1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

Architecture of the chromatin remodeler RSC and insights into its nucleosome engagement

  1. Avinash B Patel  Is a corresponding author
  2. Camille M Moore
  3. Basil J Greber
  4. Jie Luo
  5. Stefan A Zukin
  6. Jeff Ranish
  7. Eva Nogales  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Berkeley, United States
  2. The Institute for Systems Biology, United States
  3. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54449
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Avinash B Patel
  2. Camille M Moore
  3. Basil J Greber
  4. Jie Luo
  5. Stefan A Zukin
  6. Jeff Ranish
  7. Eva Nogales
(2019)
Architecture of the chromatin remodeler RSC and insights into its nucleosome engagement
eLife 8:e54449.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54449
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

Eukaryotic DNA is packaged into nucleosome arrays, which are repositioned by chromatin remodeling complexes to control DNA accessibility. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae RSC (Remodeling the Structure of Chromatin) complex, a member of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeler family, plays critical roles in genome maintenance, transcription, and DNA repair. Here we report cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) and crosslinking mass spectrometry (CLMS) studies of yeast RSC complex and show that RSC is composed of a rigid tripartite core and two flexible lobes. The core structure is scaffolded by an asymmetric Rsc8 dimer and built with the evolutionarily conserved subunits Sfh1, Rsc6, Rsc9 and Sth1. The flexible ATPase lobe, composed of helicase subunit Sth1, Arp7, Arp9 and Rtt102, is anchored to this core by the N-terminus of Sth1. Our cryo-EM analysis of RSC bound to a nucleosome core particle shows that in addition to the expected nucleosome-Sth1 interactions, RSC engages histones and nucleosomal DNA through one arm of the core structure, composed of the Rsc8 SWIRM domains, Sfh1 and Npl6. Our findings provide structural insights into the conserved assembly process for all members of the SWI/SNF family of remodelers, and illustrate how RSC selects, engages, and remodels nucleosomes.

Data availability

The cryo-EM maps and coordinate models have been deposited in the Electron Microscopy Data Bank with the accession codes EMD-21107 (RSC core), EMD-21105 (head lobe multibody), EMD-21103 (body lobe multibody), EMD-21098 (arm lobe multibody), EMD-21106 (head lobe classified), EMD-21102 (body lobe classified), EMD-21104 (arm lobe classified), EMD-21114 (RSC-NCP locked) and EMD-21110 (RSC-NCP swiveled) and in the Protein Data Bank with the accession codes PDB-6V8O (RSC core) and PDB-6V92 (RSC-NCP).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Avinash B Patel

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    For correspondence
    patelab@berkeley.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9140-8375

  2. Camille M Moore

    Molecular and Cell Biology Department, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. Basil J Greber

    California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3), University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9379-7159

  4. Jie Luo

    The Institute for Systems Biology, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Stefan A Zukin

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

  6. Jeff Ranish

    The Institute for Systems Biology, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. Eva Nogales

    Molecular Biophysics and Integrative Bio-Imaging Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, United States
    For correspondence
    enogales@lbl.gov
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9816-3681

Funding

National Institutes of Health (U24GM129547)

  • Eva Nogales

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01-GM63072)

  • Eva Nogales

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35-GM127018)

  • Eva Nogales

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01- GM110064)

  • Jeff Ranish

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01-HL133678)

  • Jeff Ranish

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Eva Nogales

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Cynthia Wolberger, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States

Version history

  1. Received: December 16, 2019
  2. Accepted: December 23, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 30, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 14, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Patel 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

  • 5,763
    views
  • 852
    downloads
  • 67
    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. Avinash B Patel
  2. Camille M Moore
  3. Basil J Greber
  4. Jie Luo
  5. Stefan A Zukin
  6. Jeff Ranish
  7. Eva Nogales
(2019)
Architecture of the chromatin remodeler RSC and insights into its nucleosome engagement
eLife 8:e54449.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54449

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54449

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Differential conformational dynamics in two type-A RNA-binding domains drive the double-stranded RNA recognition and binding

