![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2008, European Molecular Biology Organization Scientific Report Insights into kinetochore–DNA interactions from the structure of Cep3Δ 1Macromolecular Structure and Function Laboratory, Cancer Research UK, London Research Institute, 44 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PX, UK aTel: +44 (0) 207 269 3148; Fax: +44 (0) 207 269 3258; E-mail: martin.singleton/at/cancer.org.uk Received August 30, 2007; Revised October 29, 2007; Accepted November 6, 2007. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. This license does not permit commercial exploitation or the creation of derivative works without specific permission. Abstract The CBF3 complex is an essential core component of the budding yeast kinetochore and is required for the centromeric localization of all other kinetochore proteins. We determined the crystal structure of a large section of the protein Cep3 from CBF3, which is the only component with obvious DNA-binding motifs. The protein adopts a roughly bilobal shape, with an extended dimerization interface. The dimer has a large central channel that is sufficient to accommodate duplex B-form DNA. The zinc-finger domains emerge at the edges of the channel, and could bind to the DNA in a pseudo-symmetrical manner at degenerate half-sites in the centromeric sequence. We propose a mechanism for the modulation of DNA affinity by an acidic activator domain, which could be applicable to a wider family of transcription factors. Keywords: kinetochore, transcription factor, CBF3 complex, centromere Introduction The kinetochore is a large proteinaceous complex that is responsible for linking chromatids to spindle microtubules during mitosis (Westermann et al, 2007). It transmits force from the mitotic spindle to the chromatids, generates motion through associated motor proteins and creates a checkpoint signal to prevent premature entry into anaphase. The kinetochore shows a high degree of functional conservation between species, although there is considerable sequence variability at the protein level (Meraldi et al, 2006). More than 65 proteins have been associated with the yeast kinetochore, of which many have been shown to form relatively stable sub-complexes (De Wulf et al, 2003). These associate in a hierarchical and tightly controlled manner on a specialized region of the chromosome known as the centromere. Despite recent advances (Wei et al, 2005) there are still relatively little high-resolution structural data available for kinetochore proteins. One area of interest is how the inner layer of the kinetochore binds to the appropriate centromeric DNA sequence. In budding yeast, the minimal essential DNA (CEN) required for kinetochore formation is only approximately 125 bp in length and has a defined sequence, which is both necessary and sufficient for kinetochore assembly (Clarke & Carbon, 1980). The centromere consists of three elements: CDEI, CDEII and CDEIII (Fitzgerald-Hayes et al, 1982; Fig 1A
Biochemical (Espelin et al, 1997) and atomic force microscopy (AFM; Pietrasanta et al, 1999) studies suggest that the functional CBF3 complex has a stoichiometry of 2:2:1:1 Cep3:Ndc10:Ctf13:Skp1, giving an overall molecular mass of approximately 450 kDa (Fig 1B The only kinetochore protein with a recognisable sequence-specific DNA-binding motif in CBF3, and indeed the whole budding yeast kinetochore, is Cep3. The short amino-terminal domain of this 71 kDa protein shows a high level of sequence identity to the Zn2Cys6 family of transcription factors (Schjerling & Holmberg, 1996; Fig 1C,D To better understand the structure and assembly of the CBF3 complex, and how the budding yeast kinetochore binds to DNA, we determined the crystal structure of a truncated version of the Cep3 protein (Cep3Δ). Attempts to crystallise the full-length protein were unsuccessful, presumably owing to the highly mobile nature of the zinc-cluster domains and linkers. Therefore, we designed a truncation starting at residue 48 in the proposed linker region, using limited proteolysis data (Russell et al, 1999). The N-terminal of the truncated protein partly overlaps the homologous region of structurally characterised Gall4 binuclear zinc cluster, which allows an approximate mapping of the DNA-binding domains. Results And Discussion Overall structure The crystal structure was solved using a combination of single-wavelength anomalous diffraction (SAD) from a selenomethionine-substituted protein, together with heavy-atom derivatives at a resolution of 2.5 Å. The refined structure shows good electron density for most of the structure with the exception of two disordered loops. The overall structure of the protein is predominantly α-helical with dimensions of approximately 60 × 70 × 30 Å that comprise a roughly bilobal shape (Fig 2A
