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

  • 1,903
    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
    Callum M Ives, Linh Nguyen ... Elisa Fadda
    Research Article

    Glycosylation of the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein represents a key target for viral evolution because it affects both viral evasion and fitness. Successful variations in the glycan shield are difficult to achieve though, as protein glycosylation is also critical to folding and structural stability. Within this framework, the identification of glycosylation sites that are structurally dispensable can provide insight into the evolutionary mechanisms of the shield and inform immune surveillance. In this work, we show through over 45 μs of cumulative sampling from conventional and enhanced molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, how the structure of the immunodominant S receptor binding domain (RBD) is regulated by N-glycosylation at N343 and how this glycan’s structural role changes from WHu-1, alpha (B.1.1.7), and beta (B.1.351), to the delta (B.1.617.2), and omicron (BA.1 and BA.2.86) variants. More specifically, we find that the amphipathic nature of the N-glycan is instrumental to preserve the structural integrity of the RBD hydrophobic core and that loss of glycosylation at N343 triggers a specific and consistent conformational change. We show how this change allosterically regulates the conformation of the receptor binding motif (RBM) in the WHu-1, alpha, and beta RBDs, but not in the delta and omicron variants, due to mutations that reinforce the RBD architecture. In support of these findings, we show that the binding of the RBD to monosialylated ganglioside co-receptors is highly dependent on N343 glycosylation in the WHu-1, but not in the delta RBD, and that affinity changes significantly across VoCs. Ultimately, the molecular and functional insight we provide in this work reinforces our understanding of the role of glycosylation in protein structure and function and it also allows us to identify the structural constraints within which the glycosylation site at N343 can become a hotspot for mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 S glycan shield.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Thomas RM Germe, Natassja G Bush ... Anthony Maxwell
    Research Article

    DNA gyrase, a ubiquitous bacterial enzyme, is a type IIA topoisomerase formed by heterotetramerisation of 2 GyrA subunits and 2 GyrB subunits, to form the active complex. DNA gyrase can loop DNA around the C-terminal domains (CTDs) of GyrA and pass one DNA duplex through a transient double-strand break (DSB) established in another duplex. This results in the conversion from a positive (+1) to a negative (–1) supercoil, thereby introducing negative supercoiling into the bacterial genome by steps of 2, an activity essential for DNA replication and transcription. The strong protein interface in the GyrA dimer must be broken to allow passage of the transported DNA segment and it is generally assumed that the interface is usually stable and only opens when DNA is transported, to prevent the introduction of deleterious DSBs in the genome. In this paper, we show that DNA gyrase can exchange its DNA-cleaving interfaces between two active heterotetramers. This so-called interface ‘swapping’ (IS) can occur within a few minutes in solution. We also show that bending of DNA by gyrase is essential for cleavage but not for DNA binding per se and favors IS. Interface swapping is also favored by DNA wrapping and an excess of GyrB. We suggest that proximity, promoted by GyrB oligomerization and binding and wrapping along a length of DNA, between two heterotetramers favors rapid interface swapping. This swapping does not require ATP, occurs in the presence of fluoroquinolones, and raises the possibility of non-homologous recombination solely through gyrase activity. The ability of gyrase to undergo interface swapping explains how gyrase heterodimers, containing a single active-site tyrosine, can carry out double-strand passage reactions and therefore suggests an alternative explanation to the recently proposed ‘swivelling’ mechanism for DNA gyrase (Gubaev et al., 2016).