An advanced cell cycle tag toolbox reveals principles underlying temporal control of structure-selective nucleases

  1. Julia Bittmann
  2. Rokas Grigaitis
  3. Lorenzo Galanti
  4. Silas Amarell
  5. Florian Wilfling
  6. Joao Matos
  7. Boris Pfander  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany
  2. ETH Zurich, Switzerland
  3. ETH Zürich, Switzerland

Abstract

Cell cycle tags allow to restrict target protein expression to specific cell cycle phases. Here, we present an advanced toolbox of cell cycle tag constructs in budding yeast with defined and compatible peak expression that allow comparison of protein functionality at different cell cycle phases. We apply this technology to the question of how and when Mus81-Mms4 and Yen1 nucleases act on DNA replication or recombination structures. Restriction of Mus81-Mms4 to M phase but not S phase allows a wildtype response to various forms of replication perturbation and DNA damage in S phase, suggesting it acts as a post-replicative resolvase. Moreover, we use cell cycle tags to reinstall cell cycle control to a deregulated version of Yen1, showing that its premature activation interferes with the response to perturbed replication. Curbing resolvase activity and establishing a hierarchy of resolution mechanisms are therefore the principal reasons underlying resolvase cell cycle regulation.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Julia Bittmann

    DNA Replication and Genome Integrity, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6527-7383
  2. Rokas Grigaitis

    Institute of Biochemistry, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lorenzo Galanti

    DNA Replication and Genome Integrity, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2538-3581
  4. Silas Amarell

    DNA Replication and Genome Integrity, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Florian Wilfling

    Molecular Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Joao Matos

    Institute of Biochemistry, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3754-3709
  7. Boris Pfander

    DNA Replication and Genome Integrity, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    For correspondence
    bpfander@biochem.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2180-5054

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

  • Joao Matos

Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich

  • Joao Matos

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

  • Boris Pfander

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

  • Boris Pfander

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

Copyright

© 2020, Bittmann 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

  • 2,854
    views
  • 394
    downloads
  • 10
    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. Julia Bittmann
  2. Rokas Grigaitis
  3. Lorenzo Galanti
  4. Silas Amarell
  5. Florian Wilfling
  6. Joao Matos
  7. Boris Pfander
(2020)
An advanced cell cycle tag toolbox reveals principles underlying temporal control of structure-selective nucleases
eLife 9:e52459.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52459

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52459

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Jaskamaljot Kaur Banwait, Liana Islam, Aaron L Lucius
    Research Article

    Escherichia coli ClpB and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Hsp104 are AAA+ motor proteins essential for proteome maintenance and thermal tolerance. ClpB and Hsp104 have been proposed to extract a polypeptide from an aggregate and processively translocate the chain through the axial channel of its hexameric ring structure. However, the mechanism of translocation and if this reaction is processive remains disputed. We reported that Hsp104 and ClpB are non-processive on unfolded model substrates. Others have reported that ClpB is able to processively translocate a mechanically unfolded polypeptide chain at rates over 240 amino acids (aa) per second. Here, we report the development of a single turnover stopped-flow fluorescence strategy that reports on processive protein unfolding catalyzed by ClpB. We show that when translocation catalyzed by ClpB is challenged by stably folded protein structure, the motor enzymatically unfolds the substrate at a rate of ~0.9 aa s−1 with a kinetic step-size of ~60 amino acids at sub-saturating [ATP]. We reconcile the apparent controversy by defining enzyme catalyzed protein unfolding and translocation as two distinct reactions with different mechanisms of action. We propose a model where slow unfolding followed by fast translocation represents an important mechanistic feature that allows the motor to rapidly translocate up to the next folded region or rapidly dissociate if no additional fold is encountered.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Marina Dajka, Tobias Rath ... Benesh Joseph
    Research Article

    Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) confer resistance against harsh conditions, including antibiotics, in Gram-negative bacteria. The lipopolysaccharide transport (Lpt) complex, consisting of seven proteins (A-G), exports LPS across the cellular envelope. LptB2FG forms an ATP-binding cassette transporter that transfers LPS to LptC. How LptB2FG couples ATP binding and hydrolysis with LPS transport to LptC remains unclear. We observed the conformational heterogeneity of LptB2FG and LptB2FGC in micelles and/or proteoliposomes using pulsed dipolar electron spin resonance spectroscopy. Additionally, we monitored LPS binding and release using laser-induced liquid bead ion desorption mass spectrometry. The β-jellyroll domain of LptF stably interacts with the LptG and LptC β-jellyrolls in both the apo and vanadate-trapped states. ATP binding at the cytoplasmic side is allosterically coupled to the selective opening of the periplasmic LptF β-jellyroll domain. In LptB2FG, ATP binding closes the nucleotide binding domains, causing a collapse of the first lateral gate as observed in structures. However, the second lateral gate, which forms the putative entry site for LPS, exhibits a heterogeneous conformation. LptC binding limits the flexibility of this gate to two conformations, likely representing the helix of LptC as either released from or inserted into the transmembrane domains. Our results reveal the regulation of the LPS entry gate through the dynamic behavior of the LptC transmembrane helix, while its β-jellyroll domain is anchored in the periplasm. This, combined with long-range ATP-dependent allosteric gating of the LptF β-jellyroll domain, may ensure efficient and unidirectional transport of LPS across the periplasm.