Switch-like control of helicase processivity by single-stranded DNA binding protein

  1. Barbara Stekas
  2. Steve Yeo
  3. Alice Troitskaia
  4. Masayoshi Honda
  5. Sei Sho
  6. Maria Spies
  7. Yann R Chemla  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
  2. University of Iowa, United States

Abstract

Helicases utilize NTP hydrolysis to translocate along single-stranded nucleic acids (NA) and unwind the duplex. In the cell, helicases function in the context of other NA-associated proteins such as single-stranded DNA binding proteins. Such encounters regulate helicase function, although the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. F. acidarmanus XPD helicase serves as a model for understanding the molecular mechanisms of Superfamily 2B helicases, and its activity is enhanced by the cognate single-stranded DNA binding protein RPA2. Here, optical trap measurements of the unwinding activity of a single XPD helicase in the presence of RPA2 reveal a mechanism in which XPD interconverts between two states with different processivities and transient RPA2 interactions stabilize the more processive state, activating a latent 'processivity switch' in XPD. A point mutation at a regulatory DNA binding site on XPD similarly activates this switch. These findings provide new insights on mechanisms of helicase regulation by accessory proteins.

Data availability

Summary data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and corresponding figure supplements.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Barbara Stekas

    Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Steve Yeo

    Center for Biophysics and Quantitative Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Alice Troitskaia

    Center for Biophysics and Quantitative Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Masayoshi Honda

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8920-6301
  5. Sei Sho

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Maria Spies

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    Maria Spies, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7375-8037
  7. Yann R Chemla

    Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    For correspondence
    ychemla@illinois.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9167-0234

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM120353)

  • Yann R Chemla

National Institutes of Health (R35 GM131704)

  • Maria Spies

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM120353)

  • Barbara Stekas

National Institutes of Health (R35 GM131704)

  • Masayoshi Honda

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM120353)

  • Steve Yeo

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM120353)

  • Alice Troitskaia

National Institutes of Health (R35 GM131704)

  • Sei Sho

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

Copyright

© 2021, Stekas 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

  • 1,666
    views
  • 206
    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. Barbara Stekas
  2. Steve Yeo
  3. Alice Troitskaia
  4. Masayoshi Honda
  5. Sei Sho
  6. Maria Spies
  7. Yann R Chemla
(2021)
Switch-like control of helicase processivity by single-stranded DNA binding protein
eLife 10:e60515.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60515

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60515

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.