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

  • 5,802
    views
  • 1,184
    downloads
  • 93
    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. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    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.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    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.