![]()
|
|
||||||||
J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 28, 19644-19648, July 9, 1999
-Sheet
Residues*
From the Department of Biology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The F Factor TraY protein is a sequence-specific
DNA-binding protein required for efficient conjugal transfer. Genetic
and biochemical studies indicate that TraY has two functional roles in
conjugation. TraY binds to the PY promoter to
up-regulate transcription of tra genes. TraY also binds to
the plasmid origin of transfer (oriT), serving as an
accessory protein in the nicking of F Factor in preparation for
transfer. TraY is thought to belong to the ribbon-helix-helix family of
transcription factors. These proteins contact DNA using residues of an
antiparallel Bacterial conjugation is the process by which a conjugative
plasmid directs transfer of a copy of itself from donor to recipient bacterium (for review, see Ref. 1). The TraY protein of
Escherichia coli K12 Sex Factor F (F Factor or F plasmid) is
required for efficient F Factor conjugal transfer (2). TraY, a
sequence-specific DNA-binding protein, plays two distinct roles in F
Factor conjugation. First, TraY binds at PY, the major
transfer (tra) operon promoter (3), up-regulating
transcription of the tra operon (4, 5). Second, TraY
participates in the "relaxosome," a complex of three proteins that
assembles at the F plasmid origin of transfer (oriT). In
addition to TraY, the relaxosome includes F-Factor-encoded TraI, and
the host-genome-encoded integration host factor. Through an undefined
mechanism, TraY and integration host factor enhance the nucleolytic
activity of TraI as it cleaves one DNA strand in preparation for
transfer of the cut strand to the recipient bacterium (6, 7).
Based on a shared pattern of mainly hydrophobic amino acids (Fig.
1A), Bowie and Sauer (8) assigned TraY to the
ribbon-helix-helix family of transcription factors. This family
includes three proteins of known three-dimensional structure: Arc (9)
and Mnt (10) repressors of phage P22, and the Met repressor of E. coli (11). The family name derives from a structural motif that
includes a Enzymes, Bacterial Strains, and Plasmids--
Restriction
endonucleases were obtained from New England Biolabs and Stratagene.
Other enzymes and dNTPs were purchased from Stratagene. Expression
vector pET-23a(+), which utilizes a T7 promoter, was obtained from
Novagen. Plasmid pET-21a(+), which uses the more tightly controlled
T7lac promoter, was provided by A. Russo (Johns Hopkins
University). Plasmids were purified by alkaline lysis (15), or using
Wizard Plus Minipreps or Midipreps DNA Purification System (Promega).
E. coli strains JM109 (16) and TB1 were obtained from New
England Biolabs. E. coli strains BL21(DE3) (17) and
BL21(DE3)/pLysE were purchased from Novagen.
Oligodeoxyribonucleotide Substrates--
The
20-bp1 DNA fragment used to
assess the sequence-specific DNA binding of TraY and TraY mutants is
5'-TAGTTTCTCTTACTCTCTTT-3' and its complement. This sequence, bp
203-222 of the F Factor tra region (1), is within the TraY
DNase I footprint (3), and will be referred to as the specific
oriT binding site oligonucleotide. For radiolabeling, the
strand shown was 5'-end-labeled using [
The 22-bp DNA fragment used to assess nonspecific DNA recognition is
5'-AAAGCACCACACCCCACGCAAA-3' and its complement. This sequence
corresponds to bp 133-154 of the F Factor tra region (1),
which includes the sequence bound and nicked by TraI (18). In addition,
a 20-bp DNA fragment lacking 1 bp on each end was used in some assays.
These are referred to as the 22- and 20-bp nonspecific binding site
oligonucleotides, respectively.
Cloning of traY--
The traY gene was PCR-amplified
using genomic DNA of F' E. coli strain JM109 as template.