    Firdousi Parvez, Devika Sangpal ... Jeetender Chugh
    Research Article

    Trans-activation response (TAR) RNA-binding protein (TRBP) has emerged as a key player in the RNA interference pathway, wherein it binds to different pre-microRNAs (miRNAs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), each varying in sequence and/or structure. We hypothesize that TRBP displays dynamic adaptability to accommodate heterogeneity in target RNA structures. Thus, it is crucial to ascertain the role of intrinsic and RNA-induced protein dynamics in RNA recognition and binding. We have previously elucidated the role of intrinsic and RNA-induced conformational exchange in the double-stranded RNA-binding domain 1 (dsRBD1) of TRBP in shape-dependent RNA recognition. The current study delves into the intrinsic and RNA-induced conformational dynamics of the TRBP-dsRBD2 and then compares it with the dsRBD1 study carried out previously. Remarkably, the two domains exhibit differential binding affinity to a 12-bp dsRNA owing to the presence of critical residues and structural plasticity. Furthermore, we report that dsRBD2 depicts constrained conformational plasticity when compared to dsRBD1. Although, in the presence of RNA, dsRBD2 undergoes induced conformational exchange within the designated RNA-binding regions and other residues, the amplitude of the motions remains modest when compared to those observed in dsRBD1. We propose a dynamics-driven model of the two tandem domains of TRBP, substantiating their contributions to the versatility of dsRNA recognition and binding.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Plasticity of the proteasome-targeting signal Fat10 enhances substrate degradation

    Hitendra Negi, Aravind Ravichandran ... Ranabir Das
    Research Article Updated

    The proteasome controls levels of most cellular proteins, and its activity is regulated under stress, quiescence, and inflammation. However, factors determining the proteasomal degradation rate remain poorly understood. Proteasome substrates are conjugated with small proteins (tags) like ubiquitin and Fat10 to target them to the proteasome. It is unclear if the structural plasticity of proteasome-targeting tags can influence substrate degradation. Fat10 is upregulated during inflammation, and its substrates undergo rapid proteasomal degradation. We report that the degradation rate of Fat10 substrates critically depends on the structural plasticity of Fat10. While the ubiquitin tag is recycled at the proteasome, Fat10 is degraded with the substrate. Our results suggest significantly lower thermodynamic stability and faster mechanical unfolding in Fat10 compared to ubiquitin. Long-range salt bridges are absent in the Fat10 structure, creating a plastic protein with partially unstructured regions suitable for proteasome engagement. Fat10 plasticity destabilizes substrates significantly and creates partially unstructured regions in the substrate to enhance degradation. NMR-relaxation-derived order parameters and temperature dependence of chemical shifts identify the Fat10-induced partially unstructured regions in the substrate, which correlated excellently to Fat10-substrate contacts, suggesting that the tag-substrate collision destabilizes the substrate. These results highlight a strong dependence of proteasomal degradation on the structural plasticity and thermodynamic properties of the proteasome-targeting tags.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Deciphering the actin structure-dependent preferential cooperative binding of cofilin

    Kien Xuan Ngo, Huong T Vu ... Taro Uyeda
    Research Article

    The mechanism underlying the preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin and the expansion of clusters toward the pointed-end side of actin filaments remains poorly understood. To address this, we conducted a principal component analysis based on available filamentous actin (F-actin) and C-actin (cofilins were excluded from cofilactin) structures and compared to monomeric G-actin. The results strongly suggest that C-actin, rather than F-ADP-actin, represented the favourable structure for binding preference of cofilin. High-speed atomic force microscopy explored that the shortened bare half helix adjacent to the cofilin clusters on the pointed end side included fewer actin protomers than normal helices. The mean axial distance (MAD) between two adjacent actin protomers along the same long-pitch strand within shortened bare half helices was longer (5.0–6.3 nm) than the MAD within typical helices (4.3–5.6 nm). The inhibition of torsional motion during helical twisting, achieved through stronger attachment to the lipid membrane, led to more pronounced inhibition of cofilin binding and cluster formation than the presence of inorganic phosphate (Pi) in solution. F-ADP-actin exhibited more naturally supertwisted half helices than F-ADP.Pi-actin, explaining how Pi inhibits cofilin binding to F-actin with variable helical twists. We propose that protomers within the shorter bare helical twists, either influenced by thermal fluctuation or induced allosterically by cofilin clusters, exhibit characteristics of C-actin-like structures with an elongated MAD, leading to preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin.