Structures of Escherichia coli DNA mismatch repair enzyme MutS in complex with different mismatches: a common recognition mode for diverse substrates

We have refined a series of isomorphous crystal structures of the Escherichia coli DNA mismatch repair enzyme MutS in complex with G:T, A:A, C:A and G:G mismatches and also with a single unpaired thymidine. In all these structures, the DNA is kinked by ~60° upon protein binding. Two residues widely conserved in the MutS family are involved in mismatch recognition. The phenylalanine, Phe 36, is seen stacking on one of the mismatched bases. The same base is also seen forming a hydrogen bond to the glutamate Glu 38. This hydrogen bond involves the N7 if the base stacking on Phe 36 is a purine and the N3 if it is a pyrimidine (thymine). Thus, MutS uses a common binding mode to recognize a wide range of mismatches.     

Different Roles of Eukaryotic MutS and MutL Complexes in Repair of Small Insertion and Deletion Loops in Yeast

DNA mismatch repair greatly increases genome fidelity by recognizing and removing replication errors. In order to understand how this fidelity is maintained, it is important to uncover the relative specificities of the different components of mismatch repair. There are two major mispair recognition complexes in eukaryotes that are homologues of bacterial MutS proteins, MutSα and MutSβ, with MutSα recognizing base-base mismatches and small loop mispairs and MutSβ recognizing larger loop mispairs. Upon recognition of a mispair, the MutS complexes then interact with homologues of the bacterial MutL protein. Loops formed on the primer strand during replication lead to insertion mutations, whereas loops on the template strand lead to deletions. We show here in yeast, using oligonucleotide transformation, that MutSα has a strong bias toward repair of insertion loops, while MutSβ has an even stronger bias toward repair of deletion loops. Our results suggest that this bias in repair is due to the different interactions of the MutS complexes with the MutL complexes. Two mutants of MutLα, pms1-G882E and pms1-H888R, repair deletion mispairs but not insertion mispairs. Moreover, we find that a different MutL complex, MutLγ, is extremely important, but not sufficient, for deletion repair in the presence of either MutLα mutation. MutSβ is present in many eukaryotic organisms, but not in prokaryotes. We suggest that the biased repair of deletion mispairs may reflect a critical eukaryotic function of MutSβ in mismatch repair.     

Mechanism of MutS searching for DNA mismatches and signaling repair

DNA mismatch repair is initiated by the recognition of mismatches by MutS proteins. The mechanism by which MutS searches for and recognizes mismatches and subsequently signals repair remains poorly understood. We used single-molecule analyses of atomic force microscopy images of MutS-DNA complexes, coupled with biochemical assays, to determine the distributions of conformational states, the DNA binding affinities, and the ATPase activities of wild type and two mutants of MutS, with alanine substitutions in the conserved Phe-Xaa-Glu mismatch recognition motif. We find that on homoduplex DNA, the conserved Glu, but not the Phe, facilitates MutS-induced DNA bending, whereas at mismatches, both Phe and Glu promote the formation of an unbent conformation. The data reveal an unusual role for the Phe residue in that it promotes the unbending, not bending, of DNA at mismatch sites. In addition, formation of the specific unbent MutS-DNA conformation at mismatches appears to be required for the inhibition of ATP hydrolysis by MutS that signals initiation of repair. These results provide a structural explanation for the mechanism by which MutS searches for and recognizes mismatches and for the observed phenotypes of mutants with substitutions in the Phe-Xaa-Glu motif.     

