Competitive binding of MatP and topoisomerase IV to the MukB hinge domain

  1. Gemma LM Fisher
  2. Jani R Bolla
  3. Karthik V Rajasekar
  4. Jarno Mäkelä
  5. Rachel Baker
  6. Man Zhou
  7. Josh P Prince
  8. Mathew Stracy
  9. Carol V Robinson
  10. Lidia K Arciszewska
  11. David J Sherratt  Is a corresponding author
  1. London Institute of Medical Sciences, United Kingdom
  2. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  3. Stanford University, United States
  4. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Abstract

Structural Maintenance of Chromosomes (SMC) complexes have ubiquitous roles in compacting DNA linearly, thereby promoting chromosome organization-segregation. Interaction between the Escherichia coli SMC complex, MukBEF, and matS-bound MatP in the chromosome replication termination region, ter, results in depletion of MukBEF from ter, a process essential for efficient daughter chromosome individualisation and for preferential association of MukBEF with the replication origin region. Chromosome-associated MukBEF complexes also interact with topoisomerase IV (ParC2E2), so that their chromosome distribution mirrors that of MukBEF. We demonstrate that MatP and ParC have an overlapping binding interface on the MukB hinge, leading to their mutually exclusive binding, which occurs with the same dimer to dimer stoichiometry. Furthermore, we show that matS DNA competes with the MukB hinge for MatP binding. Cells expressing MukBEF complexes that are mutated at the ParC/MatP binding interface are impaired in ParC binding and have a mild defect in MukBEF function. The data highlight competitive binding as a means of globally regulating MukBEF-topoisomerase IV activity in space and time.

Data availability

Source data files have been provided for all gel-based figures. Source data files for other assays have been included where indicated. All custom MATLAB scripts are provided as Source Code 1. All code used is previously published and also available via the cited reference(s). All reagents are available upon reasonable request.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Gemma LM Fisher

    School of Biochemistry, London Institute of Medical Sciences, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jani R Bolla

    Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4346-182X
  3. Karthik V Rajasekar

    Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jarno Mäkelä

    Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Rachel Baker

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Man Zhou

    University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Josh P Prince

    Epigenetics, London Institute of Medical Sciences, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0877-7538
  8. Mathew Stracy

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Carol V Robinson

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Lidia K Arciszewska

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0252-4874
  11. David J Sherratt

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    david.sherratt@bioch.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2104-5430

Funding

Wellcome Trust (200782/Z/16/Z)

  • David J Sherratt

Medical Research Council (MR/N020413/1)

  • Carol V Robinson

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

Copyright

© 2021, Fisher 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

  • 866
    views
  • 158
    downloads
  • 12
    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. Gemma LM Fisher
  2. Jani R Bolla
  3. Karthik V Rajasekar
  4. Jarno Mäkelä
  5. Rachel Baker
  6. Man Zhou
  7. Josh P Prince
  8. Mathew Stracy
  9. Carol V Robinson
  10. Lidia K Arciszewska
  11. David J Sherratt
(2021)
Competitive binding of MatP and topoisomerase IV to the MukB hinge domain
eLife 10:e70444.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70444

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70444

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Birol Cabukusta, Shalom Borst Pauwels ... Jacques Neefjes
    Research Article

    Numerous lipids are heterogeneously distributed among organelles. Most lipid trafficking between organelles is achieved by a group of lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) that carry lipids using their hydrophobic cavities. The human genome encodes many intracellular LTPs responsible for lipid trafficking and the function of many LTPs in defining cellular lipid levels and distributions is unclear. Here, we created a gene knockout library targeting 90 intracellular LTPs and performed whole-cell lipidomics analysis. This analysis confirmed known lipid disturbances and identified new ones caused by the loss of LTPs. Among these, we found major sphingolipid imbalances in ORP9 and ORP11 knockout cells, two proteins of previously unknown function in sphingolipid metabolism. ORP9 and ORP11 form a heterodimer to localize at the ER-trans-Golgi membrane contact sites, where the dimer exchanges phosphatidylserine (PS) for phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate (PI(4)P) between the two organelles. Consequently, loss of either protein causes phospholipid imbalances in the Golgi apparatus that result in lowered sphingomyelin synthesis at this organelle. Overall, our LTP knockout library toolbox identifies various proteins in control of cellular lipid levels, including the ORP9-ORP11 heterodimer, which exchanges PS and PI(4)P at the ER-Golgi membrane contact site as a critical step in sphingomyelin synthesis in the Golgi apparatus.

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