The amplification reaction and conditions were as described (14) except
Taq2000 DNA polymerase was used. Primers
(5'-CGGGAGGTGCATATGAAAAGATTTGGTACACGTTCT-3', complementary to the antisense strand, and
5'-CGCCTCGAGCTAGAGTGTATTAAATGTTATATC-3', complementary to
the sense strand) encoded NdeI and XhoI sites (underlined) to facilitate cloning. The PCR-amplified traY
fragment was gel-purified, and recovered using the Wizard PCR Preps kit (Promega). The DNA fragment was digested with NdeI and
XhoI, and ligated into
NdeI/XhoI-digested pET-21a(+) or pET-23a(+).
Competent E. coli TB1 cells were transformed with the
ligation mixture. Restriction analysis of plasmid DNA from individual
transformants was used to confirm the presence of the traY
gene. Both DNA strands of the cloned traY genes were
sequenced. E. coli BL21(DE3) cells were transformed with
plasmid for protein expression.
Site-directed Mutagenesis of traY Gene--
The traY
gene cloned into pET-23a(+) was mutated using a PCR-based procedure.
PCR primers encoded the desired amino acid substitutions. To facilitate
screening, PCR primers also encoded a unique restriction site
introduced through silent mutations.
The 50-µl reaction mixtures contained reaction buffer, 200 µM dNTPs, 250 ng of each primer, from 5 to 400 ng
(optimized for each primer pair) of the plasmid template, and either 5 units of Taq2000 or 2.5 units of Pfu DNA
polymerase. The reaction involved denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s; 2 cycles of denaturation for 30 s at 94 °C, annealing for
60 s at 45 °C, and extension for 8 min at 68 °C; and 16 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s, annealing at 55 °C
for 60 s, and extension at 68 °C for 8 min. PCR products were
treated with DpnI to digest the parental DNA template. The mutated, amplified linear vector was then cut at the engineered restriction sites to generate cohesive ends, and the ends of the plasmid were ligated. E. coli TB1 cells were transformed
with the mutated plasmid. Plasmid purified from transformants was
screened by restriction enzyme digestion. Both strands of mutant
traY genes were fully sequenced prior to protein expression
and functional analysis. Plasmids were transformed into E. coli BL21(DE3)/pLysE cells for protein production.
Expression and Purification of Wild-type and Mutant TraY
Proteins--
For protein expression, cells were grown in LB broth
with 50 µg/ml ampicillin and (for E. coli strain
BL21(DE3)/pLysE) 34 µg/ml chloramphenicol. Cells were tested for
protein expression and cell pellets prepared for protein purification
as described (14). Cells harboring the wild-type traY gene
cloned into pET-21a(+) were used for protein purification as they grew
faster and expressed more protein than those with the gene in
pET-23a(+). Mutant TraY proteins expressed well from pET-23a(+) constructs.
For protein purification, cell pellets were thawed at 4 °C and
resuspended in 50 ml of ice-cold buffer A (50 mM Tris-HCl
(pH 7.6), 1 mM EDTA, 5 mM dithiothreitol) plus
100 mM NaCl. Phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride was added to a
final concentration of 200 µM. Cells were lysed by
sonication, and the lysate DNase I-treated and cleared by
centrifugation as described (14). The supernatant was loaded onto a
5-ml HiTrap Q column (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) equilibrated with
buffer A plus 100 mM NaCl. A GradiFrac System (Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech) was used to apply a gradient from 100 mM
to 2 M NaCl in buffer A to the column at 5 ml/min over a
200-ml volume. Elution was monitored by A280.
Most proteins eluted as a single large peak from 160 to 400 mM NaCl, while DNA eluted from 400 mM to 2 M NaCl. Fractions containing protein were pooled, loaded
onto a 5-ml HiTrap Heparin column (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech), and eluted as described (14). Fractions containing TraY or TraY mutants
were applied to and eluted from a 5-ml HiTrap Blue column (Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech) as described (14). Fractions containing TraY were
pooled and TraY was concentrated using a 1.5-ml butyl-Sepharose 4 Fast
Flow (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) column equilibrated with buffer B (20 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 5 mM dithiothreitol) plus 3 M NaCl. Prior to
application to the column, the TraY sample was brought to approximately
2.6 M NaCl by adding an equal volume of 4 M
NaCl. TraY was eluted by applying 2 ml of buffer B plus 100 mM NaCl, stopping the flow, and incubating for 30 min.