The Phe-X-Glu DNA binding motif of MutS. The role of hydrogen bonding in mismatch recognition

The crystal structures of MutS protein from Thermus aquaticus and Escherichia coli in a complex with a mismatch-containing DNA duplex reveal that the Glu residue in a conserved Phe-X-Glu motif participates in a hydrogen-bonded contact with either an unpaired thymidine or the thymidine of a G-T base-base mismatch. Here, the role of hydrogen bonding in mismatch recognition by MutS is assessed. The relative affinities of MutS for DNA duplexes containing nonpolar shape mimics of A and T, 4-methylbenzimidazole (Z), and difluorotoluene (F), respectively, that lack hydrogen bonding donors and acceptors, are determined in gel mobility shift assays. The results provide support for an induced fit mode of mismatch binding in which duplexes destabilized by mismatches are preferred substrates for kinking by MutS. Hydrogen bonding between the O epsilon 2 group of Glu and the mismatched base contributes only marginally to mismatch recognition and is significantly less important than the aromatic ring stack with the conserved Phe residue. A MutS protein in which Ala is substituted for Glu(38) is shown to be defective for mismatch repair in vivo. DNA binding studies reveal a novel role for the conserved Glu residue in the establishment of mismatch discrimination by MutS.     

Mismatch recognition function of Arabidopsis thaliana MutSγ

Genetic stability depends in part on an efficient DNA lesion recognition and correction by the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system. In eukaryotes, MMR is initiated by the binding of heterodimeric MutS homologue (MSH) complexes, MSH2–MSH6 and MSH2–MSH3, which recognize and bind mismatches and unpaired nucleotides. Plants encode another mismatch recognition protein, named MSH7. MSH7 forms a heterodimer with MSH2 and the protein complex is designated MutSγ. We here report the effect the expression of Arabidopsis MSH2 and MSH7 alone or in combination exert on the genomic stability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. AtMSH2 and AtMutSγ proteins failed to complement the hypermutator phenotype of an msh2 deficient strain. However, overexpressing AtMutSγ in MMR proficient strains generated a 4-fold increase in CAN1 forward mutation rate, when compared to wild-type strains. Can^r mutation spectrum analysis of AtMutSγ overproducing strains revealed a substantial increase in the frequency of base substitution mutations, including an increased accumulation of base pair changes from G:C to A:T and T:A to C:G, G:C or A:T. Taken together, these results suggest that AtMutSγ affects yeast genomic stability by recognizing specific mismatches and preventing correction by yeast MutSα and MutSβ, with subsequent inability to interact with yeast downstream proteins needed to complete MMR.     

Molecular mechanisms of DNA mismatch repair.

DNA mismatch repair (MMR) safeguards the integrity of the genome. In its role in postreplicative repair, this repair pathway corrects base-base and insertion/deletion (I/D) mismatches that have escaped the proofreading function of replicative polymerases. In its absence, cells assume a mutator phenotype in which the rate of spontaneous mutation is greatly elevated. The discovery that defects in mismatch repair segregate with certain cancer predisposition syndromes highlights its essential role in mutation avoidance. Recently, three-dimensional structures of MutS, a key repair protein that recognizes mismatches, have been determined by X-ray crystallography. This article provides an overview of the structural features of MutS proteins and discusses how the structural data together with biochemical and genetic studies reveal new insights into the molecular mechanisms of mismatch repair.     

A mutation in the MSH6 subunit of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae MSH2-MSH6 complex disrupts mismatch recognition.

In yeast, MSH2 interacts with MSH6 to repair base pair mismatches and single nucleotide insertion/deletion mismatches and with MSH3 to recognize small loop insertion/deletion mismatches. We identified a msh6 mutation (msh6-F337A) that when overexpressed in wild type strains conferred a defect in both MSH2-MSH6- and MSH2-MSH3-dependent mismatch repair pathways. Genetic analysis suggested that this phenotype was due to msh6-F337A sequestering MSH2 and preventing it from interacting with MSH3 and MSH6. In UV cross-linking, filter binding, and gel retardation assays, the MSH2-msh6-F337A complex displayed a mismatch recognition defect. These observations, in conjunction with ATPase and dissociation rate analysis, suggested that MSH2-msh6-F337A formed an unproductive complex that was unable to stably bind to mismatch DNA.     

