SMC complex unidirectionally translocates DNA by coupling segment capture with an asymmetric kleisin path

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study used explicit-solvent simulations and coarse-grained models to identify the mechanistic features that allow for the unidirectional motion of SMC on DNA. Shorter explicit-solvent models describe relevant hydrogen bond energetics, which were then encoded in a coarse-grained structure-based model. In the structure-based model, the authors mimic chemical reactions as signaling changes in the energy landscape of the assembly. By cycling through the chemical cycle repeatedly, the authors show how these time-dependent energetic shifts naturally lead SMC to undergo translocation steps along DNA that are on a length scale that has been identified.

Strengths:

Simulating large-scale conformational changes in complex assemblies is extremely challenging. This study utilizes highly-detailed models to parameterize a coarse-grained model, thereby allowing the simulations to connect the dynamics of precise atomistic-level interactions with a large-scale conformational rearrangement. This study serves as an excellent example for this overall methodology, where future studies may further extend this approach to investigated any number of complex molecular assemblies.

Weaknesses:

The only relative weakness is that the text does not always clearly communicate which aspects of the dynamics are expected to be robust. That is, which aspects of the dynamics/energetics are less precisely described by this model? Where are the limits of the models, and why should the results be considered within the range of applicability of the models?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors perform coarse grained and all atom simulations to provide a mechanism for loop extrusion that is involved in genome compaction.

Strengths:

The simulations are very thoughtful. They provide insights into the translocation process, which is only one of the mechanisms. Much of the analyses is very good. Over all the study advances the use of simulations in this complicated systems.

Weaknesses:

Even the authors point out several limitations, which cannot be easily overcome in the paper because of the paucity of experimental data. Nevertheless, the authors could have done so to illustrate the main assertion that loop extrusion occurs by the motor translocating on DNA. They should mention more clearly that there are alternative theories that have accounted for a number of experimental data,

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Yamauchi and colleagues combine all-atom and coarse-grained MD simulations to investigate the mechanism of DNA translocation by prokaryotic SMC complexes. Their multiscale approach is well-justified and supports a segment-capture model in which ATP-dependent conformational changes lead to the unidirectional translocation of DNA. A key insight from the study is that asymmetry in the kleisin path enforces directionality. The work introduces an innovative computational framework that captures key features of SMC motor action, including DNA binding, conformational switching, and translocation.

This work is well executed and timely, and the methodology offers a promising route for probing other large molecular machines where ATP activity is essential.

Strengths:

This manuscript introduces an innovative yet simple method that merges all-atom and coarse-grained, purely equilibrium, MD simulations to investigate DNA translocation by SMC complexes, which is triggered by activated ATP processes. Investigating the impact of ATP on large molecular motors like SMC complexes is extremely challenging, as ATP catalyses a series of chemical reactions that take and keep the system out of equilibrium. The authors simulate the ATP cycle by cycling through distinct equilibrium simulations where the force field changes according to whether the system is assumed to be in the disengaged, engaged, and V-shaped states; this is very clever as it avoids attempting to model the non-equilibrium process of ATP hydrolysis explicitly. This equilibrium switching approach is shown to be an effective way to probe the mechanistic consequences of ATP binding and hydrolysis in the SMC complex system.

The simulations reveal several important features of the translocation mechanism. These include identifying that a DNA segment of ~200 bp is captured in the engaged state and pumped forward via coordinated conformational transitions, yielding a translocation step size in good agreement with experimental estimates. Hydrogen bonding between DNA and the top of the ATPase heads is shown to be critical for segment capturtrans, as without it, translocation is shown to fail. Finally, asymmetry in the kleisin subunit path is shown to be responsible for unidirectionally.

This work highlights how molecular simulations are an excellent complement to experiments, as they can exploit experimental findings to provide high-resolution mechanistic views currently inaccessible to experiments. The findings of these simulations are plausible and expand our understanding of how ATP hydrolysis induces directional motion of the SMC complex.

