Insights into the molecular architecture and histone H3-H4 deposition mechanism of yeast Chromatin assembly factor 1

  1. Paul Victor Sauer
  2. Jennifer Timm
  3. Danni Liu
  4. David Sitbon
  5. Elisabetta Boeri-Erba
  6. Christophe Velours
  7. Norbert Mücke
  8. Jörg Langowski
  9. Françoise Ochsenbein
  10. Geneviève Almouzni
  11. Daniel Panne  Is a corresponding author
  1. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, France
  2. CEA, DRF, SB2SM, Laboratoire de Biologie Structurale et Radiobiologie, France
  3. Institut Curie, France
  4. Université Grenoble Alpes, France
  5. CEA, CNRS, Université Paris-Sud, France
  6. Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Germany

Abstract

How the very first step in nucleosome assembly, deposition of histone H3-H4 as tetramers or dimers on DNA, is accomplished remains largely unclear. Here we report that yeast chromatin assembly factor 1 (CAF1), a conserved histone chaperone complex that deposits H3-H4 during DNA replication, binds a single H3-H4 heterodimer in solution. We identify a new DNA binding domain in the large Cac1 subunit of CAF1, which is required for high-affinity DNA binding by the CAF1 three-subunit complex, and which is distinct from the previously described C-terminal winged-helix domain. CAF1 binds preferentially to DNA molecules longer than 40 bp, and two CAF1-H3-H4 complexes concertedly associate with DNA molecules of this size, resulting in deposition of H3-H4 tetramers. While DNA binding is not essential for H3-H4 tetrasome deposition in vitro, it is required for efficient DNA synthesis-coupled nucleosome assembly. Mutant histones with impaired H3-H4 tetramerization interactions fail to release from CAF1, indicating that DNA deposition of H3-H4 tetramers by CAF1 requires a hierarchical cooperation between DNA binding, H3-H4 deposition and histone tetramerization.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Paul Victor Sauer

    European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7204-5863
  2. Jennifer Timm

    European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Danni Liu

    CEA, DRF, SB2SM, Laboratoire de Biologie Structurale et Radiobiologie, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. David Sitbon

    Institut Curie, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Elisabetta Boeri-Erba

    Institut de Biologie Structurale, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Christophe Velours

    Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell, CEA, CNRS, Université Paris-Sud, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Norbert Mücke

    Abteilung Biophysik der Makromoleküle, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jörg Langowski

    Abteilung Biophysik der Makromoleküle, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Françoise Ochsenbein

    CEA, DRF, SB2SM, Laboratoire de Biologie Structurale et Radiobiologie, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Geneviève Almouzni

    Institut Curie, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Daniel Panne

    European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Grenoble, France
    For correspondence
    panne@embl.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9158-5507

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-16-CE11-0028-02)

  • Paul Victor Sauer
  • Jennifer Timm
  • Danni Liu
  • David Sitbon

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2017, Sauer 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

  • 4,068
    views
  • 868
    downloads
  • 55
    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. Paul Victor Sauer
  2. Jennifer Timm
  3. Danni Liu
  4. David Sitbon
  5. Elisabetta Boeri-Erba
  6. Christophe Velours
  7. Norbert Mücke
  8. Jörg Langowski
  9. Françoise Ochsenbein
  10. Geneviève Almouzni
  11. Daniel Panne
(2017)
Insights into the molecular architecture and histone H3-H4 deposition mechanism of yeast Chromatin assembly factor 1
eLife 6:e23474.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23474

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23474

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Marius Landau, Sherif Elsabbagh ... Joachim E Schultz
    Research Article

    The biosynthesis of cyclic 3′,5′-adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) by mammalian membrane-bound adenylyl cyclases (mACs) is predominantly regulated by G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Up to now the two hexahelical transmembrane domains of mACs were considered to fix the enzyme to membranes. Here, we show that the transmembrane domains serve in addition as signal receptors and transmitters of lipid signals that control Gsα-stimulated mAC activities. We identify aliphatic fatty acids and anandamide as receptor ligands of mAC isoforms 1–7 and 9. The ligands enhance (mAC isoforms 2, 3, 7, and 9) or attenuate (isoforms 1, 4, 5, and 6) Gsα-stimulated mAC activities in vitro and in vivo. Substitution of the stimulatory membrane receptor of mAC3 by the inhibitory receptor of mAC5 results in a ligand inhibited mAC5–mAC3 chimera. Thus, we discovered a new class of membrane receptors in which two signaling modalities are at a crossing, direct tonic lipid and indirect phasic GPCR–Gsα signaling regulating the biosynthesis of cAMP.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Shraddha KC, Kenny H Nguyen ... Thomas C Boothby
    Research Article

    The conformational ensemble and function of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are sensitive to their solution environment. The inherent malleability of disordered proteins, combined with the exposure of their residues, accounts for this sensitivity. One context in which IDPs play important roles that are concomitant with massive changes to the intracellular environment is during desiccation (extreme drying). The ability of organisms to survive desiccation has long been linked to the accumulation of high levels of cosolutes such as trehalose or sucrose as well as the enrichment of IDPs, such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins or cytoplasmic abundant heat-soluble (CAHS) proteins. Despite knowing that IDPs play important roles and are co-enriched alongside endogenous, species-specific cosolutes during desiccation, little is known mechanistically about how IDP-cosolute interactions influence desiccation tolerance. Here, we test the notion that the protective function of desiccation-related IDPs is enhanced through conformational changes induced by endogenous cosolutes. We find that desiccation-related IDPs derived from four different organisms spanning two LEA protein families and the CAHS protein family synergize best with endogenous cosolutes during drying to promote desiccation protection. Yet the structural parameters of protective IDPs do not correlate with synergy for either CAHS or LEA proteins. We further demonstrate that for CAHS, but not LEA proteins, synergy is related to self-assembly and the formation of a gel. Our results suggest that functional synergy between IDPs and endogenous cosolutes is a convergent desiccation protection strategy seen among different IDP families and organisms, yet the mechanisms underlying this synergy differ between IDP families.