Following the incubation, additional buffer B plus 100 mM
NaCl was applied to the column. Fractions containing TraY or TraY
mutants were combined and dialyzed against buffer B plus 100 mM NaCl, with or without replacement of 5 mM
dithiothreitol by 5 mM Measurements of Affinity for DNA--
Affinities of TraY and
TraY mutants for DNA were measured by an electrophoretic mobility shift
assay (referred to as the direct binding assay, to contrast with the
competition assay described below). Assay buffer contained 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.6), 3 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM EDTA, 100 mM NaCl, 100 µg/ml bovine
serum albumin, 0.02% (v/v) IGEPAL CA-630 (Sigma), 1 mM
dithiothreitol, 5% (v/v) glycerol, and 1 µg/ml sonicated,
phenol-extracted calf thymus DNA (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). Varying
concentrations of TraY or TraY mutant were incubated for 90 min with 22 pM (final concentration) 32P-end-labeled
specific oriT binding site oligonucleotide. The reaction
volume was 50 µl. Bound and free DNA were separated by electrophoresis on a 1/2X-TBE, 7% polyacrylamide gel. Following electrophoresis and gel drying, radioactive bands were quantified using
an SF PhosphorImager (Molecular Dynamics). Data were converted to
fraction of labeled DNA bound and plotted versus protein
concentration. Multiple experiments were fit simultaneously with the
equation:
Affinities for both specific and nonspecific DNA binding sites were
measured using a competition assay. The assay buffer is as described
above. Concentrations of protein and labeled DNA used in the
competition assay were based on the affinities of the proteins
determined using the direct binding assay. For wild-type TraY and most
mutants, the protein concentration used was one-tenth of the measured
KD of that protein. The concentration of the
radiolabeled specific oriT binding site used for TraY and most mutants was equal to the measured KD of that
protein. For the R73A mutant, 600 nM protein and 6 µM labeled DNA were used to ensure an observable shift.
Binding of the labeled oligonucleotide was competed away by addition of
either unlabeled specific oriT, or 22- or 20-bp nonspecific
binding site oligonucleotides. Bound and free DNA were separated by
electrophoresis and bands quantified as described above. Data were
converted to fractions of labeled DNA bound in the absence of unlabeled
competitor DNA, and were plotted versus inhibitor DNA
concentration. Multiple experiments were fit simultaneously with an
equation of the form Stoichiometry of TraY Binding--
Stoichiometry of TraY binding
to the specific 20-bp oriT oligonucleotide was determined
using a modified direct binding assay. TraY at final concentrations of
225 nM to 4 µM was added to a 0.97 µM solution (final concentration) of radiolabeled,
annealed oligonucleotide, and solutions were incubated for 90 min.
Bound and unbound oligonucleotide were separated by electrophoresis and
bands quantified as described above. Data were converted to total
concentration of DNA bound. Results from three experiments were plotted
as concentration of DNA bound versus TraY concentration. Data corresponding to TraY concentrations from 0 to 1 µM,
and >2 µM were separately fit by linear regression. The
TraY concentration corresponding to the intersection of these two lines
was used to calculate the binding stoichiometry.
Equilibrium Unfolding by Guanidine Hydrochloride (GdnHCl)
Denaturation--
GdnHCl unfolding of TraY and TraY mutants was
monitored by the change in circular dichroism ellipticity at 234 nm.
Experiments were performed and analyzed as described (14) except the
instrument used was a Jasco J-710 spectropolarimeter, protein
concentrations of 2 or 2.5 µM were used, and the
denaturant starting solution contained 6 M GdnHCl
(Mallinkrodt) rather than 9.5 M urea. Data from multiple
experiments were normalized and combined into a single fit.
