Interactions of phage Mu enhancer and termini that specify the assembly of a topologically unique interwrapped transpososome

The higher-order DNA-protein complex that carries out the chemical steps of phage Mu transposition is organized by bridging interactions among three DNA sites, the left (L) and right (R) ends of Mu, and an enhancer element (E), mediated by the transposase protein MuA. A subset of the six subunits of MuA associated with their cognate sub-sites at L and R communicate with the enhancer to trigger the stepwise assembly of the functional transpososome. The DNA follows a well-defined path within the transpososome, trapping five supercoil nodes comprising two E-R crossings, one E-L crossing and two L-R crossings. The enhancer is a critical DNA element in specifying the unique interwrapped topology of the three-site LER synapse. In this study, we used multiple strategies to characterize Mu end-enhancer interactions to extend, modify and refine those inferred from earlier analyses. Directed placement of transposase subunits at their cognate sub-sites at L and R, analysis of the protein composition of transpososomes thus obtained, and their characterization using topological methods define the following interactions. R1-E interaction is essential to promote transpososome assembly, R3-E interaction contributes to the native topology of the transpososome, and L1-E and R2-E interactions are not required for assembly. The data on L2-E and L3-E interactions are not unequivocal. If they do occur, either one is sufficient to support the assembly process. Our results are consistent with two R-E and perhaps one L-E, being responsible for the three DNA crossings between the enhancer and the left and right ends of Mu. A 3D representation of the interwrapped complex (IW) obtained by modeling is consistent with these results. The model reveals straightforward geometric and topological relationships between the IW complex and a more relaxed enhancer-independent V-form of the transpososome assembled under altered reaction conditions.     

Path of DNA within the Mu transpososome. Transposase interactions bridging two Mu ends and the enhancer trap five DNA supercoils

The phage Mu transpososome is assembled by interactions of transposase subunits with the left (L) and right (R) ends of Mu and an enhancer (E) located in between. A metastable three-site complex LER progresses into a more stable type 0 complex in which a tetrameric transposase is poised for DNA cleavage. "Difference topology" has revealed five trapped negative supercoils within type 0, three contributed by crossings of E with L and R, and two by crossings of L with R. This is the most complex DNA arrangement seen to date within a recombination synapse. Contrary to the prevailing notion, the enhancer appears not to be released immediately following type 0 assembly. Difference topology provides a simple method for determining the ordered sequestration of DNA segments within nucleoprotein assemblies.     

A unique right end-enhancer complex precedes synapsis of Mu ends: the enhancer is sequestered within the transpososome throughout transposition

Assembly of the Mu transpososome is dependent on interactions of transposase subunits with the left (L) and right (R) ends of Mu and an enhancer (E). We have followed the order and dynamics of association of these sites within a series of transpososomes prior to and during formation of a three-site complex (LER), engagement of Mu ends by the transposase active site (type 0 complex), cleavage of the ends (type I complex) and their transfer to target DNA (type II complex). LER appears to be preceded by a two-site complex (ER) where E and R are interwrapped twice, as in the mature transpososome. At each stage thereafter, the overall topology of five DNA supercoils is retained: two between E and R, one between E and L and two between L and R. However, L-R interactions within LER appear to be flexible. Unexpectedly, the enhancer was seen to persist within the transpososome through cleavage and strand transfer of Mu ends to target DNA.     

Conformational isomerization in phage Mu transpososome assembly: effects of the transpositional enhancer and of MuB.

Initiation of phage Mu DNA transposition requires assembly of higher order protein-DNA complexes called Mu transpososomes containing the two Mu DNA ends and MuA transposase tetramer. Mu transpososome assembly is highly regulated and involves multiple DNA sites for transposase binding, including a transpositional enhancer called the internal activation sequence (IAS). In addition, a number of protein cofactors participate, including the target DNA activator MuB ATPase. We investigated the impact of the assembly cofactors on the kinetics of transpososome assembly with the aim of deciphering the reaction steps that are influenced by the cofactors. The transpositional enhancer IAS appears to have little impact on the initial pairing of the two Mu end segments bound by MuA. Instead, it accelerates the post-synaptic conformational step(s) that converts the reversible complex to the stable transpososome. The transpososome assembly stimulation by MuB does not require its stable DNA binding activity, which appears critical for directing transposition to sites distant from the donor transposon.     

