![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 24, 18000-18010, June 16, 2000
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,
From The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Received for publication, February 22, 2000, and in revised form, March 16, 2000
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The Kruppel-associated box (KRAB) domain is a
75-amino acid transcriptional repressor module commonly found in
eukaryotic zinc finger proteins. KRAB-mediated gene silencing requires
binding to the RING-B box-coiled-coil domain of the corepressor KAP-1. Little is known about the biochemical properties of the KRAB domain or
the KRAB·KAP-1 complex. Using purified components, a combination of
biochemical and biophysical analyses has revealed that the KRAB domain
from the KOX1 protein is predominantly a monomer and that the KAP-1
protein is predominantly a trimer in solution. The analyses of
electrophoretic mobility shift assays, GST association assays, and
plasmon resonance interaction data have indicated that the KRAB binding
to KAP-1 is direct, highly specific, and high affinity. The optical
biosensor data for the complex was fitted to a model of a one-binding
step interaction with fast association and slow dissociation rates,
with a calculated Kd of 142 nM. The
fitted Rmax indicated three molecules of KAP-1 binding to one molecule of the KRAB domain, a stoichiometry that is
consistent with quantitative SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis analysis of the complex. These structural and dynamic parameters of the
KRAB/KAP-1 interaction have implications for identifying downstream
effectors of KAP-1 silencing and the de novo design of new
repression domains.
Transcriptional regulation of gene expression is mediated
primarily by DNA sequence-specific transcription factors, which are
generally composed of a DNA-binding domain and one or more separable
effector domains that either activate or repress transcriptional initiation (1-3). Much progress has been made in understanding how
activation and repression domains of a DNA-bound protein transmit signals that modulate transcription via the basal transcriptional machinery. Both activation and repression domains may function by
directly interacting with components of the basal transcriptional machinery to modulate transcription, or these domains function through
cofactors that regulate transcription via a network of protein/protein
interactions to regulate downstream targets (for review, see Refs. 2
and 4-10). The paradigm is now well established for coactivators and
corepressors to function as bridging molecules between transcription
factors and either the basal transcription apparatus or chromatin
components, resulting in the regulation of target genes (11).
Modular transferable repression domains have emerged as a set of highly
conserved structural motifs in families of transcription factors. These
conserved repression domains include the BTB/POZ, WRPW, SNAG, SCAN, and
Kruppel-associated box
(KRAB)1 (12-16). We have
focused on the KRAB domain as a model system for the analysis of
repression modules (17-19) (Fig. 1). The KRAB domain was originally
identified as a conserved motif at the NH2 terminus of zinc
finger proteins (ZFPs) (13) and was shown to be a potent, DNA
binding-dependent transcriptional repression module (18,
20, 21). KRAB-ZFPs have been primarily described in higher vertebrate
species, where their functions are largely unknown. Among the estimated
500-700 human Kruppel-type Cys2-His2 ZFPs
(22), one-third contain KRAB domains (13). The KRAB domain homology
consists of approximately 75 amino acid residues and is predicted to
fold into two amphipathic helices that are involved in protein/protein
interactions (13, 23). The minimal repression module is approximately
45 amino acid residues, and substitutions for conserved residues
abolish repression (18). More than 10 independently encoded KRAB
domains have been demonstrated to be potent repressors of
transcription, suggesting that this activity is a common property of
this domain. Thus, the KRAB-ZFP family represents a large class of
transcriptional repressor molecules.
KRAB-ZFPs appear to play important regulatory roles during cell
differentiation and development. The KRAB-ZFPs ZNF43 and ZNF91 exhibit
expression that is mainly restricted to lymphoid cells, suggesting
roles as transcriptional regulators specific for lymphoid cell
differentiation (24, 25). Other KRAB-ZFPs, such as HPF4, HTF10, and
HTF34, are down-regulated during myeloid differentiation (13). SZF1, a
KRAB-ZFP specific to CD34 stem cells, is down-regulated in
differentiated hematopoietic derived cell lines (26). A number of
KRAB-ZFPs are candidate genes for human diseases based on their chromosomal locations (27, 28). There are more than 40 KRAB-ZFP-encoding genes that have been identified on human chromosome
19p13 and more than 10 KRAB-ZFP genes clustered on chromosome 19q13
(29, 30), many of which exhibit hematopoietic specific expression (31).
