skip to main content

This content will become publicly available on November 1, 2022

Title: Molecular investigation of the tandem Tudor domain and plant homeodomain histone binding domains of the epigenetic regulator UHRF2
Ubiquitin-like containing PHD and ring finger (UHRF)1 and UHRF2 are multidomain epigenetic proteins that play a critical role in bridging crosstalk between histone modifications and DNA methylation. Both proteins contain two histone reader domains, called tandem Tudor domain (TTD) and plant homeodomain (PHD), which read the modification status on histone H3 to regulate DNA methylation and gene expression. To shed light on the mechanism of histone binding by UHRF2, we have undergone a detailed molecular investigation with the TTD, PHD and TTD-PHD domains and compared the binding activity to its UHRF1 counterpart. We found that unlike UHRF1 where the PHD is the primary binding contributor, the TTD of UHRF2 has modestly higher affinity toward the H3 tail, while the PHD has a weaker binding interaction. We also demonstrated that like UHRF1, the aromatic amino acids within the TTD are important for binding to H3K9me3 and a conserved aspartic acid within the PHD forms an ionic interaction with R2 of H3. However, while the aromatic amino acids in the TTD of UHRF1 contribute to selectivity, the analogous residues in UHRF2 contribute to both selectivity and affinity. We also discovered that the PHD of UHRF2 contains a distinct asparagine in the H3R2 more » binding pocket that lowers the binding affinity of the PHD by reducing a potential electrostatic interaction with the H3 tail. Furthermore, we demonstrate the PHD and TTD of UHRF2 cooperate to interact with the H3 tail and that dual domain engagement with the H3 tail relies on specific amino acids. Lastly, our data indicate that the unique stretch region in the TTD of UHRF2 can decrease the melting temperature of the TTD-PHD and represents a disordered region. Thus, these subtle but important mechanistic differences are potential avenues for selectively targeting the histone binding interactions of UHRF1 and UHRF2 with small molecules. « less
Authors:
 ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  more » ;  ;  ;   « less
Award ID(s):
1716403
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10303226
Journal Name:
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
ISSN:
0887-3585
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Margueron R ; Holoch D (Ed.)
    Dynamic posttranslational modifications to canonical histones that constitute the nucleosome (H2A, H2B, H3, and H4) control all aspects of enzymatic transactions with DNA. Histone methylation has been studied heavily for the past 20 years, and our mechanistic understanding of the control and function of individual methylation events on specific histone arginine and lysine residues has been greatly improved over the past decade, driven by excellent new tools and methods. Here, we will summarize what is known about the distribution and some of the functions of protein methyltransferases from all major eukaryotic supergroups. The main conclusion is that protein, and specificallymore »histone, methylation is an ancient process. Many taxa in all supergroups have lost some subfamilies of both protein arginine methyltransferases (PRMT) and the heavily studied SET domain lysine methyltransferases (KMT). Over time, novel subfamilies, especially of SET domain proteins, arose. We use the interactions between H3K27 and H3K36 methylation as one example for the complex circuitry of histone modifications that make up the “histone code,” and we discuss one recent example (Paramecium Ezl1) for how extant enzymes that may resemble more ancient SET domain KMTs are able to modify two lysine residues that have divergent functions in plants, fungi, and animals. Complexity of SET domain KMT function in the well-studied plant and animal lineages arose not only by gene duplication but also acquisition of novel DNA- and histone-binding domains in certain subfamilies.« less
  2. The human genome contains all the instructions needed to build the human body. However, each human cell does not read all of these instructions, which come in the form of genes encoded in the DNA. Instead, different subsets of genes are switched on in each type of cell, while the rest of the genes are switched off. DNA within human cells is wrapped around proteins called histones, to form hundreds of thousands of structures called nucleosomes. If the DNA that encodes a gene contains a lot of nucleosomes, the DNA is not very accessible and the gene will generally bemore »off; removing the histones or rearranging the nucleosomes can turn the gene on. Each histone contains a region called a tail – because it protrudes like the tail of a cat – that can be chemically modified in dozens of different ways. Particular combinations of histone modifications are thought to signal how the nucleosomes should be arranged so that each gene is properly regulated. However, it is unclear how these combinations of modifications actually work because, historically, it has been difficult to study tails in the context of a nucleosome. Instead most studies had looked at tails that had been removed from the nucleosome. Now, Morrison et al. set out to investigate how one protein, called BPTF, recognizes a specific chemical modification on the tail of a histone, referred to as H3K4me3, in the context of a human nucleosome. Unexpectedly, the experiments showed that the histone-binding domain of BPTF, which binds to H3K4me3, was impeded when the tail was attached to the nucleosome but not when it was removed from the nucleosome. Morrison et al. went on to show that this was because the histone tail is tucked onto the rest of the nucleosome and not easily accessible. Further experiments revealed that additional chemical modifications made the tail more accessible, making it easier for the histone-binding domain to bind. Together these findings show that a combination of histone modifications acts to positively regulate the binding of a regulatory protein to H3K4me3 in the context of the nucleosome by actually regulating the nucleosome itself. The disruption of the histone signals is known to lead to a number of diseases, including cancer, autoimmune disease, and neurological disorders, and these findings could guide further research that may lead to new treatments. Yet first, much more work is needed to investigate how other histone modifications are recognized in the context of the nucleosome, and how the large number of possible combinations of histone signals affects this process.« less
  3. The histone demethylase KDM5A erases histone H3 lysine 4 methylation, which is involved in transcription and DNA damage responses (DDRs). While DDR functions of KDM5A have been identified, how KDM5A recognizes DNA lesion sites within chromatin is unknown. Here, we identify two factors that act upstream of KDM5A to promote its association with DNA damage sites. We have identified a noncanonical poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR)–binding region unique to KDM5A. Loss of the PAR-binding region or treatment with PAR polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi’s) blocks KDM5A–PAR interactions and DNA repair functions of KDM5A. The histone variant macroH2A1.2 is also specifically required for KDM5A recruitmentmore »and function at DNA damage sites, including homology-directed repair of DNA double-strand breaks and repression of transcription at DNA breaks. Overall, this work reveals the importance of PAR binding and macroH2A1.2 in KDM5A recognition of DNA lesion sites that drive transcriptional and repair activities at DNA breaks within chromatin that are essential for maintaining genome integrity.