Regulation of mitotic homeologous recombination in yeast. Functions of mismatch repair and nucleotide excision repair genes

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae homologs of the bacterial mismatch repair proteins MutS and MutL correct replication errors and prevent recombination between homeologous (nonidentical) sequences. Previously, we demonstrated that Msh2p, Msh3p, and Pms1p regulate recombination between 91% identical inverted repeats, and here use the same substrates to show that Mlh1p and Msh6p have important antirecombination roles. In addition, substrates containing defined types of mismatches (base-base mismatches; 1-, 4-, or 12-nt insertion/deletion loops; or 18-nt palindromes) were used to examine recognition of these mismatches in mitotic recombination intermediates. Msh2p was required for recognition of all types of mismatches, whereas Msh6p recognized only base-base mismatches and 1-nt insertion/deletion loops. Msh3p was involved in recognition of the palindrome and all loops, but also had an unexpected antirecombination role when the potential heteroduplex contained only base-base mismatches. In contrast to their similar antimutator roles, Pms1p consistently inhibited recombination to a lesser degree than did Msh2p. In addition to the yeast MutS and MutL homologs, the exonuclease Exo1p and the nucleotide excision repair proteins Rad1p and Rad10p were found to have roles in inhibiting recombination between mismatched substrates.     

Interaction between the mismatch repair and nucleotide excision repair pathways in the prevention of 5-azacytidine-induced CG-to-GC mutations in Escherichia coli

5-Azacytidine induces CG-to-GC transversion mutations in Escherichia coli. The results presented in this paper provide evidence that repair of the drug-induced lesions that produce these mutations involves components of both the mismatch repair and nucleotide excision repair systems. Strains deficient in mutL, mutS, uvrA, uvrB or uvrC all showed an increase in mutation in response to 5-azacytidine. Using a bacterial two-hybrid assay, we showed that UvrB interacts with MutL and MutS in a drug-dependent manner, while UvrC interacts with MutL independent of drug. We suggest that 5-azacytidine-induced mismatches recruit MutS and MutL, but are poorly processed by mismatch repair. Instead, the stalled MutS–MutL complex recruits the Uvr proteins to complete repair.     

Saccharomyces cerevisiae MSH2-MSH3 and MSH2-MSH6 complexes display distinct requirements for DNA binding domain I in mismatch recognition

In eukaryotic mismatch repair (MMR) MSH2-MSH6 initiates the repair of base-base and small insertion/deletion mismatches while MSH2-MSH3 repairs larger insertion/deletion mismatches. Here, we show that the msh2Delta1 mutation, containing a complete deletion of the conserved mismatch recognition domain I of MSH2, conferred a separation of function phenotype with respect to MSH2-MSH3 and MSH2-MSH6 functions. Strains bearing the msh2Delta1 mutation were nearly wild-type in MSH2-MSH6-mediated MMR and in suppressing recombination between DNA sequences predicted to form mismatches recognized by MSH2-MSH6. However, these strains were completely defective in MSH2-MSH3-mediated MMR and recombination functions. This information encouraged us to analyze the contributions of domain I to the mismatch binding specificity of MSH2-MSH3 in genetic and biochemical assays. We found that domain I in MSH2 contributed a non-specific DNA binding activity while domain I of MSH3 appeared important for mismatch binding specificity and for suppressing non-specific DNA binding. These observations reveal distinct requirements for the MSH2 DNA binding domain I in the repair of DNA mismatches and suggest that the binding of MSH2-MSH3 to mismatch DNA involves protein-DNA contacts that appear very different from those required for MSH2-MSH6 mismatch binding.     