Some of these KRAB-ZFPs are selectively expressed in certain leukemia
cell lines representing different lineages (31).
We hypothesized that KRAB domain repression may be mediated by a common
cellular co-factor. We identified and cloned a protein, KAP-1, that
binds to the KRAB repression domain using affinity chromatography (17).
This protein was subsequently identified by other investigators in
yeast two-hybrid screens and designated TIF1 KAP-1 appears to function as a universal corepressor for KRAB domain
proteins (17). The RBCC domain of KAP-1 is both necessary and
sufficient for the KRAB domain binding (19). Oligomerization of the
KAP-1-RBCC is required for binding KRAB domain, and all three
components of the tripartite motif appear to cooperate in KRAB
recognition. The central region of KAP-1 contains the HP1 binding
domain (HP1BD), which directly binds to mammalian homologues of the
heterochromatin protein, HP1 (41). A stable quaternary complex can be
formed between DNA, a KRAB-ZFP, KAP-1, and HP1. The COOH terminus of
KAP-1 includes a plant homeo-domain finger and bromodomain, and this
region is able to repress transcription when tethered to DNA using a
heterologous DNA-binding
domain.2 Thus, KAP-1 is
composed of an independent KRAB-recognition domain and at least two
independent repression domains.
It has been firmly established that KAP-1 is required for KRAB
domain-mediated transcriptional repression. The evidence includes the
following. 1) KAP-1 binds to multiple KRAB repression domains both
in vitro and in vivo; 2) KRAB domain mutations
that abolish repression decrease or eliminate KAP-1 binding; 3)
overexpression of KAP-1 enhances KRAB-mediated repression; 4) the KRAB
domain does not repress in cells that lack KAP-1. These results support a model in which KRAB-ZFPs repress transcription by recruiting the
KAP-1 corepressor via the RBCC domain. To understand the interaction between the KRAB domain and KAP-1 in more detail, we have purified the
KRAB domain and employed a comprehensive set of biochemical and
biophysical approaches to analyze the complex.
Preparation of Plasmids--
The plasmids pQE30
GAL4-KRAB-(1-90), pQE30 KOX1-KRAB, GST-KRAB, GST-KRAB(DV), pQE30
KAP-1-RBCC, and pVL1392 KAP-1-RBCC have been described previously
(17-19). The pQE30 KOX1-(1-161) plasmid was generated via polymerase
chain reaction using KOX1 cDNA as a template. A 5' oligonucleotide,
which incorporated a BamHI site 5' to the initiation
methionine, and a 3' oligonucleotide, which incorporated a stop codon
preceding a HindIII site after amino acid 161 of KOX1, were
used to amplify the desired sequence. The polymerase chain reaction
product was digested and cloned into the corresponding sites of the
pQE30 vector (Qiagen). The protein thus contains the
NH2-terminal amino acid residues MRGSHHHHHHGS, followed by
residues 1-161 of the KOX1 protein. The pQE30 KAP-1-(22-618) plasmid
was generated by subcloning an XmaI/XmaI fragment
encoding residues 22-618 of human KAP-1 from a pBluescript II SK+ that contained the full-length human KAP-1 cDNA (17) into the
corresponding sites of pQE30 (Qiagen). The protein contains the
NH2-terminal amino acid residues MRGSHHHHHHGSACELGT,
followed by residues 22-618 of the KAP-1 protein and then the
COOH-terminal sequence GRPAAKLN encoded by the vector. DNA sequencing
of both strands confirmed all of the plasmids generated by polymerase
chain reaction.