DNA recognition sites activate MuA transposase to perform transposition of non-Mu DNA.

Mu transposition occurs within a large protein-DNA complex called a transpososome. This stable complex includes four subunits of MuA transposase, each contacting a 22-base pair recognition site located near an end of the transposon DNA. These MuA recognition sites are critical for assembling the transpososome. Here we report that when concentrations of Mu DNA are limited, the MuA recognition sites permit assembly of transpososomes in which non-Mu DNA substitutes for some of the Mu sequences. These "hybrid" transpososomes are stable to competitor DNA, actively transpose the non-Mu DNA, and produce transposition products that had been previously observed but not explained. The strongest activator of non-Mu transposition is a DNA fragment containing two MuA recognition sites and no cleavage site, but a shorter fragment with just one recognition site is sufficient. Based on our results, we propose that MuA recognition sites drive assembly of functional transpososomes in two complementary ways. Multiple recognition sites help physically position MuA subunits in the transpososome plus each individual site allosterically activates transposase.     

Criss-crossed interactions between the enhancer and the att sites of phage Mu during DNA transposition.

A bipartite enhancer sequence (composed of the O1 and O2 operator sites) is essential for assembly of the functional tetramer of phage Mu transposase (MuA) on supercoiled DNA substrates. A three-site interaction (LER) between the left (L) and right (R) ends of Mu (att sites) and the enhancer (E) precedes tetramer assembly. We have dissected the role of the enhancer in tetramer assembly by using two transposase proteins that have a common att site specificity, but are distinct in their enhancer specificity. The activity of these proteins on substrates containing hybrid enhancers reveals a 'criss-crossed' pattern of interaction between att and enhancer sites. The left operator, O1, of the enhancer interacts specifically with the transposase subunit at the R1 site (within the right att sequence) that is responsible for cleaving the left end of Mu. The right operator, O2, shows a preferential interaction with the transposase subunit at the L1 site (within the left att sequence) that is responsible for cleaving the right end of Mu.     

Target immunity during Mu DNA transposition. Transpososome assembly and DNA looping enhance MuA-mediated disassembly of the MuB target complex

The Mu transpososome can distinguish between proximal and distal DNA during the selection of a site for transposition. This phenomenon, termed target immunity, involves MuA-stimulated removal of MuB oligomers from sites near the Mu genome. Using a combination of ensemble and single-molecule fluorescence methods, we show that the MuA tetramer can stably associate with the DNA-bound MuB oligomer and is more efficient than monomeric MuA at stimulating the dissociation of MuB from DNA. In addition, we demonstrate that DNA looping is essential for efficient disassembly of the MuB oligomer. We propose a model in which the MuA tetramer forms a multivalent complex with the MuB oligomer and catalyzes the processive removal of MuB from DNA.     

Progressive structural transitions within Mu transpositional complexes

Assembly of the Mu transpososome is dependent on specific binding sites for the MuA transposase near the ends of the phage genome. MuA also contacts terminal nucleotides but only upon transpososome assembly, and base-specific recognition of the terminal nucleotides is critical for assembly. We show that Mu ends lacking the terminal 5 bp can form transpososomes, while longer DNA substrates with mutated terminal nucleotides cannot. The impact of the mutations can be suppressed by base mismatches near the end of Mu. Deletion of the flanking strands or mutation of the terminal nucleotides has differential effects on the cleavage and strand transfer reactions. These results show that the terminal nucleotides control the assembly and activation of transpososomes by influencing conformational changes around the active site.     

