1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

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
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08719
Share this article
Cite this article
  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
(2015)
Molecular architecture of the yeast Mediator complex
eLife 4:e08719.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08719
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

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.

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

  • 5,877
    views
  • 1,483
    downloads
  • 131
    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. 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
(2015)
Molecular architecture of the yeast Mediator complex
eLife 4:e08719.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08719

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08719

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    The Arthropoda-specific Tramtrack group BTB protein domains use previously unknown interface to form hexamers

    Artem N Bonchuk, Konstantin I Balagurov ... Pavel G Georgiev
    Research Article Updated

    BTB (bric-a-brack, Tramtrack, and broad complex) is a diverse group of protein-protein interaction domains found within metazoan proteins. Transcription factors contain a dimerizing BTB subtype with a characteristic N-terminal extension. The Tramtrack group (TTK) is a distinct type of BTB domain, which can multimerize. Single-particle cryo-EM microscopy revealed that the TTK-type BTB domains assemble into a hexameric structure consisting of three canonical BTB dimers connected through a previously uncharacterized interface. We demonstrated that the TTK-type BTB domains are found only in Arthropods and have undergone lineage-specific expansion in modern insects. The Drosophila genome encodes 24 transcription factors with TTK-type BTB domains, whereas only four have non-TTK-type BTB domains. Yeast two-hybrid analysis revealed that the TTK-type BTB domains have an unusually broad potential for heteromeric associations presumably through a dimer-dimer interaction interface. Thus, the TTK-type BTB domains are a structurally and functionally distinct group of protein domains specific to Arthropodan transcription factors.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Cryo-EM structure of the CBC-ALYREF complex

    Bradley P Clarke, Alexia E Angelos ... Yi Ren
    Research Article

    In eukaryotes, RNAs transcribed by RNA Pol II are modified at the 5′ end with a 7-methylguanosine (m7G) cap, which is recognized by the nuclear cap binding complex (CBC). The CBC plays multiple important roles in mRNA metabolism, including transcription, splicing, polyadenylation, and export. It promotes mRNA export through direct interaction with a key mRNA export factor, ALYREF, which in turn links the TRanscription and EXport (TREX) complex to the 5′ end of mRNA. However, the molecular mechanism for CBC-mediated recruitment of the mRNA export machinery is not well understood. Here, we present the first structure of the CBC in complex with an mRNA export factor, ALYREF. The cryo-EM structure of CBC-ALYREF reveals that the RRM domain of ALYREF makes direct contact with both the NCBP1 and NCBP2 subunits of the CBC. Comparing CBC-ALYREF with other cellular complexes containing CBC and/or ALYREF components provides insights into the coordinated events during mRNA transcription, splicing, and export.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    PPI-hotspotID for detecting protein–protein interaction hot spots from the free protein structure

    Yao Chi Chen, Karen Sargsyan ... Carmay Lim
    Research Article

    Experimental detection of residues critical for protein–protein interactions (PPI) is a time-consuming, costly, and labor-intensive process. Hence, high-throughput PPI-hot spot prediction methods have been developed, but they have been validated using relatively small datasets, which may compromise their predictive reliability. Here, we introduce PPI-hotspotID, a novel method for identifying PPI-hot spots using the free protein structure, and validated it on the largest collection of experimentally confirmed PPI-hot spots to date. We explored the possibility of detecting PPI-hot spots using (i) FTMap in the PPI mode, which identifies hot spots on protein–protein interfaces from the free protein structure, and (ii) the interface residues predicted by AlphaFold-Multimer. PPI-hotspotID yielded better performance than FTMap and SPOTONE, a webserver for predicting PPI-hot spots given the protein sequence. When combined with the AlphaFold-Multimer-predicted interface residues, PPI-hotspotID yielded better performance than either method alone. Furthermore, we experimentally verified several PPI-hotspotID-predicted PPI-hot spots of eukaryotic elongation factor 2. Notably, PPI-hotspotID can reveal PPI-hot spots not obvious from complex structures, including those in indirect contact with binding partners. PPI-hotspotID serves as a valuable tool for understanding PPI mechanisms and aiding drug design. It is available as a web server (https://ppihotspotid.limlab.dnsalias.org/) and open-source code (https://github.com/wrigjz/ppihotspotid/).