Protein Purification--
The purification of KOX1-KRAB protein
was performed at room temperature under denaturing conditions followed
by renaturation on the column (42) as described previously (19). The
KAP-1-RBCC protein expressed from bacterial and baculovirus vectors was
purified using nondenaturing conditions as described previously (19). To reconstitute the complex, the KAP-1-RBCC and the KOX1-(1-161) proteins were first purified under denaturing conditions and then eluted from the Ni2+-NTA-agarose with 300 mM
imidazole and pH 4.5. The eluted KOX1-(1-161) and KAP-1-RBCC proteins
were then mixed at a 1:1 molar ratio in a volume of 20 ml of buffer
containing 8 M urea, 0.1 M sodium phosphate,
0.01 M Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 10% glycerol, 20 µM
ZnSO4, and 0.5 mM dithiothreitol. These
proteins were then renatured during dialysis by a stepwise 1:1 serial
dilution of urea from 4 to 0 M in P300 buffer (10 mM Na2HPO4, 1.4 mM
KH2PO4, 2.7 mM KCl, 450 mM NaCl, pH 7.0, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl
fluoride) plus 10% glycerol, 20 µM ZnSO4,
and 0.5 mM dithiothreitol using five changes of the buffer
over a 2-day period. After dialysis, the insoluble protein was removed
by centrifugation, and the soluble fraction was concentrated in an
Amicon concentrator.
Gel Filtration Analysis--
The soluble KOX1-KRAB protein
derived from on-column renaturation was chromatographed on a Superdex
200 HR 10/30 column equilibrated in P300 buffer plus 10% glycerol and
10 mM polyoxyethylene 5-octyl ether
(C8E5) (Sigma). The KAP-1-(22-618) protein and
the KOX1-(1-161)·KAP-1-RBCC complex were purified using a Superose 6 HR 10/30 column equilibrated with the P300 buffer plus 10% glycerol.
The columns were run at 4 °C at a flow rate of 0.5 ml/min, and 0.5- or 1-ml fractions were collected. Aliquots of each fraction were
analyzed for protein content by SDS-PAGE and Coomassie Blue staining.
Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay (EMSA)--
EMSA was
performed essentially as described previously (19, 43). The purified
recombinant GAL4-KRAB was incubated with purified Escherichia
coli- or baculovirus-expressed KAP-1-RBCC protein for 15 min at
30 °C. In the competition assays, the KRAB protein was added to the
reaction simultaneously with the GAL4-KRAB and KAP-1-RBCC proteins, or
the KRAB protein was pre-incubated with the KAP-1-RBCC protein for 15 min at 30 °C. One µl of 32P-labeled GAL4 probe
(105 cpm/µl) was then added, and the reaction was
incubated for an additional 15 min at 30 °C. The DNA-protein
complexes were resolved on native polyacrylamide gels by
electrophoresis in 45 mM Tris borate, pH 8.3, 1 mM EDTA buffer at 4 °C. The EMSA gels were dried and
visualized by autoradiography. The GAL4 probe was the double-stranded synthetic oligonucleotide 5'-GAT CCC GGA GGA CAG TAC TCC GT-3', which
was labeled with [32P]ATP as described (43).
Circular Dichroism--
The CD spectra (190-240 nm) were
measured on a Jasco J-720 spectropolarimeter (Japan Spectroscopic Co.)
at 25 °C. The CD spectra were recorded using a 100-µl cell
containing a 0.2-mm path length. The sample was at a concentration of 1 mg/ml in P300 buffer plus 10% glycerol. Spectra were analyzed using
the SOFTSPEC software supplied by the manufacturer.