Domain III function of Mu transposase analysed by directed placement of subunits within the transpososome

Assembly of the functional tetrameric form of Mu transposase (MuA protein) at the two att ends of Mu depends on interaction of MuA with multiple att and enhancer sites on supercoiled DNA, and is stimulated by MuB protein. The N-terminal domain I of MuA harbours distinct regions for interaction with the att ends and enhancer; the C-terminal domain III contains separate regions essential for tetramer assembly and interaction with MuB protein (IIIα and IIIβ, respectively). Although the central domain II (the ‘DDE’ domain) of MuA harbours the known catalytic DDE residues, a 26 amino acid peptide within IIIα also has a non-specific DNA binding and nuclease activity which has been implicated in catalysis. One model proposes that active sites for Mu transposition are assembled by sharing structural/catalytic residues between domains II and III present on separate MuA monomers within the MuA tetramer. We have used substrates with altered att sites and mixtures of MuA proteins with either wild-type or altered att DNA binding specificities, to create tetrameric arrangements wherein specific MuA subunits are nonfunctional in II, IIIα or IIIβ domains. From the ability of these oriented tetramers to carry out DNA cleavage and strand transfer we conclude that domain IIIα or IIIβ function is not unique to a specific subunit within the tetramer, indicative of a structural rather than a catalytic function for domain III in Mu transposition.     

Characteristics of MuA transposase-catalyzed processing of model transposon end DNA hairpin substrates

Bacteriophage Mu uses non-replicative transposition for integration into the host's chromosome and replicative transposition for phage propagation. Biochemical and structural comparisons together with evolutionary considerations suggest that the Mu transposition machinery might share functional similarities with machineries of the systems that are known to employ a hairpin intermediate during the catalytic steps of transposition. Model transposon end DNA hairpin substrates were used in a minimal-component in vitro system to study their proficiency to promote Mu transpososome assembly and subsequent MuA-catalyzed chemical reactions leading to the strand transfer product. MuA indeed was able to assemble hairpin substrates into a catalytically competent transpososome, open the hairpin ends and accurately join the opened ends to the target DNA. The hairpin opening and transposon end cleavage reactions had identical metal ion preferences, indicating similar conformations within the catalytic center for these reactions. Hairpin length influenced transpososome assembly as well as catalysis: longer loops were more efficient in these respects. In general, MuA's proficiency to utilize different types of hairpin substrates indicates a certain degree of flexibility within the transposition machinery core. Overall, the results suggest that non-replicative and replicative transposition systems may structurally and evolutionarily be more closely linked than anticipated previously.     

Altering the DNA-binding specificity of Mu transposase in vitro.

We describe the isolation of a variant of Mu transposase (MuA protein) which can recognize altered att sites at the ends of Mu DNA. No prior knowledge of the structure of the DNA binding domain or its mode of interaction with att DNA was necessary to obtain this variant. Protein secondary structure programs initially helped target mutations to predicted helical regions within a subdomain of MuA demonstrated to harbor att DNA binding activity. Of the 54 mutant positions examined, only two showed decreased affinity for att DNA, while eight others affected assembly of the Mu transpososome. A variant impaired in DNA binding [MuA(R146V)], and predicted to be in the recognition helix of an HTH motif, was challenged with altered att sites created from degenerate oligonucleotides to select for novel DNA binding specificity. DNA sequences bound to MuA(R146V) were detected by gel-retardation, and following several steps of PCR amplification/enrichment, were identified by cloning and sequencing. The strategy allowed recovery of an altered att site for which MuA(R146V) showed higher affinity than for the wild-type site, although this site was bound by wild-type MuA as well. The altered association between MuA(R146V) and an altered att site target was competent in transposition. We discuss the strengths and limitations of this methodology, which has applications in dissecting the functional role of specific protein-DNA associations.     

Supercoiling-dependent site-specific binding of HU to naked Mu DNA.

Using HU chemical nucleases to probe HU-DNA interactions, we report here for the first time site-specific binding of HU to naked DNA. An unique feature of this interaction is the absolute requirement for negative DNA supercoiling for detectable levels of site-specific DNA binding. The HU binding site is the Mu spacer between the L1 and L2 transposase binding sites. Our results suggest recognition of an altered DNA structure which is induced by DNA supercoiling. We propose that recruitment of HU to this naked DNA site induces the DNA bending required for productive synapsis and transpososome assembly. Implications of HU as a supercoiling sensor with a potential in vivo regulatory role are discussed. Finally, using HU nucleases we have also shown that non-specific DNA binding by HU is stimulated by increasing levels of supercoiling.     

