Pressure dissociation of integration host factor–DNA complexes reveals flexibility-dependent structural variation at the protein–DNA interface

E. coli Integration host factor (IHF) condenses the bacterial nucleoid by wrapping DNA. Previously, we showed that DNA flexibility compensates for structural characteristics of the four consensus recognition elements associated with specific binding (Aeling et al., J. Biol. Chem. 281, 39236–39248, 2006). If elements are missing, high-affinity binding occurs only if DNA deformation energy is low. In contrast, if all elements are present, net binding energy is unaffected by deformation energy. We tested two hypotheses for this observation: in complexes containing all elements, (1) stiff DNA sequences are less bent upon binding IHF than flexible ones; or (2) DNA sequences with differing flexibility have interactions with IHF that compensate for unfavorable deformation energy. Time-resolved Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) shows that global topologies are indistinguishable for three complexes with oligonucleotides of different flexibility. However, pressure perturbation shows that the volume change upon binding is smaller with increasing flexibility. We interpret these results in the context of Record and coworker's model for IHF binding (J. Mol. Biol. 310, 379–401, 2001). We propose that the volume changes reflect differences in hydration that arise from structural variation at IHF–DNA interfaces while the resulting energetic compensation maintains the same net binding energy

The Cooperative Binding Energetics of CytR and cAMP Receptor Protein Support a Quantitative Model of Differential Activation and Repression of CytR-Regulated Class III <i>Escherichia coli</i> Promoters

cAMP receptor protein (CRP) and CytR mediate positive and negative control of nine genes in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, most of which are involved in nucleoside catabolism and recycling. Five promoters share a common architecture in which tandem CRP sites flank an intervening CytR operator (CytO). CytR and CRP bind cooperatively to these promoters to form a three-protein, DNA-bound complex that controls activation and repression, the levels of which vary markedly among the promoters. To understand the specific combinatorial control mechanisms that are responsible for this outcome, we have used quantitative DNase I footprinting to generate individual site isotherms for each site of protein–DNA interaction. The intrinsic affinities of each transcription factor for its respective site and the specific patterns of cooperativity and competition underlying the molecular interactions at each promoter were determined by a global analysis of these titration data. Here we present results obtained for <i>nupGP</i> and <i>tsxP2</i>, adding to results published previously for <i>deoP2</i>, <i>udpP</i>, and <i>cddP</i>. These data allowed us to correlate the reported levels of activation, repression, and induction with the ligation states of these five promoters under physiologically relevant conditions. A general pattern of transcriptional regulation emerges that allows for complex patterns of regulation in this seemingly simple system

Role of Protein-Protein Bridging Interactions on Cooperative Assembly of DNA-Bound CRP-CytR-CRP Complex and Regulation of the Escherichia Coli CytR Regulon

The unlinked operons that comprise the Escherichia coli CytR regulon are controlled coordinately through interactions between two gene regulatory proteins, the cAMP receptor protein (CRP) and the cytidine repressor (CytR). CytR controls the balance between CRP-mediated recruitment and activation of RNA polymerase and transcriptional repression. Cooperative interactions between CytR, when bound to an operator (CytO) located upstream of a CytR-regulated promoter, and CRP, when bound to flanking tandem promoters, are critical to the regulatory role of CytR. When CytR binds cytidine, cooperativity is reduced resulting in increased transcriptional activity. However, this cytidine-mediated effect varies among promoters, suggesting that coupling between cytidine binding to CytR and CytR−CRP association is sensitive to promoter structure. To investigate the chemical and structural basis for these effects, we investigated how cytidine binding affects association between CytR and CRP in solution and how it affects the binding of CytR deletion mutants lacking the DNA binding HTH domain, with tandem CRP dimers bound to either udpP or deoP2. Deletion mutants that, as we show here, retain the native functions of the allosteric, inducer-binding domain but do not bind DNA were expressed and purified. We refer to these as Core domain. Despite only weak association between CytR and CRP in solution, our results demonstrate the formation of a relatively stable complex in which the Core domain forms a protein bridge between tandem CRP dimers when bound to either udpP or deoP2. The ΔG° for bridge complex formation is about −7.8 kcal/mol. This is well in excess of that required to account for cooperativity (−2.5 to −3 kcal/mol). The bridge complexes are significantly destabilized by cytidine binding, and to the same extent in both promoter complexes (ΔΔG° ≈ +2 kcal/mol). Even with this destabilization, ΔG° for bridge complex formation by cytidine-liganded Core domain is still sufficient by itself to account for cooperativity. These findings demonstrate that direct coupling between cytidine binding to CytR and CytR−CRP association does not account for promoter-specific effects on cooperativity. Instead, cytidine binding must induce a CytR conformation that is more rigid or in some other way less tolerant of the variation in the geometric arrangement of operator sites between different promoters