Analytical Ultracentrifugation--
Prior to analytical
ultracentrifugation, the proteins were purified by gel filtration. The
KOX1-KRAB protein in P300 buffer plus 10% glycerol was incubated with
20 mM C8E5 for 1 h at 4 °C by rotation to attempt to dissociate aggregates before gel filtration. The KOX1-KRAB protein was then subjected to gel filtration in the same
buffer containing 10 mM C8E5. The
KAP-1-(22-618) protein was purified by gel filtration in P300 buffer
plus 10% glycerol without detergent. Sedimentation equilibrium
experiments were performed in an Optima XL-I ultracentrifuge, using
either the absorbance (280 nm) optics (for KOX1-KRAB) or the
interference optics (for KAP-1-(22-618)) to measure the protein
concentration gradient. For each experiment, three cells were assembled
with 12-mm double-sector centerpieces and quartz or sapphire windows, respectively. The cells were loaded with 110 µl of reference buffer (P300 plus 10% glycerol) or 110 µl of sample at three different protein concentrations. The experiments were performed at 4 °C and
using various speeds between 16,000 and 43,400 rpm. The absorbance or
fringe displacement data were collected every 6 h until
equilibrium was reached, as determined by comparing successive scans
using the MATCH program, and the data were edited using the REEDIT
program. Analysis of sedimentation equilibrium data was performed using the NONLIN program (44). The partial specific volume of the protein was
calculated according to Laue et al. (45). Three data sets
from different loading concentrations were fitted simultaneously. Examination of the residuals and minimization of the variance determined the goodness of fit.
Analysis of Stoichiometry--
The KOX1-(1-161)·KAP-1-RBCC
complex, which was formed by co-renaturation as described above was
purified by gel filtration, and the peak fraction of the complex was
concentrated by deoxycholate-trichloroacetic acid precipitation (46).
The precipitated proteins were resuspended in 30 µl of 0.1 M NaOH and resolved on 10% SDS-PAGE with known amounts of
KOX1-(1-161) and KAP-1-RBCC proteins. The proteins were visualized
with Coomassie Blue stain and quantitated by densitometry on a
MultiImage Light Cabinet instrument (Alpha Innotechnology). The data
were analyzed with the program AlphaImager 2000 version 4.03.
GST Association Assays--
The preparation of the GST fusion
proteins and the GST association assays were performed essentially as
described previously (41). Briefly, 5 µg of freshly prepared GST
fusion protein immobilized on glutathione-Sepharose was incubated with
10 µg of Ni2+-NTA-purified recombinant
His6-tagged protein in 100 µl of BB500 buffer (20 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 500 mM NaCl, 0.2 mM EDTA, 10% glycerol, 0.2% Nonidet P-40, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 500 µg of bovine serum
albumin (fraction V)) for 1 h at room temperature. The protein
complexes were washed four times with BB750 (20 mM Tris, pH
7.9, 750 mM NaCl, 0.2 mM EDTA, 10% glycerol,
0.2% Nonidet P-40, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride),
and the bound proteins were eluted in 5× Laemmli buffer, resolved by
SDS-PAGE, and visualized with Coomassie Blue stain.
Kinetic Analysis--
Kinetic studies of the direct
protein/protein interaction between the KRAB domain and KAP-1 were done
using optical biosensors-BIAX and BIA3000 Instruments (Biacore, Inc.
Uppsala, Sweden). All experiments were done at 25 °C. The Biacore TM
sensor surface CM5 was activated by a 7-min incubation with amine
coupling reagent as recommended by the manufacturer. The amine coupling
reagents were N-hydroxysuccinimide and
N-ethyl-N'-(dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide
(Biacore, Inc.). One hundred µl of anti-GST polyclonal antibody
(Biacore, Inc.) at a concentration of 10-50 µg/ml in 10 mM sodium acetate, pH 5.0, was then injected at a flow rate
of 5 µl/min, resulting in 4000 response units being captured. The
remaining coupling sites were blocked by injection of 35 µl of
ethanolamine-HCl (Biacore, Inc.). After equilibration with P300 buffer
plus 10% glycerol, the purified recombinant GST-KRAB and
GST-KRAB(DV-AA) proteins were captured via the GST tag and anti-GST
antibody. The reference surfaces include both the anti-GST antibody
surface and the captured GST-KRAB(DV-AA) surface, respectively. The
GST-KRAB(DV-AA) surface displayed the same density as GST-KRAB. The
purpose of two reference surfaces is to normalize the refractive index
changes between reference and specific sensor surfaces and to measure
the contribution of the anti-GST antibody to the total signal,
respectively. The experimental GST-KRAB surface was 100 response units.