The phage Mu transpososome core: DNA requirements for assembly and function.

The two chemical steps of phage Mu transpositional recombination, donor DNA cleavage and strand transfer, take place within higher order protein-DNA complexes called transpososomes. At the core of these complexes is a tetramer of MuA (the transposase), bound to the two ends of the Mu genome. While transpososome assembly normally requires a number of cofactors, under certain conditions only MuA and a short DNA fragment are required. DNA requirements for this process, as well as the stability and activity of the ensuing complexes, were established. The divalent cation normally required for assembly of the stable complex could be omitted if the substrate was prenicked, if the flanking DNA was very short or if the two flanking strands were non-complementary. The presence of a single nucleotide beyond the Mu genome end on the non-cut strand was critical for transpososome stability. Donor cleavage additionally required at least two flanking nucleotides on the strand to be cleaved. The flanking DNA double helix was destabilized, implying distortion of the DNA near the active site. Although donor cleavage required Mg2+, strand transfer took place in the presence of Ca2+ as well, suggesting a conformational difference in the active site for the two chemical steps.     

The dynamic Mu transpososome: MuB activation prevents disintegration

DNA transposases use a single active center to sequentially cleave the transposable element DNA and join this DNA to a target site. Recombination requires controlled conformational changes within the transposase to ensure that these chemically distinct steps occur at the right time and place, and that the reaction proceeds in the net forward direction. Mu transposition is catalyzed by a stable complex of MuA transposase bound to paired Mu DNA ends (a transpososome). We find that Mu transpososomes efficiently catalyze disintegration when recombination on one end of the Mu DNA is blocked. The MuB activator protein controls the integration versus disintegration equilibrium. When MuB is present, disintegration occurs slowly and transpososomes that have disintegrated catalyze subsequent rounds of recombination. In the absence of MuB, disintegration goes to completion. These results together with experiments mapping the MuA-MuB contacts during DNA joining suggest that MuB controls progression of recombination by specifically stabilizing a concerted transition to the “joining” configuration of MuA. Thus, we propose that MuB's interaction with the transpososome actively promotes coupled joining of both ends of the element DNA into the same target site and may provide a mechanism to antagonize formation of single-end transposition products.     

The Mu enhancer is functionally asymmetric both in cis and in trans. Topological selectivity of Mu transposition is enhancer-independent

Mu DNA transposition from a negatively supercoiled DNA substrate requires interaction of an enhancer element with the left (attL) and right (attR) ends of Mu. The orientation of the L and R ends with respect to each other (inverted) and with respect to the enhancer is normally inviolate. We show that when the enhancer is provided in trans as a linear fragment, the head to head orientation of the L/R ends is still required. Each functional half of the linear enhancer maintains the same "cross-wise" interaction with the subsites L1 and R1, when present in cis or in trans. In reactions catalyzed by an enhancer-independent variant of the Mu transposase, the need for negative supercoiling of the substrate and the inverted orientation of L and R ends is not relaxed. These results show that the orientation specificity of the enhancer is not determined by its topological linkage to the Mu ends. There is a functional asymmetry inherent to the enhancer. Furthermore, the enhancer does not directly impose topological constraints on the transposition reaction or specify the reactive orientation of the Mu ends.     

The same two monomers within a MuA tetramer provide the DDE domains for the strand cleavage and strand transfer steps of transposition.

The chemistry of Mu transposition is executed within a tetrameric form of the Mu transposase (MuA protein). A triad of DDE (Asp, Asp35Glu motif) residues in the central domain of MuA (DDE domain) is essential for both the strand cleavage and strand transfer steps of transposition. Previous studies had suggested that complete Mu transposition requires all four subunits in the MuA tetramer to carry an active DDE domain. Using a mixture of MuA proteins with either wild-type or altered att-DNA binding specificities, we have now designed specific arrangements of MuA subunits carrying the DDE domain. From analysis of the abilities of oriented tetramers to carry out DNA cleavage and strand transfer from supercoiled DNA, a new picture of the disposition of DNA and protein partners during transposition has emerged. For DNA cleavage, two subunits of MuA located at attL1 and attR1 (sites that undergo cleavage) provide DDE residues in trans. The same two subunits contribute DDE residues for strand transfer, also in trans. Thus, only two active DDE+ monomers within the tetramer carry out complete Mu transposition. We also show that when the attR1-R2 arrangement used on supercoiled substrates is tested for cleavage on linear substrates, alternative chemically competent DNA-protein associations are produced, wherein the functional DDE subunits are positioned at R2 rather than at R1.     

