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

  • 5,795
    views
  • 1,174
    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. Neuroscience
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yangyu Wu, Yangyang Yan ... Fred J Sigworth
    Research Article

    We present near-atomic-resolution cryoEM structures of the mammalian voltage-gated potassium channel Kv1.2 in open, C-type inactivated, toxin-blocked and sodium-bound states at 3.2 Å, 2.5 Å, 3.2 Å, and 2.9 Å. These structures, all obtained at nominally zero membrane potential in detergent micelles, reveal distinct ion-occupancy patterns in the selectivity filter. The first two structures are very similar to those reported in the related Shaker channel and the much-studied Kv1.2–2.1 chimeric channel. On the other hand, two new structures show unexpected patterns of ion occupancy. First, the toxin α-Dendrotoxin, like Charybdotoxin, is seen to attach to the negatively-charged channel outer mouth, and a lysine residue penetrates into the selectivity filter, with the terminal amine coordinated by carbonyls, partially disrupting the outermost ion-binding site. In the remainder of the filter two densities of bound ions are observed, rather than three as observed with other toxin-blocked Kv channels. Second, a structure of Kv1.2 in Na+ solution does not show collapse or destabilization of the selectivity filter, but instead shows an intact selectivity filter with ion density in each binding site. We also attempted to image the C-type inactivated Kv1.2 W366F channel in Na+ solution, but the protein conformation was seen to be highly variable and only a low-resolution structure could be obtained. These findings present new insights into the stability of the selectivity filter and the mechanism of toxin block of this intensively studied, voltage-gated potassium channel.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Joseph Clayton, Aarion Romany ... Jana Shen
    Research Article

    Aberrant signaling of BRAFV600E is a major cancer driver. Current FDA-approved RAF inhibitors selectively inhibit the monomeric BRAFV600E and suffer from tumor resistance. Recently, dimer-selective and equipotent RAF inhibitors have been developed; however, the mechanism of dimer selectivity is poorly understood. Here, we report extensive molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of the monomeric and dimeric BRAFV600E in the apo form or in complex with one or two dimer-selective (PHI1) or equipotent (LY3009120) inhibitor(s). The simulations uncovered the unprecedented details of the remarkable allostery in BRAFV600E dimerization and inhibitor binding. Specifically, dimerization retrains and shifts the αC helix inward and increases the flexibility of the DFG motif; dimer compatibility is due to the promotion of the αC-in conformation, which is stabilized by a hydrogen bond formation between the inhibitor and the αC Glu501. A more stable hydrogen bond further restrains and shifts the αC helix inward, which incurs a larger entropic penalty that disfavors monomer binding. This mechanism led us to propose an empirical way based on the co-crystal structure to assess the dimer selectivity of a BRAFV600E inhibitor. Simulations also revealed that the positive cooperativity of PHI1 is due to its ability to preorganize the αC and DFG conformation in the opposite protomer, priming it for binding the second inhibitor. The atomically detailed view of the interplay between BRAF dimerization and inhibitor allostery as well as cooperativity has implications for understanding kinase signaling and contributes to the design of protomer selective RAF inhibitors.