A 300-µl sample of KAP-1-(22-618) protein at concentrations of 530 nM to 4 µM in P300 buffer plus 10% glycerol
was added to the GST-KRAB and GST-KRAB(DV) surfaces and allowed to bind
for 5 min. The flow cells then were washed with P300 buffer plus 10% glycerol.
The binding surface of GST-KRAB was regenerated with injection of 0.2%
SDS solution in 1% Me2SO and 15 mM of NaOH, pH
9.5, in two or three pulses by previously described methods (47). The
sample loop was then washed with P300 buffer plus 10% glycerol after
regeneration steps to avoid "carry-over" of bulk signal.
The data reported were obtained from two independent experiments. The
data were collected automatically and analyzed subsequently with
BIAevaluation software, version 3.0 (Biacore, Inc.). All sensorgrams
were corrected for nonspecific binding and refractive index changes by
subtracting the sensorgram from the GST-KRAB surface sensorgram. The
kinetics of KAP-1-(22-618) binding to captured GST-KRAB were fitted to
three different models: 1) a one-step binding interaction using a
Langmuir 1:1 integrated equation; 2) a trivalent interaction (three
equilibrium steps); and 3) a heterogeneous oligomeric analyte
interaction (48, 49).
KRAB Domain Sequence Analysis and Purification of Recombinant
Proteins--
A search of the nonredundant nucleotide and protein
sequence data bases has revealed that the KRAB domain is present in
more than 130 independent proteins (data not shown). Given this
abundant distribution, it is surprising that no detailed biochemical or structural analysis of this domain has yet been undertaken. We began
our studies by aligning and analyzing the most well characterized members of the KRAB domain family (Fig.
1A). One of the founding members of this family is KOX1, which encodes an
NH2-terminal KRAB domain and 11 COOH-terminal
C2H2 class zinc finger motifs (Fig.
1B). Each of the other proteins encodes COOH-terminal zinc fingers (not shown) and the indicated KRAB domain sequence in the
NH2 terminus of the protein. The region of KRAB homology in each protein generally extends for about 75 contiguous residues and is
often divided into A and B boxes. This division is based on the fact
that separate exons often encode A and B boxes in the genomic structure
of many KRAB-ZFPs and the observation that alternative splicing can
generate protein isoforms lacking either the A or B box (13). The KRAB
domain shows remarkable homology among the members. The consensus
sequence contains almost completely conserved blocks of sequence
including the residues DV, EEW, LD, VMLENY, and KP (Fig.
1A). Amino acid substitutions within any of these conserved
residues have been shown to abolish the repression activity (18). A
structural prediction program (Chou-Fasman) suggests that the KOX1-KRAB
domain possesses a helical content of approximately 35% with two major
helices. These helices have an amphipathic nature as defined by helical
wheel analysis. These predictions suggest that the KRAB domain provides
an interface for protein/protein interactions and that it may bind to
the KAP-1 corepressor via a helix/helix interaction. To further
investigate the KRAB/KAP-1 interaction, we initiated biochemical and
biophysical analyses of the KRAB domain.
The KRAB domain that we have utilized in these studies corresponds to
amino acids 1-90 and 1-161 of the KOX1 zinc finger protein (18) (Fig.
1, A and B). We selected the KRAB domain from
KOX1 for the following reasons. 1) The KOX1-KRAB domain was originally utilized to isolate the KAP-1 corepressor, and mutations in this domain
that concomitantly abolish repression and KAP-1 binding are well
characterized (17). 2) The KOX1-KRAB domain is highly expressed in
E. coli autonomously or as a GAL4 fusion and is well behaved
in protein reconstitution assays (19). 3) The GAL4-KOX1-KRAB-(1-90) fusion (hereafter designated GAL4-KRAB) is a potent,
KAP-1-dependent, and DNA binding-dependent
transcriptional repressor in vivo (18) (Fig. 1B).
