Replication protein A interactions with DNA: differential binding of the core domains and analysis of the DNA interaction surface

Human replication protein A (RPA) is a heterotrimeric (70, 32, and 14 kDa subunits), eukaryotic single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) binding protein required for DNA recombination, repair, and replication. The three subunits of human RPA are composed of six conserved DNA binding domains (DBDs). Deletion and mutational studies have identified a high-affinity DNA binding core in the central region of the 70 kDa subunit, composed of DBDs A and B. To define the roles of each DBD in DNA binding, monomeric and tandem DBD A and B domain chimeras were created and characterized. Individually, DBDs A and B have a very low intrinsic affinity for ssDNA. In contrast, tandem DBDs (AA, AB, BA, and BB) bind ssDNA with moderate to high affinity. The AA chimera had a much higher affinity for ssDNA than did the other tandem DBDs, demonstrating that DBD A has a higher intrinsic affinity for ssDNA than DBD B. The RPA-DNA interface is similar in both DBD A and DBD B. Mutational analysis was carried out to probe the relative contributions of the two domains to DNA binding. Mutation of polar residues in either core DBD resulted in a significant decrease in the affinity of the RPA complex for ssDNA. RPA complexes with pairs of mutated polar residues had lower affinities than those with single mutations. The decrease in affinity observed when polar mutations were combined suggests that multiple polar interactions contribute to the affinity of the RPA core for DNA. These results indicate that RPA-ssDNA interactions are the result of binding of multiple nonequivalent domains. Our data are consistent with a sequential binding model for RPA, in which DBD A is responsible for positioning and initial binding of the RPA complex while DBD A together with DBD B direct stable, high-affinity binding to ssDNA.     

The patterns of binding of RAR, RXR and TR homo- and heterodimers to direct repeats are dictated by the binding specificites of the DNA binding domains.

We show here that, in addition to generating an increase in DNA binding efficiency, heterodimerization of retinoid X receptor (RXR) with either retinoic acid receptor (RAR) or thyroid hormone receptor (TR) alters the binding site repertoires of RAR, RXR and TR homodimers. The binding site specificities of both homo- and heterodimers appear to be largely determined by their DNA binding domains (DBDs), and are dictated by (i) homocooperative DNA binding of the RXR DBD, (ii) heterocooperative DNA binding of RXR/RAR and RXR/TR DBDs, and (iii) steric hindrance. No homodimerization domain exists in the DBDs of TR and RAR. The dimerization function which is located in the ligand binding domain further stabilizes, but in general does not change, the repertoire dictated by the corresponding DBD(s). The binding repertoire can be further modified by the actual sequence of the binding site. We also provide evidence supporting the view that the cooperative binding of the RXR/RAR and RXR/TR DBDs to directly repeated elements is anisotropic, with interactions between the dimerization interfaces occurring only with RXR bound to the 5' located motif. This polarity, which appears to be maintained in the full-length receptor heterodimers, may constitute a novel parameter in promoter-specific transactivation.     

The p73 DNA binding domain displays enhanced stability relative to its homologue, the tumor suppressor p53, and exhibits cooperative DNA binding

The p53 protein family is involved in the control of an intricate network of genes implicated in cell cycle, through to germ line integrity and development. Although the role of p53 is well-established, the intrinsic nature of its homologue p73 has yet to be fully elucidated. Here, the biochemical characterization and homology-based modeling of the p73 protein is presented and the implications for its function(s) examined. The DNA binding domains (DBDs) of p53, p63, and p73 bind to the specific target site of a 30-mer gadd45 dsDNA, as tested by EMSA. The monomeric DBDs bind cooperatively forming tetrameric complexes. However, a larger construct consisting of p73 DBD plus TET domain (p73 CT) and the corresponding p53 DBD plus TET domain (p53 CT) bind gadd45 differently than the respective DBDs. Significantly, p73 DBD exhibited enhanced thermodynamic stability relative to the p53 DBD but not compared to p63 DBD as shown by DSC, CD, and equilibrium unfolding. The p73 CT is less stable than p73 DBD. The modeling data show distinct electrostatic surfaces of p73 and p53 dimers when bound to DNA. Specifically, the p73 surface is less complementary for DNA binding, which may account for the differences in affinity and specificity for p53 REs. These stability and DNA binding data for p73 in vitro enhance and complement our understanding of the role of the p73 protein in vivo and could be exploited in designing strategies for cancer therapy in places where p53 is mutated.     