The Mu three-site synapse: a strained assembly platform in which delivery of the L1 transposase binding site triggers catalytic commitment

The Mu DNA transposition reaction proceeds through a three-site synaptic complex (LER), including the two Mu ends and the transpositional enhancer. We show that the LER contains highly stressed DNA regions in the enhancer and in the L1 transposase binding site. We propose that the L1 site acts as the keystone for assembly of a catalytically competent transpososome. Delivery of L1 through HU-mediated bending completes LER assembly, provides the trigger for necessary conformational transitions in transpososome formation, and allows target capture to occur. Relief of the stress at L1 and the enhancer may help drive Mu A tetramerization and engagement of the Mu ends by the transposase active site.     

Structural aspects of a higher order nucleoprotein complex: induction of an altered DNA structure at the Mu-host junction of the Mu type 1 transpososome.

The Mu in vitro strand transfer reaction proceeds via two stable higher order nucleoprotein complexes, the Type 1 and Type 2 transpososomes. The Mu A protein is responsible for the structural and functional integrity of the Type 1 transpososome. We have investigated the quaternary structure of the Mu A protein within this complex by chemical cross-linking experiments and found that the basic structural unit is an A tetramer. Three Mu A binding sites in the transpososome are protected by DNase I footprinting: the outermost A binding sites L1 and R1, as well as R2. Genetic evidence is also presented which corroborates this result. Efficient formation of Type 1 complexes occurs in mini-Mus with the L3 or R3 sites deleted or when the L2 site has been substituted; but no reaction occurs in the absence of R2. The protection at the L1 and R1 sites extends 12-13 bp beyond the Mu-host junctions as seen by DNase I and methidiumpropyl-EDTA.Fe(II) [MPE.Fe(II)] foot-printing, indicating Mu A contacts with the flanking host sequences in the transpososome but not on linear DNA; furthermore, hydroxyl radical footprinting shows an unprecedentedly large enhancement on the continuous strand, 2 bp beyond the nick site outside the Mu right end, which suggests that an altered DNA structure is induced upon Type 1 complex formation.     

Congruence of in vivo and in vitro insertion patterns in hot E. coli gene targets of transposable element Mu: opposing roles of MuB in target capture and integration

Phage Mu transposes promiscuously, employing protein MuB for target capture. MuB forms stable filaments on A/T-rich DNA, and a correlation between preferred MuB binding and Mu integration has been observed. We have investigated the relationship between MuB-binding and Mu insertion into hot and cold Mu targets within the Escherichia coli genome. Although higher binding of MuB to select hot versus cold genes was seen in vivo, the hot genes had an average A/T content and were less preferred targets in vitro, whereas cold genes had higher A/T values and were more efficient targets in vitro. These data suggest that A/T-rich regions are unavailable for MuB binding, and that A/T content is not a good predictor of Mu behavior in vivo. Insertion patterns within two hot genes in vivo could be superimposed on those obtained in vitro in reactions employing purified MuA transposase and MuB, ruling out the contribution of a special DNA structure or additional host factors to the hot behavior of these genes. While A/T-rich DNA is a preferred target in vitro, a fragment made up exclusively of A/T was an extremely poor target. A continuous MuB filament assembled along the A/T region likely protects it against the action of MuA. Our results suggest that MuB binds E. coli DNA in an interspersed manner utilizing local A/T richness, and facilitates capture of these bound regions by the transpososome. Actual integration events are then directed to sites that are in proximity to MuB filaments but are themselves free of MuB.