We expressed and purified both KOX1-(1-90) (designated KOX1-KRAB) and
KOX1-(1-161) domains from E. coli using
Ni2+-NTA chromatography under denaturing conditions,
followed by a renaturation protocol that yielded soluble, highly active
proteins (Fig. 2A). The
SDS-PAGE analysis revealed that purified KOX1-KRAB protein migrates
with an apparent molecular mass of 15.5 kDa, which is slightly larger
than its predicted molecular mass of 13.9 kDa (Fig. 2A). The
KOX1-(1-161) protein migrates with an apparent molecular mass of 23 kDa, which is slightly larger than its calculated molecular mass of
20.5 kDa (Fig. 2A). The slightly aberrant migration may be
due to the highly charged nature of the KRAB domain.
The KAP-1-RBCC protein produced in E. coli was purified on
Ni2+-NTA under native conditions (19) (Fig. 1C).
SDS-PAGE analysis (Fig. 2A) revealed that the KAP-1-RBCC
protein migrated with an apparent molecular mass of 46 kDa, a value
close to its predicted molecular mass of 45.9 kDa. The KAP-1-RBCC was
also expressed in Sf9 insect cells using a baculovirus
expression vector (hereafter designated bv.KAP-1-RBCC). The
bv.KAP-1-RBCC was purified to near homogeneity under native conditions
using Ni2+-NTA chromatography and migrated near to its
predicted monomeric molecular mass of 47.7 kDa on SDS-PAGE (Fig.
2A), suggesting that bv.KAP-1-RBCC is not subjected to
extensive post-translational modification. We also expressed a larger
version of the KAP-1, KAP-1-(22-618), which includes the RBCC domain
and the HP1 binding domain (HP1BD) (19,
41).3 The KAP-1-(22-618)
protein produced in E. coli was not soluble and therefore
was purified under denaturing conditions, followed by step dialysis
renaturation. The KAP-1-(22-618) protein migrated with an apparent
molecular mass of 68 kDa in SDS-PAGE, a value close to its predicted
molecular mass of 66 kDa (Fig. 2B).
The GST, GST-KRAB, and GST-KRAB(DV-AA) fusion proteins were purified to
homogeneity and were analyzed for the ability to bind the purified
E. coli-expressed KAP-1-(22-618) and the KAP-1-RBCC proteins. Significant binding of the KAP-1-(22-618) and the KAP-1-RBCC proteins was observed for the GST-KRAB protein but was negative for the
control GST protein and GST-KRAB(DV) mutant protein (Fig. 2B), supporting our previous results demonstrating that the
interaction between the KRAB domain and the RBCC domain of KAP-1 is
direct and specific. Moreover, these purified proteins are
biochemically well behaved, which makes them useful reagents for
quantifying the affinity of this interaction in the optical biosensor assays.
Oligomerization Properties of the Purified KOX1-KRAB and KAP-1-RBCC
Proteins--
To investigate the mechanisms behind the KRAB/KAP-1
interaction, we employed biochemical and biophysical analyses of the
individual components and the KOX1-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex. Gel
filtration chromatography was used to estimate the hydrodynamic size
(Stokes radius) of the proteins. Our initial studies showed that under physiological buffer conditions, the KOX1-KRAB protein eluted in a
broad peak at approximately 670 kDa, suggesting that it was a soluble
self-aggregate upon purification from E. coli (data not
shown). We attempted to generate nonaggregated KRAB protein using the
detergent C8E5. The
C8E5 is a nondenaturing detergent (50) that
forms micelles that are neutrally buoyant, allowing a reversible
association to occur between monomer and oligomer states of the protein
in analytical ultracentrifugation. When the KOX1-KRAB protein
preparation was incubated with C8E5, two molecular weight species (designated KOX1-KRABHMW and
KOX1-KRABLMW) were separated by gel filtration in the
presence of this detergent (Fig. 3). The
molecular mass of the KOX1-KRABHMW was estimated at 670 kDa, and the KOX1-KRABLMW was estimated at 32.7 kDa. Thus, even in the presence of detergents, the KRAB domain has a significant tendency for aggregation as evidenced by the presence of the
KOX1-KRABHMW fraction under these conditions. The
KRABLMW material may either be a dimer or an extended
monomer.
Previous studies have indicated that the RBCC domain (residues 22-418)
of KAP-1 is the minimal KRAB binding region and that it exists as an
apparent trimer in the absence or presence of the KRAB domain (19).
