surface of gram-positive bacteria, are able to inhibit the interactions of modified LDLs with SCARF1, suggesting the ligand binding sites of SCARF1 might be shared for some of its scavenging targets. Overall, these results provide mechanistic insights into SCARF1 and its interactions with the ligands, which are important for understanding its physiological roles in homeostasis and the related diseases.