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.

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

  • 1,928
    views
  • 440
    downloads
  • 20
    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. Developmental Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Elise S Bruguera, Jacob P Mahoney, William I Weis
    Research Article

    Wnt/β-catenin signaling directs animal development and tissue renewal in a tightly controlled, cell- and tissue-specific manner. In the mammalian central nervous system, the atypical ligand Norrin controls angiogenesis and maintenance of the blood-brain barrier and blood-retina barrier through the Wnt/β-catenin pathway. Like Wnt, Norrin activates signaling by binding and heterodimerizing the receptors Frizzled (Fzd) and low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 or 6 (LRP5/6), leading to membrane recruitment of the intracellular transducer Dishevelled (Dvl) and ultimately stabilizing the transcriptional coactivator β-catenin. Unlike Wnt, the cystine knot ligand Norrin only signals through Fzd4 and additionally requires the co-receptor Tetraspanin12 (Tspan12); however, the mechanism underlying Tspan12-mediated signal enhancement is unclear. It has been proposed that Tspan12 integrates into the Norrin-Fzd4 complex to enhance Norrin-Fzd4 affinity or otherwise allosterically modulate Fzd4 signaling. Here, we measure direct, high-affinity binding between purified Norrin and Tspan12 in a lipid environment and use AlphaFold models to interrogate this interaction interface. We find that Tspan12 and Fzd4 can simultaneously bind Norrin and that a pre-formed Tspan12/Fzd4 heterodimer, as well as cells co-expressing Tspan12 and Fzd4, more efficiently capture low concentrations of Norrin than Fzd4 alone. We also show that Tspan12 competes with both heparan sulfate proteoglycans and LRP6 for Norrin binding and that Tspan12 does not impact Fzd4-Dvl affinity in the presence or absence of Norrin. Our findings suggest that Tspan12 does not allosterically enhance Fzd4 binding to Norrin or Dvl, but instead functions to directly capture Norrin upstream of signaling.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Laura-Marie Silbermann, Benjamin Vermeer ... Katarzyna Tych
    Review Article

    Molecular chaperones are vital proteins that maintain protein homeostasis by assisting in protein folding, activation, degradation, and stress protection. Among them, heat-shock protein 90 (Hsp90) stands out as an essential proteostasis hub in eukaryotes, chaperoning hundreds of ‘clients’ (substrates). After decades of research, several ‘known unknowns’ about the molecular function of Hsp90 remain unanswered, hampering rational drug design for the treatment of cancers, neurodegenerative, and other diseases. We highlight three fundamental open questions, reviewing the current state of the field for each, and discuss new opportunities, including single-molecule technologies, to answer the known unknowns of the Hsp90 chaperone.