However, we were unable to determine the mass of the KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC
complex by analytical ultracentrifugation due to low protein recoveries
and aggregation during the sedimentation equilibrium run. Instead, we
used nondenaturing PAGE to estimate the native size of the KOX1-KRAB
protein, the KAP-1-RBCC protein, and a preformed KOX1-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC
complex (data not shown). The estimated molecular size for the
individual components and the complex is slightly higher than expected.
However, it is consistent with the observations made for the individual
components and the complex in gel filtration studies (Fig. 3) (19).
Secondary Structure of the Purified Recombinant Proteins--
The
CD spectra of the KOX1-KRAB domain show that the protein has a high
degree of secondary structure (Fig. 4).
Analysis of the spectra using SOFTSPEC software shows an excellent
agreement with a protein containing 32.4% helix, 27.5% Ultracentrifugation Studies--
To obtain an estimate of the
molecular mass of the KOX1-KRABLMW and the KAP-1-(22-618)
proteins, we performed equilibrium sedimentation experiments using
analytical ultracentrifugation (Fig. 5).
Analysis of the KOX1-KRABLMW protein was performed at 4 °C and 43,400 rpm, and the concentration of protein
versus radius data was fitted with various models of
self-association using nonlinear regression (44) (Fig. 5A).
The data were best described by a model containing predominantly
monomer (76-85%) and a small amount of aggregate. The complete data
set at these different concentrations could not be fitted well with a
single equilibrium constant, indicating that the association is not
reversible. This result indicates that the KOX1-KRABLMW
protein is predominantly a monomer and suggests that the apparent
32-kDa size observed from gel filtration is due to an asymmetric
shape.
The KAP-1-(22-618) includes the RBCC domain and HP1BD. The
KAP-1-(22-618) protein eluted in two peaks on gel filtration (data not
shown). The first peak eluted in the void volume, suggesting that this
protein self-aggregates under these conditions. The second peak eluted
with an apparent molecular mass of ~600 kDa, suggesting that this
protein exists as a discrete oligomer in solution. To address this
issue, the equilibrium analytical ultracentrifugation of
KAP-1-(22-618) protein was performed, and the protein concentration versus radius data were fitted with several models of
self-association using nonlinear regression (Fig. 5B). The
data were best described by a model describing a monomer-trimer
(n = 2.9) equilibrium. Some nonreversibility was
consistently observed with the highest concentration cell, which showed
a slightly weaker affinity compared with the two lower concentration
cells. The basis for this discrepancy may be a small degree of
irreversible aggregation or other nonideal behavior. Hence, the
Kd of 230 nM determined for the two
lower protein concentrations should most accurately describe this
association. This observation, that the predominant oligomeric state of
the KAP-1-(22-618) is a trimer, is consistent with the previous
findings for KAP-1-RBCC (19). The fact that this KAP-1-(22-618) trimer
(monomer mass of 66 kDa) migrated with an apparent molecular size of
600 kDa compared with an apparent size of 158 kDa by gel filtration for
the KAP-1-RBCC trimer (monomer mass of 45.9 kDa) indicates that the
KAP-1-RBCC domain is globular, while the larger KAP-1-(22-618)
oligomer is highly asymmetric.
Direct Interaction between the KOX1-KRAB Domain and KAP-1-RBCC
Domain--
We have previously shown that the E. coli-expressed KAP-1-RBCC protein was able to form a complex with
the DNA-bound KRAB domain in EMSAs (19). We used this assay to compare
the ability of E. coli and baculovirus-expressed KAP-1-RBCC
to directly bind the KRAB domain (Fig.