Expression and Purification of Wild-type and Mutant TraY
Proteins--
The gene encoding F Factor TraY was amplified by PCR and
cloned into expression vectors pET-21a(+) and pET-23a(+) (see
"Experimental Procedures"). The gene cloned into pET-23a(+) served
as the template for PCR-based mutagenesis of TraY. Six mutants, each
having a single Ala substituted for a residue within the TraY
Equilibrium Chemical Denaturation--
Denaturation of TraY and
TraY mutants by GdnHCl was monitored by change in circular dichroism
ellipticity at 234 nm. As noted previously for urea denaturation of
TraY (14), GdnHCl denaturation of TraY is fit well by a two-state
reaction model (N Sequence-specific DNA Recognition--
The affinities of TraY and
TraY mutants for a specifically bound oriT DNA sequence were
measured by electrophoretic mobility shift assay. The sequence of the
20-bp double-stranded oligonucleotide used in the assay is taken from
the DNase I footprint of TraY (3). As shown in Fig.
2, the measured stoichiometry of TraY binding to this oligonucleotide is 1:1. The dissociation constants for
TraY and TraY mutants as measured using the direct binding assay are
listed in Table II, and representative
curves are shown in Fig. 3. Wild-type
TraY has a KD of 7 nM, while the mutants
show reductions in affinity ranging from 2-fold to over 100-fold.
The IC50 values for TraY and TraY mutants for the specific
binding site were also determined using a competition assay. The competition assays were performed in addition to the direct binding assays for two reasons. First, the results of the competition assay are
less influenced by dissociation during the electrophoretic separation
of bound and free DNA than the results of the direct binding assay, and
can therefore potentially yield more accurate numbers for proteins with
fast off-rates. Second, affinities for both specific and nonspecific
sites (see below) may be readily measured using the competition assay,
while accurately measuring nonspecific binding using a direct binding
assay is difficult. Measuring affinities for both specific and
nonspecific sites by the same assay facilitates direct comparison of
these values. The results from competition assays are listed in Table
III, and generally agree with the results
obtained from the direct binding assay. Representative curves are shown
in Fig. 3.
Nonspecific DNA Recognition--
To ascertain whether the observed
differences in KD represent loss of specific DNA
recognition, the affinities of TraY and the mutants for nonspecific DNA
were measured using a competition assay. In this assay, binding of the
radiolabeled, specific oriT TraY site was competed away with
increasing concentrations of a 20 or 22-bp oligonucleotide
corresponding to a region of oriT outside of any identified
TraY binding site. The IC50 values of the proteins for
nonspecific DNA are listed in Table III, and representative curves are
shown in Fig. 3. The values for all mutants are within about 2-fold of
the value for wild-type TraY. Values obtained with the 22-bp
nonspecific site (Table III) or the 20-bp site (not shown) did not
differ significantly.
For TraY and some of the mutants, the IC50 values for the
specific binding site represent microscopic equilibrium constants while
those for the nonspecific site represent macroscopic equilibrium constants. Assuming that TraY recognizes a 10-bp sequence, the 22-bp
nonspecific binding site oligonucleotide contains 13 overlapping binding sites. Converting the value for the nonspecific sequence into a
microscopic equilibrium value, TraY recognizes the specific oriT site with approximately 500-fold higher affinity than
the nonspecific site (IC50 of 17 versus 7800 nM). For some of the mutants, the IC50 values
for specific and nonspecific binding sites differ by only 2- or 3-fold.
As the difference between the specific and nonspecific IC50
values decreases, nonspecific protein-DNA interactions presumably
contribute more to the overall affinity, and the distinction between
macroscopic and microscopic equilibrium values is blurred. Therefore,
we report the nonspecific binding as macroscopic IC50
values rather than attempt to convert them into microscopic equilibrium values.