Single-molecule multiparameter fluorescence spectroscopy reveals directional MutS binding to mismatched bases in DNA

Mismatch repair (MMR) corrects replication errors such as mismatched bases and loops in DNA. The evolutionarily conserved dimeric MMR protein MutS recognizes mismatches by stacking a phenylalanine of one subunit against one base of the mismatched pair. In all crystal structures of G:T mismatch-bound MutS, phenylalanine is stacked against thymine. To explore whether these structures reflect directional mismatch recognition by MutS, we monitored the orientation of Escherichia coli MutS binding to mismatches by FRET and anisotropy with steady state, pre-steady state and single-molecule multiparameter fluorescence measurements in a solution. The results confirm that specifically bound MutS bends DNA at the mismatch. We found additional MutS-mismatch complexes with distinct conformations that may have functional relevance in MMR. The analysis of individual binding events reveal significant bias in MutS orientation on asymmetric mismatches (G:T versus T:G, A:C versus C:A), but not on symmetric mismatches (G:G). When MutS is blocked from binding a mismatch in the preferred orientation by positioning asymmetric mismatches near the ends of linear DNA substrates, its ability to authorize subsequent steps of MMR, such as MutH endonuclease activation, is almost abolished. These findings shed light on prerequisites for MutS interactions with other MMR proteins for repairing the appropriate DNA strand.     

Structural and functional divergence of MutS2 from bacterial MutS1 and eukaryotic MSH4-MSH5 homologs

MutS homologs, identified in nearly all bacteria and eukaryotes, include the bacterial proteins MutS1 and MutS2 and the eukaryotic MutS homologs 1 to 7, and they often are involved in recognition and repair of mismatched bases and small insertion/deletions, thereby limiting illegitimate recombination and spontaneous mutation. To explore the relationship of MutS2 to other MutS homologs, we examined conserved protein domains. Fundamental differences in structure between MutS2 and other MutS homologs suggest that MutS1 and MutS2 diverged early during evolution, with all eukaryotic homologs arising from a MutS1 ancestor. Data from MutS1 crystal structures, biochemical results from MutS2 analyses, and our phylogenetic studies suggest that MutS2 has functions distinct from other members of the MutS family. A mutS2 mutant was constructed in Helicobacter pylori, which lacks mutS1 and mismatch repair genes mutL and mutH. We show that MutS2 plays no role in mismatch or recombinational repair or deletion between direct DNA repeats. In contrast, MutS2 plays a significant role in limiting intergenomic recombination across a range of donor DNA tested. This phenotypic analysis is consistent with the phylogenetic and biochemical data suggesting that MutS1 and MutS2 have divergent functions.     

Structural and functional analysis of the MutS C-terminal tetramerization domain

The Escherichia coli DNA mismatch repair (MMR) protein MutS is essential for the correction of DNA replication errors. In vitro, MutS exists in a dimer/tetramer equilibrium that is converted into a monomer/dimer equilibrium upon deletion of the C-terminal 53 amino acids. In vivo and in vitro data have shown that this C-terminal domain (CTD, residues 801–853) is critical for tetramerization and the function of MutS in MMR and anti-recombination. We report the expression, purification and analysis of the E.coli MutS-CTD. Secondary structure prediction and circular dichroism suggest that the CTD is folded, with an α-helical content of 30%. Based on sedimentation equilibrium and velocity analyses, MutS-CTD forms a tetramer of asymmetric shape. A single point mutation (D835R) abolishes tetramerization but not dimerization of both MutS-CTD and full-length MutS. Interestingly, the in vivo and in vitro MMR activity of MutS^CF/D835R is diminished to a similar extent as a truncated MutS variant (MutS800, residues 1–800), which lacks the CTD. Moreover, the dimer-forming MutS^CF/D835R has comparable DNA binding affinity with the tetramer-forming MutS, but is impaired in mismatch-dependent activation of MutH. Our data support the hypothesis that tetramerization of MutS is important but not essential for MutS function in MMR.     

