1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Download icon

Molecular architecture of the yeast Mediator complex

  1. Philip J Robinson
  2. Michael J Trnka
  3. Riccardo Pellarin
  4. Charles H Greenberg
  5. David A Bushnell
  6. Ralph Davis
  7. Alma L Burlingame
  8. Andrej Sali
  9. Roger D Kornberg  Is a corresponding author
  1. Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  2. University of California, San Francisco, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 84
  • Views 5,582
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e08719 doi: 10.7554/eLife.08719

Abstract

The 21-subunit Mediator complex transduces regulatory information from enhancers to promoters, and performs an essential role in the initiation of transcription in all eukaryotes. Structural information on two-thirds of the complex has been limited to coarse subunit mapping onto 2-D images from electron micrographs. We have performed chemical cross-linking and mass spectrometry, and combined the results with information from X-ray crystallography, homology modeling, and cryo-electron microscopy by an integrative modeling approach to determine a 3-D model of the entire Mediator complex. The approach is validated by the use of X-ray crystal structures as internal controls and by consistency with previous results from electron microscopy and yeast two-hybrid screens. The model shows the locations and orientations of all Mediator subunits, as well as subunit interfaces and some secondary structural elements. Segments of 20-40 amino acid residues are placed with an average precision of 20 Å. The model reveals roles of individual subunits in the organization of the complex.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Philip J Robinson

    Department of Structural Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Michael J Trnka

    Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. Riccardo Pellarin

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Charles H Greenberg

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. David A Bushnell

    Department of Structural Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. Ralph Davis

    Department of Structural Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. Alma L Burlingame

    Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  8. Andrej Sali

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  9. Roger D Kornberg

    Department of Structural Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    kornberg@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Irwin Davidson, Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, France

Publication history

  1. Received: May 14, 2015
  2. Accepted: September 23, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 24, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 4, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Robinson 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

  • 5,582
    Page views
  • 1,389
    Downloads
  • 84
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Properdin oligomers adopt rigid extended conformations supporting function

    Dennis V Pedersen et al.
    Research Article

    Properdin stabilizes convertases formed upon activation of the complement cascade within the immune system. The biological activity of properdin depends on the oligomerization state, but whether properdin oligomers are rigid and how their structure links to function remains unknown. We show by combining electron microscopy and solution scattering, that properdin oligomers adopt extended rigid and well-defined conformations that are well approximated by single models of apparent n-fold rotational symmetry with dimensions of 230-360 Å. Properdin monomers are pretzel shaped molecules with limited flexibility. In solution, properdin dimers are curved molecules whereas trimers and tetramers are close to being planar molecules. Structural analysis indicates that simultaneous binding through all binding sites to surface linked convertases is unlikely for properdin trimer and tetramers. We show that multivalency alone is insufficient for full activity in a cell lysis assay. Hence, the observed rigid extended oligomer structure is an integral component of properdin function.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Structural basis for transcription complex disruption by the Mfd translocase

    Jin Young Kang et al.
    Research Article

    Transcription-coupled repair (TCR) is a sub-pathway of nucleotide excision repair (NER) that preferentially removes lesions from the template-strand (t-strand) that stall RNA polymerase (RNAP) elongation complexes (EC). Mfd mediates TCR in bacteria by removing the stalled RNAP concealing the lesion and recruiting Uvr(A)BC. We used cryo-electron microscopy to visualize Mfd engaging with a stalled EC and attempting to dislodge the RNAP. We visualized seven distinct Mfd-EC complexes in both ATP and ADP-bound states. The structures explain how Mfd is remodeled from its repressed conformation, how the UvrA-interacting surface of Mfd is hidden during most of the remodeling process to prevent premature engagement with the NER pathway, how Mfd alters the RNAP conformation to facilitate disassembly, and how Mfd forms a processive translocation complex after dislodging the RNAP. Our results reveal an elaborate mechanism for how Mfd kinetically discriminates paused from stalled ECs and disassembles stalled ECs to initiate TCR.

    1. Plant Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Enzymes: The two roles of complex III in plants

    Hans-Peter Braun
    Insight

    Atomic structures of mitochondrial enzyme complexes in plants are shedding light on their multiple functions.