If TraY is a member of the ribbon-helix-helix family, the protein
should contact DNA through residues of its Our results are consistent with inclusion of TraY in the
ribbon-helix-helix family of transcription factors. As was seen with Arc repressor (19, 20), most of the Ala substitutions have little
effect on protein stability (Table I), while their effects on
sequence-specific DNA recognition are often considerable (Tables II and
III). There is no apparent correlation between protein stability and
DNA affinity. For example, mutants K15A and T71A exhibit similar significant reductions in affinity (Tables II and III), yet the former
has wild-type stability while the latter has a reduced stability
( These results suggest that TraY utilizes These experiments do not reveal the precise roles of each of these
Some
-sheet. We engineered and characterized six TraY
mutants each having a single potential
-sheet DNA contact residue
replaced with Ala. Most TraY mutants had significantly reduced affinity
for the TraY oriT binding site while possessing near
wild-type stability and nonspecific DNA recognition. These results
indicate that TraY
-sheet residues participate in DNA
recognition, and support inclusion of TraY in the ribbon-helix-helix family.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-strand followed by two
-helices (reviewed in Refs. 12
and 13). Two ribbon-helix-helix folds form a single protein domain, with the
-strands combining in a two-strand antiparallel
-sheet. In Arc, Mnt, and Met repressors, this domain is formed by pairing of
monomers, each of which contains a single ribbon-helix-helix motif.
TraY is a monomeric protein (3, 14), but appears to contain a pair of
tandem, nonidentical ribbon-helix-helix motifs. The three-dimensional
structure of TraY has not yet been determined, and TraY shares no more
than 20% sequence identity with any ribbon-helix-helix protein.
However, like these proteins, TraY is composed of mixed
-helix and
-sheet secondary structure (14). Ribbon-helix-helix proteins form
base-specific DNA contacts through residues of their
-sheets (12,
13). If TraY is a member of this family, amino acid substitutions
within the TraY
-sheet should alter DNA recognition. We therefore
engineered a series of TraY mutants with Ala substitutions within the
TraY
-sheet region, and characterized the DNA recognition and
protein stability of these mutants.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-32P]ATP
(Amersham) and T4 phosphonucleotide kinase under conditions suggested
by Stratagene. Unincorporated [
-32P]ATP and labeled
oligonucleotide were separated using a Sephadex G-25 Quick Spin column
(Roche Molecular Biochemicals). The labeled strand was annealed to its
unlabeled complement by slow cooling after heating to 90 °C.
-mercaptoethanol. The
concentration of TraY was estimated by absorbance at 280 nm (
= 11,460 M
1 cm
1). Protein yields
ranged from 2 to 4 mg/500 ml of culture. Purified TraY and TraY mutants
were >95% pure as judged by Coomassie-stained sodium dodecyl
sulfate-polyacrylamide gels.
= 1/(1 + KD/[protein]), where
is fraction DNA bound, using Kaleidagraph 3.0 (Synergy Software).
= 1/(1 + [COMP]/IC50),
where
is the fraction of labeled oligonucleotide bound in absence
of competitor, IC50 is the concentration of unlabeled oligonucleotide required to compete away 50% of the binding of the
labeled oligonucleotide, and [COMP] is the concentration of the
unlabeled competitor oligonucleotide. Fits were performed using
Kaleidagraph 3.0.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-sheet, were generated. Sites of amino acid substitutions were
selected based upon the sequence alignment of TraY with other members
of the ribbon-helix-helix family (Fig.
1A). The sites of amino acid substitutions within the ribbon-helix-helix fold are depicted in Fig.
1B. In the figure, the residues in the x-ray crystal
structure of MetJ, the E. coli methionine operon repressor,
that correspond to the sites of engineered substitutions in TraY are
highlighted. Wild-type and mutant TraY proteins were expressed and
purified. The wild-type and variants demonstrated similar
chromatographic characteristics, simplifying purification.

View larger version (55K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Sequence and fold of ribbon-helix-helix
family members. A, alignment of TraY with
ribbon-helix-helix proteins. The partial amino acid sequences of MetJ
(residues 18-72), Arc (residues 4-53), and Mnt (residues 1-50)
repressors are aligned with the N- (residues 8-57) and C-terminal
(residues 64-113) portions of F Factor TraY. Alignments are taken from
Nelson and Matson (24), Brown and co-workers (25), and the references
therein. The large, bold amino acids designate those
residues that served as the basis for assigning TraY to the family (8).