Site-specific modification of single cysteine Pax3 mutants reveals reciprocal regulation of DNA binding activity of the paired and homeo domain

The mechanism by which the paired domain (PD) and the homeo domain (HD) act together in the intact Pax3 protein to recognize DNA is unclear and was studied in a Pax3 mutant (Pax3-CL) devoid of cysteines. Pax3-CL binds to PD (P6CON-P3OPT sites) and HD (P2, P1/2 sites) DNA site sequences with near wild-type activity but, contrary to Pax3, in a N-ethyl maleimide (NEM) insensitive fashion. The Pax3-CL backbone was used for cysteine scanning mutagenesis and for site-specific NEM modification. Five single cysteine replacements were independently introduced in the PD, while eight were inserted in the HD. NEM sensitivity of PD and HD DNA binding was investigated in DNA-binding competent mutants. In the PD mutant C82, NEM abrogated DNA binding by the PD but also abolished DNA binding by the Cys-less HD. Likewise, in the HD mutant V263C, NEM modification abrogated DNA binding not only by the HD, but also by the Cys-less PD. The transfer of NEM sensitivity to the PD seen in V263C was specific and not due to simple loss of HD DNA binding since alkylation of adjacent V265C and S268C, although impairing HD DNA binding did not affect PD DNA binding. Thus, the PD and HD do not function as independent DNA binding modules in Pax3 but seem functionally interdependent.(1)     

Dimerization interfaces formed between the DNA binding domains determine the cooperative binding of RXR/RAR and RXR/TR heterodimers to DR5 and DR4 elements.

We have previously reported that the binding site repertoires of heterodimers formed between retinoid X receptor (RXR) and either retinoic acid receptor (RAR) or thyroid hormone receptor (TR) bound to response elements consisting of directly repeated PuG(G/T)TCA motifs spaced by 1-5 bp [direct repeat (DR) elements 1-5] are highly similar to those of their corresponding DNA binding domains (DBDs). We have now mapped the dimerization surfaces located in the DBDs of RXR, RAR and TR, which are responsible for cooperative interaction on DR4 (RXR and TR) and DR5 (RXR and RAR). The D-box of the C-terminal CII finger of RXR provides one of the surfaces which is specifically required for the formation of the heterodimerization interfaces on both DR4 and DR5. Heterodimerization with the RXR DBD on DR5 specifically requires the tip of the RAR CI finger as the complementary surface, while a 7 amino acid sequence encompassing the 'prefinger region', but not the TR CI finger, is specifically required for efficient dimerization of TR and RXR DBDs on DR4. Importantly, DBD swapping experiments demonstrate not only that the binding site repertoires of the full-length receptors are dictated by those of their DBDs, but also that the formation of distinct dimerization interfaces between the DBDs are the critical determinants for cooperative DNA binding of these receptors to specific DRs.     

Pax-3-DNA interaction: flexibility in the DNA binding and induction of DNA conformational changes by paired domains.

The mouse Pax-3 gene encodes a protein that is a member of the Pax family of DNA binding proteins. Pax-3 contains two DNA binding domains: a paired domain (PD) and a paired type homeodomain (HD). Both domains are separated by 53 amino acids and interact synergistically with a sequence harboring an ATTA motif (binding to the HD) and a GTTCC site (binding to the PD) separated by 5 base pairs. Here we show that the interaction of Pax-3 with these two binding sites is independent of their angular orientation. In addition, the protein spacer region between the HD and the PD can be shortened without changing the spatial flexibility of the two DNA binding domains which interact with DNA. Furthermore, by using circular permutation analysis we determined that binding of Pax-3 to a DNA fragment containing a specific binding site causes conformational changes in the DNA, as indicated by the different mobilities of the Pax-3-DNA complexes. The ability to change the conformation of the DNA was found to be an intrinsic property of the Pax-3 PD and of all Pax proteins that we tested so far. These in vitro studies suggest that interaction of Pax proteins with their specific sequences in vivo may result in an altered DNA conformation.     

Functional analysis of the four DNA binding domains of replication protein A. The role of RPA2 in ssDNA binding

Replication Protein A (RPA), the heterotrimeric single-stranded DNA (ssDNA)-binding protein of eukaryotes, contains four ssDNA binding domains (DBDs) within its two largest subunits, RPA1 and RPA2. We analyzed the contribution of the four DBDs to ssDNA binding affinity by assaying recombinant yeast RPA in which a single DBD (A, B, C, or D) was inactive. Inactivation was accomplished by mutating the two conserved aromatic stacking residues present in each DBD. Mutation of domain A had the most severe effect and eliminated binding to a short substrate such as (dT)12. RPA containing mutations in DBDs B and C bound to substrates (dT)12, 17, and 23 but with reduced affinity compared with wild type RPA. Mutation of DBD-D had little or no effect on the binding of RPA to these substrates. However, mutations in domain D did affect the binding to oligonucleotides larger than 23 nucleotides (nt). Protein-DNA cross-linking indicated that DBD-A (in RPA1) is essential for RPA1 to interact efficiently with substrates of 12 nt or less and that DBD-D (RPA2) interacts efficiently with oligonucleotides of 27 nt or larger. The data support a sequential model of binding in which DBD-A is responsible for the initial interaction with ssDNA, that domains A, B, and C (RPA1) contact 12-23 nt of ssDNA, and that DBD-D (RPA2) is needed for RPA to interact with substrates that are 23-27 nt in length.     