Structures of oncogenic, suppressor and rescued p53 core‐domain variants: mechanisms of mutant p53 rescue

To gain insights into the mechanisms by which certain second-site suppressor mutations rescue the function of a significant number of cancer mutations of the tumor suppressor protein p53, X-ray crystallographic structures of four p53 core-domain variants were determined. These include an oncogenic mutant, V157F, two single-site suppressor mutants, N235K and N239Y, and the rescued cancer mutant V157F/N235K/N239Y. The V157F mutation substitutes a smaller hydrophobic valine with a larger hydrophobic phenylalanine within strand S4 of the hydrophobic core. The structure of this cancer mutant shows no gross structural changes in the overall fold of the p53 core domain, only minor rearrangements of side chains within the hydrophobic core of the protein. Based on biochemical analysis, these small local perturbations induce instability in the protein, increasing the free energy by 3.6 kcal mol(-1) (15.1 kJ mol(-1)). Further biochemical evidence shows that each suppressor mutation, N235K or N239Y, acts individually to restore thermodynamic stability to V157F and that both together are more effective than either alone. All rescued mutants were found to have wild-type DNA-binding activity when assessed at a permissive temperature, thus pointing to thermodynamic stability as the critical underlying variable. Interestingly, thermodynamic analysis shows that while N239Y demonstrates stabilization of the wild-type p53 core domain, N235K does not. These observations suggest distinct structural mechanisms of rescue. A new salt bridge between Lys235 and Glu198, found in both the N235K and rescued cancer mutant structures, suggests a rescue mechanism that relies on stabilizing the β-sandwich scaffold. On the other hand, the substitution N239Y creates an advantageous hydrophobic contact between the aromatic ring of this tyrosine and the adjacent Leu137. Surprisingly, the rescued cancer mutant shows much larger structural deviations than the cancer mutant alone when compared with wild-type p53. These suppressor mutations appear to rescue p53 function by creating novel intradomain interactions that stabilize the core domain, allowing compensation for the destabilizing V157F mutation

Linkage between Operator Binding and Dimer to Octamer Self-Assembly of Bacteriophage λ cI Repressor†

Cooperative binding of the bacteriophage λ cI repressor dimer to specific sites of the phage operators OR and OL controls the developmental state of the phage. Cooperativity has long been thought to be mediated by self-assembly of repressor dimers to form tetramers which can bind simultaneously to adjacent operators. More recently, we demonstrated that when free repressor dimers self-associate in solution, tetramer is an intermediate in a concerted assembly reaction leading to octamer as the predominant higher order species [Senear, D. F., et al. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 6179−6189]. Even as a minority component in the assembly reaction, tetramer can account for pairwise cooperativity. In a similar manner, were it able to bind all three operators simultaneously, octamer could account for three-way cooperativity. In fact, based solely on repressor self-assembly, the naive prediction is that the repressor−OR interactions should be substantially more cooperative than they are. Evidently, there are unfavorable contributions to cooperativity from processes other than repressor self-assembly. Here, we focus on coupling between repressor self-association and operator binding as one possible unfavorable contribution to cooperativity. Sedimentation equilibrium analysis was used to compare the dimer−octamer association reactions of a repressor dimer−OR1 complex and free repressor dimer. Fluorescence anisotropy was used to investigate OR1 binding to free dimers and dimers assembled as higher order species. The results of these experiments indicate a significant and salt-dependent unfavorable contribution generated by such coupling. Since the oligonucleotides used in these experiments are the size of single operator sites, this coupling is mediated by the protein, not by the DNA. This mechanism does not account for an additional, salt-independent, unfavorable contribution which we presume is transmitted via the DNA. Thus, unfavorable contributions generated by structural transitions in both macromolecules serve to moderate the effect of self-association alone. We speculate that this is a general feature of cooperative protein−DNA interactions