    « less
  4. Many proteins exhibit a property called ‘allostery’. In allostery, an input signal at a specific site of a protein – such as a molecule binding, or the protein absorbing a photon of light – leads to a change in output at another site far away. For example, the protein might catalyze a chemical reaction faster or bind to another molecule more tightly in the presence of the input signal. This protein ‘remote control’ allows cells to sense and respond to changes in their environment. An ability to rapidly engineer new allosteric mechanisms into proteins is much sought after because thismore »would provide an approach for building biosensors and other useful tools. One common approach to engineering new allosteric regulation is to combine a ‘sensor’ or input region from one protein with an ‘output’ region or domain from another. When researchers engineer allostery using this approach of combining input and output domains from different proteins, the difference in the output when the input is ‘on’ versus ‘off’ is often small, a situation called ‘modest allostery’. McCormick et al. wanted to know how to optimize this domain combination approach to increase the difference in output between the ‘on’ and ‘off’ states. More specifically, McCormick et al. wanted to find out whether swapping out or mutating specific amino acids (each of the individual building blocks that make up a protein) enhances or disrupts allostery. They also wanted to know if there are many possible mutations that change the effectiveness of allostery, or if this property is controlled by just a few amino acids. Finally, McCormick et al. questioned where in a protein most of these allostery-tuning mutations were located. To answer these questions, McCormick et al. engineered a new allosteric protein by inserting a light-sensing domain (input) into a protein involved in metabolism (a metabolic enzyme that produces a biomolecule called a tetrahydrofolate) to yield a light-controlled enzyme. Next, they introduced mutations into both the ‘input’ and ‘output’ domains to see where they had a greater effect on allostery. After filtering out mutations that destroyed the function of the output domain, McCormick et al. found that only about 5% of mutations to the ‘output’ domain altered the allosteric response of their engineered enzyme. In fact, most mutations that disrupted allostery were found near the site where the ‘input’ domain was inserted, while mutations that enhanced allostery were sprinkled throughout the enzyme, often on its protein surface. This was surprising in light of the commonly-held assumption that mutations on protein surfaces have little impact on the activity of the ‘output’ domain. Overall, the effect of individual mutations on allostery was small, but McCormick et al. found that these mutations can sometimes be combined to yield larger effects. McCormick et al.’s results suggest a new approach for optimizing engineered allosteric proteins: by introducing mutations on the protein surface. It also opens up new questions: mechanically, how do surface sites affect allostery? In the future, it will be important to characterize how combinations of mutations can optimize allosteric regulation, and to determine what evolutionary trajectories to high performance allosteric ‘switches’ look like.« less
  5. Abstract Polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) is a histone methyltransferase that methylates histone H3 at Lysine 27. PRC2 is critical for epigenetic gene silencing, cellular differentiation and the formation of facultative heterochromatin. It can also promote or inhibit oncogenesis. Despite this importance, the molecular mechanisms by which PRC2 compacts chromatin are relatively understudied. Here, we visualized the binding of PRC2 to naked DNA in liquid at the single-molecule level using atomic force microscopy. Analysis of the resulting images showed PRC2, consisting of five subunits (EZH2, EED, SUZ12, AEBP2 and RBBP4), bound to a 2.5-kb DNA with an apparent dissociation constant ($K_{\rm{D}}^{{\rm{app}}}$)more »of 150 ± 12 nM. PRC2 did not show sequence-specific binding to a region of high GC content (76%) derived from a CpG island embedded in such a long DNA substrate. At higher concentrations, PRC2 compacted DNA by forming DNA loops typically anchored by two or more PRC2 molecules. Additionally, PRC2 binding led to a 3-fold increase in the local bending of DNA’s helical backbone without evidence of DNA wrapping around the protein. We suggest that the bending and looping of DNA by PRC2, independent of PRC2’s methylation activity, may contribute to heterochromatin formation and therefore epigenetic gene silencing.« less