Single-molecule tracking in live cells reveals distinct target-search strategies of transcription factors in the nucleus

  1. Ignacio Izeddin
  2. Vincent Récamier
  3. Lana Bosanac
  4. Ibrahim I Cisse
  5. Lydia Boudarene
  6. Claire Dugast-Darzacq
  7. Florence Proux
  8. Olivier Bénichou
  9. Raphaël Voituriez
  10. Olivier Bensaude
  11. Maxime Dahan
  12. Xavier Darzacq  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, France
  2. Université Pierre et Marie Curie, France
  3. Institut Curie, CNRS UMR168, France

Abstract

Gene regulation relies on transcription factors (TFs) exploring the nucleus searching their targets. So far, most studies have focused on how fast TFs diffuse, underestimating the role of nuclear architecture. We implemented a single-molecule tracking assay to determine TFs dynamics. We found that c-Myc is a global explorer of the nucleus. In contrast, the positive transcription elongation factor P-TEFb is a local explorer that oversamples its environment. Consequently, each c-Myc molecule is equally available for all nuclear sites while P-TEFb reaches its targets in a position-dependent manner. Our observations are consistent with a model in which the exploration geometry of TFs is restrained by their interactions with nuclear structures and not by exclusion. The geometry-controlled kinetics of TFs target-search illustrates the influence of nuclear architecture on gene regulation, and has strong implications on how proteins react in the nucleus and how their function can be regulated in space and time.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ignacio Izeddin

    Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Vincent Récamier

    Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lana Bosanac

    Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ibrahim I Cisse

    Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Lydia Boudarene

    Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Claire Dugast-Darzacq

    Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Florence Proux

    Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Olivier Bénichou

    Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Raphaël Voituriez

    Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Olivier Bensaude

    Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Maxime Dahan

    Institut Curie, CNRS UMR168, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Xavier Darzacq

    Institut de Biologie de l'École normale supérieure (IBENS) CNRS UMR 8197, Paris, France
    For correspondence
    darzacq@ens.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Robert H Singer, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, United States

Version history

  1. Received: January 7, 2014
  2. Accepted: June 11, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 12, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 15, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Izeddin 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

  • 10,933
    views
  • 1,441
    downloads
  • 272
    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. Ignacio Izeddin
  2. Vincent Récamier
  3. Lana Bosanac
  4. Ibrahim I Cisse
  5. Lydia Boudarene
  6. Claire Dugast-Darzacq
  7. Florence Proux
  8. Olivier Bénichou
  9. Raphaël Voituriez
  10. Olivier Bensaude
  11. Maxime Dahan
  12. Xavier Darzacq
(2014)
Single-molecule tracking in live cells reveals distinct target-search strategies of transcription factors in the nucleus
eLife 3:e02230.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02230

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02230

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Nicholas James Ose, Paul Campitelli ... Sefika Banu Ozkan
    Research Article

    We integrate evolutionary predictions based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution with protein dynamics to generate mechanistic insight into the molecular adaptations of the SARS-COV-2 spike (S) protein. With this approach, we first identified candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and assessed the impact of these CAPs through dynamics analysis. Not only have we found that CAPs frequently overlap with well-known functional sites, but also, using several different dynamics-based metrics, we reveal the critical allosteric interplay between SARS-CoV-2 CAPs and the S protein binding sites with the human ACE2 (hACE2) protein. CAPs interact far differently with the hACE2 binding site residues in the open conformation of the S protein compared to the closed form. In particular, the CAP sites control the dynamics of binding residues in the open state, suggesting an allosteric control of hACE2 binding. We also explored the characteristic mutations of different SARS-CoV-2 strains to find dynamic hallmarks and potential effects of future mutations. Our analyses reveal that Delta strain-specific variants have non-additive (i.e., epistatic) interactions with CAP sites, whereas the less pathogenic Omicron strains have mostly additive mutations. Finally, our dynamics-based analysis suggests that the novel mutations observed in the Omicron strain epistatically interact with the CAP sites to help escape antibody binding.