We compared the fold of the intact structure and individual domains to the protein databank. No extended regions of similarity to any other protein were seen, however small areas of structural homology were found with a wide variety of proteins containing helical bundles. The largest single section of homology (R.M.S.D of 3.7 Å over 135 residues) was seen between domain 2 and HEAT repeat domains (Fig 2B Dimerization The structure gives us a new insight into the multimeric state of Cep3. Hydrodynamic data (Russell et al, 1999) and considerations based on the overall mass of the complex as determined by AFM (Pietrasanta et al, 1999) suggest that CBF3 contains two copies of Cep3. Many other members of the GAL4 family of transcription factors form functional dimers. However, the peculiar fact that there is only one CCG half site in the CDEIII DNA consensus sequence argues that a homodimer might not be the actual state in the CBF3 complex (Lechner, 1994), and that only a single zinc-finger domain binds to a single triplet, as seen in the zinc-cluster repressor, ARGR2 (De Rijcke et al, 1992). Conversely, mutational studies (Jehn et al, 1991) have shown that a second site in the CDEIII sequence, 5′ of the core CCG triplet, has a significant effect on the rates of chromosome transmission fidelity. Gel filtration experiments with both the full length and truncated protein clearly show a stable dimer in solution (Fig 2C
The dimer has a crescent shape with the concave surface forming a groove with an approximate diameter of 30 Å. The N-termini of each monomer exit the structure at the opposite corners of this groove. Despite a short region of sequence that overlaps with the structure of Gal4 (residues 48–60), this region is highly mobile so we were unable to model exactly the location of the zinc cluster using direct superimposition. It is likely that the domains have considerable freedom of movement, but their global position must be constrained by the length of the linkers. A model for Cep3–DNA interactions In members of the GAL4 family with known structures, dimerization occurs through a coiled-coil interaction, immediately after the zinc-cluster domains and linkers (Marmorstein et al, 1992). The termini of the coiled-coils lie in the centre of the dyad site, and the linkers run outwards towards the half-sites. By contrast, in Cep3Δ, the N-termini of the protein are at opposite corners of the dimer and the linker regions must run inwards to ensure that the zinc clusters can reach the appropriate DNA half-site. On the basis of the shape of the protein, surface electrostatics (Fig 3B
The conserved nature of the recognition triplet for the GAL4 family means that recognition of the zinc clusters alone does not confer specificity for a particular DNA sequence. Instead, this is achieved by variation in the spacing between the half-sites (Marmorstein et al, 1992), as specified by the linker section of the protein (Reece & Ptashne, 1993). Assuming that the TGT triplet at –12 relative to the CCG represents the second binding site, a similar mode of recognition could occur in Cep3. The ‘outside-in' orientation of the linkers in our model would confer specificity for the half-site spacing, and they might also make direct contacts with the DNA outside the triplet pair. The location of the binding sites relative to the DNA place the entire Cep3 dimer within the CDEIII element, as predicted from footprinting results of the intact CBF3 complex (Lechner & Carbon, 1991). The relatively weak electrostatic interaction between the dimer channel and the DNA backbone suggests that there is very little non-specific DNA affinity, as the binding experiments with the truncated protein confirm. Protein–protein interactions and CBF3 assembly We have analysed the structure of the dimer to look for potential protein–protein interaction surfaces. Previous work (Espelin et al, 1997) proposes that Cep3, Ndc10 and Ctf13 make direct contact with the CEN DNA. One model for the assembly of the CBF3 complex (Russell et al, 1999) requires that an initial association of Ctf13 and Skp1 occur, followed by binding to the Cep3 dimer, and subsequently Ndc10 and centromeric DNA. The interaction between Cep3 and Ctf13 seems to be essential to stabilize Ctf13, which is otherwise rapidly degraded. Previous work (Espelin et al, 1997) has shown that Ctf13 makes contact with the base exactly halfway between the two half-sites on the bottom strand. If this interaction were to occur in our model, Ctf13 would make contact with the opposite face of the duplex to Cep3, and so totally encircle the DNA (Fig 4B Although this topological interface would be extremely stable, it seems likely to be the sole connection between the spindle and chromosome. It seems likely that there are additional interactions between the kinetochore and chromatin, probably mediated by Cse4-containing nucleosomes (McAinsh et al, 2003). Acidic activation domain The GAL4 family often contain short sequences enriched in acidic residues near the C-terminus (Schjerling & Holmberg, 1996). The function of these domains is to modulate transcription, which is achieved by the recruitment of other proteins (Ma & Ptashne, 1987). Cep3 also has a strongly acidic patch near the C-terminus, the location and overall charge of which are similar to other members of the GAL4 family (Fig 1C The structure of the acidic patch in transcription factors remains unknown. The motif has been described as an amphipathic α-helix (Giniger & Ptashne, 1987), a β-strand (Van Hoy et al, 1993) or totally disordered (Sigler, 1988), although it is possible that the particular structure of the motif might be protein or context specific. One difficulty with studying this has been the lack of structural information for full-length transcription factors. This is probably due to the high degree of disorder found in these proteins (Liu et al, 2006), which reflects their diverse regulatory roles. The acidic domain in Cep3 has been shown to be essential for CBF3 activity (Lechner, 1994). Analysis of the Cep3 structure shows that this motif forms a disordered loop between residues 570 and 587, the base of which is directly adjacent to the N-terminal of the protein, where the linker and zinc cluster emerge (Fig 5A
Conclusions Our data provide a new insight into the mechanism of DNA-binding by the Cep3 protein and suggest how the intact CBF3 complex might form. The homology to transcription factors provides an unexpected insight into the role of acidic activator domains, which might be of wider relevance. Structural data from the intact CBF3–CEN complex would undoubtedly provide further surprises. Methods The structure of recombinant Cep3Δ was solved using SAD and multiple isomorphous replacement (MIR) methods on selenomethionine-substituted protein combined with heavy atom data from mercury and silver derivatives. The final model of Cep3Δ contains 4,254 protein atoms, 73 water molecules, 1 β-mercaptoethanol and 1 cacodylate molecule and has an R-factor of 22.0 (Rfree 24.6%). DNA-binding assays were performed using the EMSA Accessory Kit (Novagen, Darmstadt, Germany) with a FAM6 fluorescently labelled CDEIII dsDNA (33 base pairs) probe to observe DNA-protein binding in the presence of Cep31–608, Cep3Δ and unlabelled competitor DNA. Full details of the structural determination and DNA-binding assays are given in supplementary information online. The coordinates and structure factors have been submitted to the Protein Data Bank (PDB code 2veq). Supplementary information is available at EMBO reports online (http://www.emboreports.org). supplementary information Click here to view.(72K, pdf) Acknowledgments We thank N. McDonald, H. Walden and D. Wigley for useful discussions. This work was funded by Cancer Research UK. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||
Annu Rev Biochem. 2007; 76():563-91.
[Annu Rev Biochem. 2007]Genome Biol. 2006; 7(3):R23.
[Genome Biol. 2006]Genes Dev. 2003 Dec 1; 17(23):2902-21.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Apr 12; 102(15):5363-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Nature. 1980 Oct 9; 287(5782):504-9.
[Nature. 1980]J Cell Biol. 1997 Dec 15; 139(6):1383-96.
[J Cell Biol. 1997]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 30; 96(7):3757-62.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Cell. 1998 Sep 4; 94(5):607-13.
[Cell. 1998]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2003; 19():519-39.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2003]Nucleic Acids Res. 1996 Dec 1; 24(23):4599-607.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1996]Nat Struct Biol. 1999 Jan; 6(1):64-71.
[Nat Struct Biol. 1999]Nature. 1992 Apr 2; 356(6368):408-14.
[Nature. 1992]J Cell Biol. 1999 May 31; 145(5):933-50.
[J Cell Biol. 1999]Nat Genet. 1995 Oct; 11(2):115-6.
[Nat Genet. 1995]J Cell Biol. 1999 May 31; 145(5):933-50.
[J Cell Biol. 1999]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 30; 96(7):3757-62.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]EMBO J. 1994 Nov 1; 13(21):5203-11.
[EMBO J. 1994]Mol Cell Biol. 1992 Jan; 12(1):68-81.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1992]Mol Cell Biol. 1991 Oct; 11(10):5212-21.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1991]Nature. 1992 Apr 2; 356(6368):408-14.
[Nature. 1992]EMBO J. 1994 Nov 1; 13(21):5203-11.
[EMBO J. 1994]J Cell Biol. 1995 Mar; 128(5):749-60.
[J Cell Biol. 1995]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jan 9; 93(1):13-20.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996]Genes Dev. 1994 Apr 15; 8(8):970-80.
[Genes Dev. 1994]Nature. 1992 Apr 2; 356(6368):408-14.
[Nature. 1992]J Cell Biol. 1997 Dec 15; 139(6):1383-96.
[J Cell Biol. 1997]Mol Cell Biol. 1991 Oct; 11(10):5212-21.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1991]Nature. 1992 Apr 2; 356(6368):408-14.
[Nature. 1992]Science. 1993 Aug 13; 261(5123):909-11.
[Science. 1993]Cell. 1991 Feb 22; 64(4):717-25.
[Cell. 1991]J Cell Biol. 1997 Dec 15; 139(6):1383-96.
[J Cell Biol. 1997]J Cell Biol. 1999 May 31; 145(5):933-50.
[J Cell Biol. 1999]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2003; 19():519-39.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2003]Nucleic Acids Res. 1996 Dec 1; 24(23):4599-607.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1996]Cell. 1987 Mar 13; 48(5):847-53.
[Cell. 1987]Nature. 1987 Dec 17-23; 330(6149):670-2.
[Nature. 1987]Cell. 1993 Feb 26; 72(4):587-94.
[Cell. 1993]Nature. 1988 May 19; 333(6170):210-2.
[Nature. 1988]Biochemistry. 2006 Jun 6; 45(22):6873-88.
[Biochemistry. 2006]EMBO J. 1994 Nov 1; 13(21):5203-11.
[EMBO J. 1994]