Locations of secondary structural elements are shown by the bars
above the sequence alignment. The
-sheet positions marked by
the arrows correspond to those TraY amino acids (Lys-12,
Lys-15, Lys-17, Lys-68, Thr-71, and Arg-73) that were individually
mutated to Ala. B, sites of TraY amino acid substitutions
shown within the ribbon-helix-helix fold. The structure of MetJ in
complex with operator DNA is shown (11). The
-helices of MetJ are
shown as ribbons, while the
-sheet of MetJ and the DNA
are shown as sticks. The MetJ
-sheet lies in the major
groove of the DNA, and
-sheet residues contact DNA. The side chains
of the MetJ amino acids at the sites analogous to those at which the
TraY substitutions were made are shown in black. The view on
the right is rotated 90° about the vertical axis relative
to the view on the left. Portions of the structure were
deleted for clarity. This figure was prepared using the program RasMac
(Roger Sayle).
D) with no significantly populated
intermediates. Denaturation of the TraY mutants also fit well with a
two-state reaction model. Table I lists
the values for the free energy of denaturation in the absence of GdnHCl
(
GuH O2 )
and the change in free energy with GdnHCl (m) obtained
from nonlinear least squares fits of multiple denaturation experiments. Four of the six mutants have
GuH O2 )
values within 0.3 kcal/mol of wild-type TraY. Of the other two mutants,
T71A shows a reduction in stability of 0.8 kcal/mol, while the
stability of K17A is enhanced by 0.7 kcal/mol.
Stability of TraY and TraY mutants by equilibrium GdnHCl denaturation
-mercaptoethanol. Unfolding
due to increasing denaturant concentration was followed by changes in
circular dichroism ellipticity at 234 nm. Values and standard errors
listed are the results of a simultaneous fit to multiple (n)
experiments.

View larger version (11K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Stoichiometry of TraY binding to specific
oriT oligonucleotide. Radiolabeled specific
oriT oligonucleotide (0.97 µM final
concentration) was incubated with various concentrations of TraY, and
bound and free DNA separated by electrophoresis through a nondenaturing
gel. Results from three experiments are shown. The stoichiometry of
protein to DNA is calculated to be 1.2:1.
Dissociation constants of TraY and TraY mutants for specific binding
site
= 1/(1 + KD/[protein]), where
is fraction bound.
Standard error values are those estimated by Kaleidagraph. The value
for R73A is a reflection of the inability of this mutant to shift more
than one half of the labeled oligonucleotide at the highest protein
concentrations used.

View larger version (27K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Specific and nonspecific DNA recognition by
TraY and T71A. Upper, various concentrations of TraY
(filled circles) or TraY mutant T71A (filled
squares) were incubated with radiolabeled specific oriT
oligonucleotide, and bound and free DNA separated by electrophoresis
through a nondenaturing gel. Results from multiple experiments are
shown. The solid and dashed lines
represent the fit to TraY and T71A data, respectively.
Lower, various concentrations of unlabeled specific
oriT or 22-bp nonspecific oligonucleotide compete for
binding to TraY or T71A with radiolabeled specific oriT
oligonucleotide. Data for TraY are shown in filled circles
(specific oriT oligonucleotide) and open circles
(nonspecific oligonucleotide). Data for T71A are shown in filled
squares (specific) and open squares (nonspecific). The
solid and dashed lines represent the fits to TraY
and T71A data, respectively.
Inhibitory constants of TraY and TraY mutants for specific and
nonspecific binding sites
= 1/(1 + [COMP]/IC50), where
is
fraction labeled DNA bound in absence of competitor, IC50 is
the concentration of competitor DNA required to compete away half of
bound labeled DNA, and COMP is concentration of competitor
oligonucleotide. Standard errors are those estimated by Kaleidagraph.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-sheet. To test whether
the amino acids of the TraY
-sheet are involved in DNA recognition,
we engineered a series of TraY mutants having single Ala substitutions
within this region. Based on results from mutagenesis studies of Arc
repressor, another member of the ribbon-helix-helix family of
transcription factors, these TraY mutants should exhibit substantially
reduced affinities for the TraY DNA-binding site while retaining near
wild-type protein stability (19, 20). In ribbon-helix-helix proteins,
the side chains of these
-sheet DNA contact residues are largely
solvent exposed and do not contribute significantly to the stability of
the protein.

