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 5,650
  • 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

  • 5,650
    Page views
  • 1,397
    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. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Structure of HIV-1 gp41 with its membrane anchors targeted by neutralizing antibodies

    Caillat Christophe et al.
    Research Article

    The HIV-1 gp120/gp41 trimer undergoes a series of conformational changes in order to catalyze gp41-induced fusion of viral and cellular membranes. Here, we present the crystal structure of gp41 locked in a fusion intermediate state by an MPER-specific neutralizing antibody. The structure illustrates the conformational plasticity of the six membrane anchors arranged asymmetrically with the fusion peptides and the transmembrane regions pointing into different directions. Hinge regions located adjacent to the fusion peptide and the transmembrane region facilitate the conformational flexibility that allows high affinity binding of broadly neutralizing anti-MPER antibodies. Molecular dynamics simulation of the MPER Ab-stabilized gp41 conformation reveals a possible transition pathway into the final post-fusion conformation with the central fusion peptides forming a hydrophobic core with flanking transmembrane regions. This suggests that MPER-specific broadly neutralizing antibodies can block final steps of refolding of the fusion peptide and the transmembrane region, which is required for completing membrane fusion.

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Discovery and characterization of a novel family of prokaryotic nanocompartments involved in sulfur metabolism

    Robert J Nichols et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Prokaryotic nanocompartments, also known as encapsulins, are a recently discovered proteinaceous organelle-like compartment in prokaryotes that compartmentalize cargo enzymes. While initial studies have begun to elucidate the structure and physiological roles of encapsulins, bioinformatic evidence suggests that a great diversity of encapsulin nanocompartments remains unexplored. Here, we describe a novel encapsulin in the freshwater cyanobacterium Synechococcus elongatus PCC 7942. This nanocompartment is upregulated upon sulfate starvation and encapsulates a cysteine desulfurase enzyme via an N-terminal targeting sequence. Using cryo-electron microscopy, we have determined the structure of the nanocompartment complex to 2.2 Å resolution. Lastly, biochemical characterization of the complex demonstrated that the activity of the cysteine desulfurase is enhanced upon encapsulation. Taken together, our discovery, structural analysis, and enzymatic characterization of this prokaryotic nanocompartment provide a foundation for future studies seeking to understand the physiological role of this encapsulin in various bacteria.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Cryo-EM structure of the yeast TREX complex and coordination with the SR-like protein Gbp2

    Yihu Xie et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The evolutionarily conserved TRanscript-EXport (TREX) complex plays central roles during mRNP (messenger ribonucleoprotein) maturation and export from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. In yeast, TREX is composed of the THO sub-complex (Tho2, Hpr1, Tex1, Mft1, and Thp2), the DEAD box ATPase Sub2, and Yra1. Here we present a 3.7 Å cryo-EM structure of the yeast THO•Sub2 complex. The structure reveals the intimate assembly of THO revolving around its largest subunit Tho2. THO stabilizes a semi-open conformation of the Sub2 ATPase via interactions with Tho2. We show that THO interacts with the serine–arginine (SR)-like protein Gbp2 through both the RS domain and RRM domains of Gbp2. Cross-linking mass spectrometry analysis supports the extensive interactions between THO and Gbp2, further revealing that RRM domains of Gbp2 are in close proximity to the C-terminal domain of Tho2. We propose that THO serves as a landing pad to configure Gbp2 to facilitate its loading onto mRNP.