MutL-catalyzed ATP hydrolysis is required at a post-UvrD loading step in methyl-directed mismatch repair

Methyl-directed mismatch repair is a coordinated process that ensures replication fidelity and genome integrity by resolving base pair mismatches and insertion/deletion loops. This post-replicative event involves the activities of several proteins, many of which appear to be regulated by MutL. MutL interacts with and modulates the activities of MutS, MutH, UvrD, and perhaps other proteins. The purified protein catalyzes a slow ATP hydrolysis reaction that is essential for its role in mismatch repair. However, the role of the ATP hydrolysis reaction is not understood. We have begun to address this issue using two point mutants: MutL-E29A, which binds nucleotide but does not catalyze ATP hydrolysis, and MutL-D58A, which does not bind nucleotide. As expected, both mutants failed to complement the loss of MutL in genetic assays. Purified MutL-E29A protein interacted with MutS and stimulated the MutH-catalyzed nicking reaction in a mismatch-dependent manner. Importantly, MutL-E29A stimulated the loading of UvrD on model substrates. In fact, stimulation of UvrD-catalyzed unwinding was more robust with MutL-E29A than the wild-type protein. MutL-D58A, on the other hand, did not interact with MutS, stimulate MutH-catalyzed nicking, or stimulate the loading of UvrD. We conclude that ATP-bound MutL is required for the incision steps associated with mismatch repair and that ATP hydrolysis by MutL is required for a step in the mismatch repair pathway subsequent to the loading of UvrD and may serve to regulate helicase loading.     

Analysis of yeast pms1, msh2, and mlh1 mutators points to differences in mismatch correction efficiencies between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells

Genetic stability relies in part on the efficiency with which post-replicative mismatch repair (MMR) detects and corrects DNA replication errors. In Escherichia coli, endogenous transition mispairs and insertion/deletion (ID) heterologies are corrected with similar efficiencies – but much more efficiently than transversion mispairs – as revealed by mutation rate increases in MMR mutants. To assess the relative efficiencies with which these mismatches are corrected in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we examined repair of defined mismatches on heteroduplex plasmids and compared the spectra for >1000 spontaneous SUP4-o mutations arising in isogenic wild-type or MMR-deficient (pms1, mlh1, msh2) strains. Heteroduplexes containing G/T mispairs or ID heterologies were corrected more efficiently than those containing transversion mismatches. However, the rates of single base-pair insertion/deletion were increased much more (82-fold or 34-fold, respectively) on average than the rate of base pair substitutions (4.4-fold), with the rates for total transitions and transversions increasing to similar extents. Thus, the relative efficiencies with which mismatches formed during DNA replication are repaired appear to differ in prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. In addition, our results indicate that in yeast, and probably other eukaryotes, these efficiencies may not mirror those obtained from an analysis of heteroduplex correction.     

DnaN clamp zones provide a platform for spatiotemporal coupling of mismatch detection to DNA replication

Mismatch repair (MMR) increases the fidelity of DNA replication by identifying and correcting replication errors. Processivity clamps are vital components of DNA replication and MMR, yet the mechanism and extent to which they participate in MMR remains unclear. We investigated the role of the Bacillus subtilis processivity clamp DnaN, and found that it serves as a platform for mismatch detection and coupling of repair to DNA replication. By visualizing functional MutS fluorescent fusions in vivo, we find that MutS forms foci independent of mismatch detection at sites of replication (i.e. the replisome). These MutS foci are directed to the replisome by DnaN clamp zones that aid mismatch detection by targeting the search to nascent DNA. Following mismatch detection, MutS disengages from the replisome, facilitating repair. We tested the functional importance of DnaN‐mediated mismatch detection for MMR, and found that it accounts for 90% of repair. This high dependence on DnaN can be bypassed by increasing MutS concentration within the cell, indicating a secondary mode of detection in vivo whereby MutS directly finds mismatches without associating with the replisome. Overall, our results provide new insight into the mechanism by which DnaN couples mismatch recognition to DNA replication in living cells.     