Weaknesses:

There are aspects of the methodology and modelling assumptions that are not clear and could be better justified. The major ones are listed below:

(1) The all-atom MD simulations involve a 47-bp DNA duplex interacting with the ATPase heads, from which key residues involved in hydrogen bonding are identified. However, DNA mechanics-including flexibility and hydrogen bond formation-are known to be sequence-dependent. The manuscript uses a single arbitrary sequence but does not discuss potential biases. Could the authors comment on how sequence variability might affect binding geometry or the number of hydrogen bonds observed?

(2) A key feature of the coarse-grained model is the inclusion of a specific hydrogen-bonding potential between DNA and residues on the ATPase heads. The authors select the top 15 hydrogen-bond-forming residues from the all-atom simulations (with contact probability > 0.05), but the rationale for this cutoff is not explained. Also, the strength of hydrogen bonds in coarse-grained models can be sensitive to context. How did the authors calibrate the strength of this interaction relative to electrostatics, and did they test its robustness (e.g., by varying epsilon or residue set)? Could this interaction be too strong or too weak under certain ionic conditions? What happens when salt is changed?

(3) To enhance sampling, the translocation simulations are run at 300 mM monovalent salt. While this is argued to be physiological for Pyrococcus yayanosii, such a concentration also significantly screens electrostatics, possibly altering the interaction landscape between DNA and protein or among protein domains. This may significantly impact the results of the simulations. Why did the authors not use enhanced sampling methods to sample rare events instead of relying on a high-salt regime to accelerate dynamics?

(4) Only a small fraction of the simulated trajectories complete successful translocation (e.g., 45 of 770 in one set), and this is attributed to insufficient simulation time. While the authors are transparent about this, it raises questions about the reliability of inferred success rates and about possible artefacts (e.g., DNA trapping in coiled-coil arms). Could the authors explore or at least discuss whether alternative sampling strategies (e.g., Markov State Models, transition path sampling) might address this limitation more systematically?

Author Response:

We thank the reviewers for their insightful comments on our manuscript. We are encouraged by their positive assessment of our multiscale simulation approach and segment-capture mechanism.

In our revision, we will address the reviewers' primary concerns, which are summarized into three key points: (1) providing a more comprehensive discussion of the validity, robustness, and limitations of our model; (2) improving contextualization with alternative mechanisms; and (3) enhancing the clarity of our results, figures, and terminology.

1) Model Validity, Robustness, and Limitations:

As suggested by Reviewers #1 and #3, we will provide a more thorough discussion of our model's assumptions and limitations.[tt1] This is essential to evaluate the generalizability and reliability of our conclusions. We will clarify which aspects of the dynamics we believe to be robust, elaborate on the rationale behind key parameter choices, such as the selection criteria for hydrogen-bonding residues and the calibration of their interaction strength, and discuss how these choices may influence the simulation outcomes. Furthermore, we will mention the potential impact of our choices regarding DNA sequence, DNA length, and the high-salt concentration, explaining why we opted for this simulation strategy over alternative enhanced-sampling techniques.

2) Contextualization with Alternative Mechanisms:

Following the comments by Reviewer #2, we will expand our discussion to better contextualize our work. We will provide a more detailed comparison between our segment-capture model and alternative mechanisms, particularly the 'scrunching' model (e.g., the theoretical work by Takaki et al. Nat. Commun. 2021,). This will help clarify how our high-resolution mechanistic view that reveals stepwise conformational transitions underlying segment capture fits into the broader landscape of SMC loop extrusion research. We believe this will contribute to the ongoing scientific discourse.

3) Clarity of Results, Figures, and Terminology:

Based on valuable suggestions from Reviewers #2 and #3, we will revise our manuscript to improve the clarity and accessibility of our findings. We will update figures and their descriptions (e.g., Figure 4I, J), providing a clearer step-by-step explanation of the translocation process within the ATP cycle (related to Figure 2), clarifying the role of each conformational state, elucidating how these transitions contribute to the loop extrusion mechanism, and defining key terms such as "pumping" more precisely.

We are confident that these revisions will substantially strengthen the mechanistic clarity and scientific contribution of our work.