Cross-talk between the paired domain and the homeodomain of Pax3: DNA binding by each domain causes a structural change in the other domain, supporting interdependence for DNA Binding

The Pax3 protein has two DNA binding domains, a Paired domain (PD) and a paired-type Homeo domain (HD). Although the PD and HD can bind to cognate DNA sequences when expressed individually, genetic and biochemical data indicate that the two domains are functionally interdependent in intact Pax3. The mechanistic basis of this functional interdependence is unknown and was studied by protease sensitivity. Pax3 was modified by the creation of Factor Xa cleavage sites at discrete locations in the PD, the HD, and in the linker segment joining the PD and the HD (Xa172, Xa189, and Xa216) in individual Pax3 mutants. The effect of Factor Xa insertions on protein stability and on DNA binding by the PD and the HD was measured using specific target site sequences. Independent insertions at position 100 in the linker separating the first from the second helix-turn-helix motif of the PD and at position 216 immediately upstream of the HD were found to be readily accessible to Factor Xa cleavage. The effect of DNA binding by the PD or the HD on accessibility of Factor Xa sites inserted in the same or in the other domain was monitored and quantitated for multiple mutants bearing different numbers of Xa sites at each position. In general, DNA binding reduced accessibility of all sites, suggesting a more compact and less solvent-exposed structure of DNA-bound versus DNA-free Pax3. Results of dose response and time course experiments were consistent and showed that DNA binding by the PD not only caused a local structural change in the PD but also caused a conformational change in the HD (P3OPT binding to Xa216 mutants); similarly, DNA binding by the HD also caused a conformational change in the PD (P2 binding to Xa100 mutants). These results provide a structural basis for the functional interdependence of the two DNA binding domains of Pax3.     

Low-resolution structures of thyroid hormone receptor dimers and tetramers in solution

High-resolution X-ray structures of thyroid hormone (TH) receptor (TR) DNA and ligand binding domains (DBD and LBD) have yielded significant insights into TR action. Nevertheless, the TR DBD and LBD act in concert to mediate TH effects upon gene expression, and TRs form multiple oligomers; however, structures of full-length TRs or DBD-LBD constructs that would clarify these influences are not available. Here, we report low-resolution X-ray structures of the TRbeta DBD-LBD construct in solution which define the shape of dimers and tetramers and likely positions of the DBDs and LBDs. The holo TRbeta DBD-LBD construct forms a homodimer with LBD-DBD pairs in close contact and DBDs protruding from the base in the same direction. The DBDs are connected to the LBDs by crossed extended D domains. The apo hTRbeta DBD-LBD construct forms tetramers that resemble bulged cylinders with pairs of LBD dimers in a head-to-head arrangement with DBD pairs packed tightly against the LBD core. Overall, there are similarities with our previous low-resolution structures of retinoid X receptors, but TRs exhibit two unique features. First, TR DBDs are closely juxtaposed in the dimer and tetramer forms. Second, TR DBDs are closely packed against LBDs in the tetramer, but not the dimer. These findings suggest that TRs may be able to engage in hitherto unknown interdomain interactions and that the D domain must rearrange in different oligomeric forms. Finally, the data corroborate our suggestion that apo TRs form tetramers in solution which dissociate into dimers upon hormone binding.     

Dimerization of the core domain of the p53 family: A computational study

Computational models reveal the structural origins of cooperativity in the association of the DNA binding domains (DBD) of p53 (and its two homologues p63 and p73) with consensus DNA. In agreement with experiments they show that cooperativity, as defined by sequential binding of monomers to DNA is strong for p53 and weak for homologues p63 and p73. Computations also suggest that cooperativity can arise from the dimerization of the DBD prior to binding the DNA for all 3 family members. Dimerization between the DBDs is driven by packing interactions originating in residues of helix H1 and loop L3, while DNA binding itself is dominated by local and global electrostatics. Calculations further suggest that low affinity oligomerization of the p53 DBD can precede the oligomerization of the tetramerization domain (TD). During synthesis of multiple chains on the polysome, this may increase fidelity by reducing the possibility of the highly hydrophobic TD from nonspecific aggregation. Mutations have been suggested to test these findings.     

Combinatorial recognition of a complex telomere repeat sequence by the Candida parapsilosis Cdc13AB heterodimer

The telomere repeat units of Candida species are substantially longer and more complex than those in other organisms, raising interesting questions concerning the recognition mechanisms of telomere-binding proteins. Herein we characterized the properties of Candida parapsilosis Cdc13A and Cdc13B, two paralogs that are responsible for binding and protecting the telomere G-strand tails. We found that Cdc13A and Cdc13B can each form complexes with itself and a heterodimeric complex with each other. However, only the heterodimer exhibits high-affinity and sequence-specific binding to the telomere G-tail. EMSA and crosslinking analysis revealed a combinatorial mechanism of DNA recognition, which entails the A and B subunit making contacts to the 3′ and 5′ region of the repeat unit. While both the DBD and OB4 domain of Cdc13A can bind to the equivalent domain in Cdc13B, only the OB4 complex behaves as a stable heterodimer. The unstable Cdc13AB_DBD complex binds G-strand with greatly reduced affinity but the same sequence specificity. Thus the OB4 domains evidently contribute to binding by promoting dimerization of the DBDs. Our investigation reveals a rare example of combinatorial recognition of single-stranded DNA and offers insights into the co-evolution of telomere DNA and cognate binding proteins.