Beta clamp directs localization of mismatch repair in Bacillus subtilis

MutS homologs function in several cellular pathways including mismatch repair (MMR), the process by which mismatches introduced during DNA replication are corrected. We demonstrate that the C terminus of Bacillus subtilis MutS is necessary for an interaction with beta clamp. This interaction is required for MutS-GFP focus formation in response to mismatches. Reciprocally, we show that a mutant of the beta clamp causes elevated mutation frequencies and is reduced for MutS-GFP focus formation. MutS mutants defective for interaction with beta clamp failed to support the next step of MMR, MutL-GFP focus formation. We conclude that the interaction between MutS and beta is the major molecular interaction facilitating focus formation and that beta clamp aids in the stabilization of MutS at a mismatch in vivo. The striking ability of the MutS C terminus to direct focus formation at replisomes by itself, suggests that it is mismatch recognition that licenses MutS's interaction with beta clamp.     

Mismatch repair: the praying hands of fidelity

High-resolution crystal structures have recently been solved for the mismatch binding protein MutS of Escherichia coli and its Thermus aquaticus homologue; they show how these factors recognise such structurally diverse substrates as base-base mismatches and insertion/deletion loops.     

MutS recognition: Multiple mismatches and sequence context effects

Escherichia coli MutS is a versatile repair protein that specifically recognizes not only various types of mismatches but also single stranded loops of up to 4 nucleotides in length. Specific binding, followed by the next step of tracking the DNA helix that locates hemi-methylated sites, is regulated by the conformational state of the protein as a function of ATP binding/hydrolysis. Here, we study how various molecular determinants of a heteroduplex regulate mismatch recognition by MutS, the critical first step of mismatch repair. Using classical DNase I footprinting assays, we demonstrate that the hierarchy of MutS binding to various types of mismatches is identical whether the mismatches are present singly or in multiples. Moreover, this unique hierarchy is indifferent both to the differential level of DNA helical flexibility and to the unpaired status of the mismatched bases in a heteroduplex. Surprisingly, multiple mismatches exhibit reduced affinity of binding to MutS, compared to that of a similar single mismatch. Such a reduction in the affinity might be due to sequence context effects, which we established more directly by studying two identical single mismatches in an altered sequence background. A mismatch, upon simply being flipped at the same location, elicits changes in MutS specific contacts, thereby underscoring the importance of sequence context in modulating MutS binding to mismatches.     

Insights into protein - DNA interactions, stability and allosteric communications: a computational study of mutSα-DNA recognition complexes

DNA mismatch repair proteins (MMR) maintain genetic stability by recognizing and repairing mismatched bases and insertion/deletion loops mistakenly incorporated during DNA replication, and initiate cellular response to certain types of DNA damage. Loss of MMR in mammalian cells has been linked to resistance to certain DNA damaging chemotherapeutic agents, as well as to increase risk of cancer. Mismatch repair pathway is considered to involve the concerted action of at least 20 proteins. The most abundant MMR mismatch-binding factor in eukaryotes, MutSα, recognizes and initiates the repair of base-base mismatches and small insertion/deletion. We performed molecular dynamics simulations on mismatched and damaged MutSα-DNA complexes. A comprehensive DNA binding site analysis of relevant conformations shows that MutSα proteins recognize the mismatched and platinum cross-linked DNA substrates in significantly different modes. Distinctive conformational changes associated with MutSα binding to mismatched and damaged DNA have been identified and they provide insight into the involvement of MMR proteins in DNA-repair and DNA-damage pathways. Stability and allosteric interactions at the heterodimer interface associated with the mismatch and damage recognition step allow for prediction of key residues in MMR cancer-causing mutations. A rigorous hydrogen bonding analysis for ADP molecules at the ATPase binding sites is also presented. Due to extended number of known MMR cancer causing mutations among the residues proved to make specific contacts with ADP molecules, recommendations for further studies on similar mutagenic effects were made.