Structural basis for recognition and remodeling of the TBP:DNA:NC2 complex by Mot1

  1. Agata Butryn
  2. Jan M Schuller
  3. Gabriele Stoehr
  4. Petra Runge-Wollmann
  5. Friedrich Förster
  6. David T Auble
  7. Karl-Peter Hopfner  Is a corresponding author
  1. Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany
  3. University of Virginia Health System, United States
  4. Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Germany

Abstract

Swi2/Snf2 ATPases remodel substrates such as nucleosomes and transcription complexes to control a wide range of DNA associated processes, but detailed structural information on the ATP-dependent remodeling reactions is largely absent. The single subunit remodeler Mot1 dissociates TATA box-binding protein (TBP):DNA complexes, offering a useful system to address the structural mechanisms of Swi2/Snf2 ATPases. Here we report the crystal structure of the N-terminal domain of Mot1 in complex with TBP, DNA, and the transcription regulator NC2. Our data show that Mot1 reduces DNA:NC2 interactions and unbends DNA as compared to the TBP:DNA:NC2 state, suggesting that Mot1 primes TBP:NC2 displacement in an ATP-independent manner. Electron microscopy and cross-linking data suggest that the Swi2/Snf2 domain of Mot1 associates with the upstream DNA and the histone fold of NC2, thereby revealing parallels to some nucleosome remodelers. This study provides a structural framework for how a Swi2/Snf2 ATPase interacts with its substrate DNA:protein complex.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Agata Butryn

    Gene Center, Department of Biochemistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jan M Schuller

    Department of Molecular Structural Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Gabriele Stoehr

    Gene Center, Department of Biochemistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Petra Runge-Wollmann

    Gene Center, Department of Biochemistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Friedrich Förster

    Department of Molecular Structural Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. David T Auble

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Karl-Peter Hopfner

    Gene Center, Department of Biochemistry, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Germany
    For correspondence
    hopfner@genzentrum.lmu.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. John Kuriyan, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Version history

  1. Received: March 11, 2015
  2. Accepted: August 8, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 10, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 11, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Butryn 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

  • 1,897
    views
  • 436
    downloads
  • 19
    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. Agata Butryn
  2. Jan M Schuller
  3. Gabriele Stoehr
  4. Petra Runge-Wollmann
  5. Friedrich Förster
  6. David T Auble
  7. Karl-Peter Hopfner
(2015)
Structural basis for recognition and remodeling of the TBP:DNA:NC2 complex by Mot1
eLife 4:e07432.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07432

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07432

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Claudia D Consalvo, Adedeji M Aderounmu ... Brenda L Bass
    Research Article

    Invertebrates use the endoribonuclease Dicer to cleave viral dsRNA during antiviral defense, while vertebrates use RIG-I-like Receptors (RLRs), which bind viral dsRNA to trigger an interferon response. While some invertebrate Dicers act alone during antiviral defense, Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts in a complex with a dsRNA binding protein called RDE-4, and an RLR ortholog called DRH-1. We used biochemical and structural techniques to provide mechanistic insight into how these proteins function together. We found RDE-4 is important for ATP-independent and ATP-dependent cleavage reactions, while helicase domains of both DCR-1 and DRH-1 contribute to ATP-dependent cleavage. DRH-1 plays the dominant role in ATP hydrolysis, and like mammalian RLRs, has an N-terminal domain that functions in autoinhibition. A cryo-EM structure indicates DRH-1 interacts with DCR-1’s helicase domain, suggesting this interaction relieves autoinhibition. Our study unravels the mechanistic basis of the collaboration between two helicases from typically distinct innate immune defense pathways.

    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.