GuH O2 =
0.8 kcal/mol; Table I). The reduced affinities for DNA are therefore not attributable to protein destabilization by the mutations that render the protein nonfunctional.
-sheet residues for
specific DNA recognition. While TraY and all TraY mutants have similar
affinities for nonspecific DNA, most mutants exhibited significantly
reduced affinities for the specific oriT TraY binding site.
We also examined the binding of TraY and some of the mutants to a
second specific TraY binding site at the PY promoter
(results not shown). The proteins examined demonstrated similar
affinities, relative to wild type, for both DNA binding sites. TraY,
therefore, binds the two sites in a similar fashion.
-sheet residues in DNA recognition, and further experimentation is
underway to better define their contributions. Given the effects of the
mutations on specific but not nonspecific DNA binding, it is likely
that some
-sheet residues participate in base-specific contacts.
Most of the Ala substitutions, however, were for positively charged Lys
or Arg residues. These residues are capable of forming energetically
favorable, but nonspecific, electrostatic interactions with the
phosphate moieties of the DNA backbone. If, however, these amino acid
side chains contribute to binding in a nonspecific fashion (for
example, with the DNA backbone), the results suggest that they
contribute preferentially within the context of sequence-specific recognition. Contribution of presumably nonspecific backbone contacts to DNA binding specificity has been observed previously (21-23).
-sheet amino acid side chains may also contribute to specific
DNA recognition indirectly, in addition to forming direct contacts with
DNA. An extensive hydrogen bond network involving the side chains of
DNA-contact residues is apparent in the crystal structure of the Arc
repressor tetramer-operator complex (9, 19). These hydrogen bonds
presumably orient the side chains for optimal DNA contact, and thereby
contribute to DNA recognition. If an analogous series of interactions
occurs between TraY contact residues, substitution of one of the
involved amino acids could have a substantial effect on specific DNA
recognition, even if that side chain makes only minor energetic
contributions to DNA binding through side chain-DNA contacts. Loss of
cooperative interactions between contact residues could explain why
three different Ala substitutions reduce affinity for the
oriT sequence to within 4-fold of the affinity for a
nonspecific sequence (Table III).
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Drs. Ludwig Brand, Robert Schleif, Ernesto Freire, Bertrand Garcia-Moreno, Doug Barrick, and Michael Rodgers for helpful discussions and use of equipment. We also thank Lara Street for technical assistance, and members of the Schildbach lab for comments on the manuscript.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant MCB-9733655 and American Cancer Society IRG Grant 58-005-39-IRG.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Biology, 235 Mudd Hall, The Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St.,
Baltimore, MD 21218. Tel.: 410-516-0176; Fax: 410-516-5213; E-mail:
joel@jhu.edu.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: bp, base pair; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; GdnHCl, guanidine hydrochloride.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Frost, L. S.,
Ippen-Ihler, K.,
and Skurray, R. A.
(1994)
Microbiol. Rev.
58,
162-210 |
| 2. |
Carter, J. R.,
and Porter, R. D.
(1991)
J. Bacteriol.
173,
1027-1034 |
| 3. |
Nelson, W. C.,
Morton, B. S.,
Lahue, E. E.,
and Matson, S. W.
(1993)
J. Bacteriol.
175,
2221-2228 |
| 4. |
Silverman, P. M.,
and Sholl, A.
(1996)
J. Bacteriol.
178,
5787-5789 |
| 5. | Maneewannakul, K., Kathir, P., Endley, S., Moore, D., Manchak, J., Frost, L., and Ippen-Ihler, K. (1996) Mol. Microbiol. 22, 197-205[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 6. |
Nelson, W. C.,
Howard, M. T.,
Sherman, J. A.,
and Matson, S. W.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
28374-28380 |
| 7. |
Howard, M. T.,
Nelson, W. C.,
and Matson, S. W.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
28381-28386 |
| 8. | Bowie, J. U., and Sauer, R. T. (1990) J. Mol. Biol. 211, 5-6[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 9. | Raumann, B. E., Rould, M. A., Pabo, C. O., and Sauer, R. T. (1994) Nature 367, 754-757[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 10. | Burgering, M. J., Boelens, R., Gilbert, D. E., Breg, J. N., Knight, K. L., Sauer, R. T., and Kaptein, R. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 15036-15045[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 11. | Somers, W. S., and Phillips, S. E. (1992) Nature 359, 387-393[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 12. | Raumann, B. E., Brown, B. M., and Sauer, R. T. (1994) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 4, 36-43 |
| 13. | Phillips, S. E. V. (1991) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 1, 89-98 |
| 14. |
Schildbach, J. F.,
Robinson, C. R.,
and Sauer, R. T.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
1329-1333 |
| 15. | Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F., and Maniatis, T. (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual , 2nd Ed. , Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY |
| 16. | Yanisch-Perron, C., Vieira, J., and Messing, J. (1985) Gene (Amst.) 33, 103-119[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. | Studier, F. W., and Moffatt, B. A. (1986) J. Mol. Biol. 189, 113-130[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 18. |
Matson, S. W.,
Nelson, W. C.,
and Morton, B. S.
(1993)
J. Bacteriol.
175,
2599-2606 |
| 19. | Brown, B. M., Milla, M. E., Smith, T. L., and Sauer, R. T. (1994) Nat. Struct. Biol. 1, 164-168[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 20. | Milla, M. E., Brown, B. M., and Sauer, R. T. (1994) Nat. Struct. Biol. 1, 518-523[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 21. | Nelson, H. C., and Sauer, R. T. (1985) Cell 42, 549-558[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 22. | Nelson, H. C., and Sauer, R. T. (1986) J. Mol. Biol. 192, 27-38[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 23. |
Schildbach, J. F.,
Karzai, A. W.,
Raumann, B. E.,
and Sauer, R. T.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
811-817 |
| 24. | Nelson, W. C., and Matson, S. W. (1996) Mol. Microbiol. 20, 1179-1187[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 25. | Brown, B. M., Bowie, J. U., and Sauer, R. T. (1990) Biochemistry 29, 11189-11195[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S. L. Williams and J. F. Schildbach TraY and Integration Host Factor oriT Binding Sites and F Conjugal Transfer: Sequence Variations, but Not Altered Spacing, Are Tolerated J. Bacteriol., May 15, 2007; 189(10): 3813 - 3823. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. J. King, C. L. Brown, K. C. Maier, N. J. Quintyne, and T. A. Schroer Analysis of the Dynein-Dynactin Interaction In Vitro and In Vivo Mol. Biol. Cell, December 1, 2003; 14(12): 5089 - 5097. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. L. Miller and J. F. Schildbach Evidence for a Monomeric Intermediate in the Reversible Unfolding of F Factor TraM J. Biol. Chem., March 14, 2003; 278(12): 10400 - 10407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Chu, C.-H. Chiu, C.-H. Chu, and J. T. Ou Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequences of oriT-traM-traJ-traY-traA-traL Regions and Mobilization of Virulence Plasmids of Salmonella enterica Serovars Enteritidis, Gallinarum-Pullorum, and Typhimurium J. Bacteriol., June 1, 2002; 184(11): 2857 - 2862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. T. Chivers and R. T. Sauer Regulation of High Affinity Nickel Uptake in Bacteria. Ni2+-DEPENDENT INTERACTION OF NikR WITH WILD-TYPE AND MUTANT OPERATOR SITES J. Biol. Chem., June 23, 2000; 275(26): 19735 - 19741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| All ASBMB Journals | Molecular and Cellular Proteomics |
| Journal of Lipid Research | ASBMB Today |