6A). Binding of the GAL4-KRAB
protein to a canonical 32P-labeled synthetic
oligonucleotide containing the GAL4 recognition sequence yielded the
expected mobility shift (Fig. 6A, lane
2). When increasing amounts of purified E. coli
KAP-1-RBCC protein were incubated with the GAL4-KRAB protein and DNA, a
new mobility shift was observed (Fig. 6A, lanes
3-7). This supershift contains the ternary complex of
DNA·GAL4-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC. The studies described above were
exclusively performed with bacterial expressed proteins that lack any
eukaryotic post-translational modifications and the potential to
interact with endogenous cellular partner proteins. To determine if our
observations extend to eukaryotic cell-expressed proteins, we expressed
the KAP-1-RBCC in Sf9 insect cells using a baculovirus
expression vector. The KAP-1-RBCC was highly expressed as a soluble
protein in Sf9 cells (Fig. 2). We then characterized the
bv.KAP-1-RBCC protein in the GAL4-KRAB EMSA assay. When increasing amounts of purified bv.KAP-1-RBCC protein were added to a constant amount of the GAL4-KRAB protein, a complex with reduced mobility was
observed that exactly co-migrates with the complex formed with E. coli-produced KAP-1-RBCC (Fig. 6B). Moreover, the
concentrations of either baculovirus or E. coli-produced
proteins required to supershift a given amount the GAL4-KRAB were
similar (Fig. 6, compare A and B). These results
indicate that both E. coli- and baculovirus-expressed
KAP-1-RBCC are equally active in KRAB domain binding.
To compare the activity of the KOX1-KRABHMW and
KOX1-KRABLMW proteins purified from the gel filtration for
binding to the KAP-1-RBCC protein, EMSA assays were performed. We first
formed the GAL4-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex using constant levels of each protein. The resulting supershift is shown in Fig.
7A, lane
2. When increasing amounts of the KOX1-KRABHMW
were added to the binding assay simultaneously with the GAL4-KRAB, very
little loss of the supershift was observed (Fig. 7A,
lanes 3-6). This suggests that the aggregated
form of the KRAB domain binds very poorly to the KAP-1-RBCC domain.
However, under the same conditions, the KOX1-KRABLMW is a
very efficient competitor of the GAL4-KRAB/KAP-1-RBCC interaction (Fig.
7A, lanes 8-11). When the KAP-1-RBCC
and KOX1-KRABHMW protein were preincubated, the latter
protein was still a poor competitor for the added GAL4-KRAB protein
(Fig. 7B, lanes 3-6). However, the
KOX1-KRABLMW was still a very effective competitor when it
was preincubated with the KAP-1-RBCC protein. These results strongly
suggest that the most active form of the KRAB domain is the apparent
monomeric form.
We next determined the stoichiometry of the KRAB·KAP-1 complex. The
KOX1-(1-161) protein and the KAP-1-RBCC protein were purified under
denaturing conditions and renatured together at a 1:1 molar ratio. The
complex was purified by gel filtration and analyzed by SDS-PAGE. The
molar ratio of the KOX1-(1-161) protein to KAP-1-RBCC protein in the
complex was estimated to be 1:3.08 (Fig.
8), suggesting that one KRAB domain
monomer binds KAP-1-RBCC trimer. This result is consistent with the
observations for the KOX1-KRAB, KAP-1-RBCC, and KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC
complex in gel filtration (Fig. 3) (19) and analytical
ultracentrifugation (Fig. 5) (19).
Kinetic Studies of the Interaction between KRAB and KAP-1
Repressor--
In order to determine the kinetic parameters of the
KRAB/KAP-1 interaction, we used real time optical biosensor technology. The proteins used in the kinetic studies were expressed and purified to
homogeneity (Fig. 9A). Fig.
9B shows the overlay plot of increased binding of the
KAP-1-(22-618) protein as a function of concentration at low surface
density of the GST-KRAB protein (100 response units). The GST tag of
the recombinant KRAB protein was used to orient the protein, and it is
assumed that the KRAB surface displays freely accessible binding
epitopes to the KAP-1-(22-618) protein. The contact time was kept
below 5 min to minimize sample dispersion. The kinetics of binding of
the KAP-1-(22-618) to the GST-KRAB was fitted to three models: 1) a
simple one-step interaction equilibrium in which one molecule of
GST-KRAB interacts with three molecules of KAP-1-(22-618); 2) a model
describing one molecule of GST-KRAB binding to monomer, dimer, and
trimer of KAP-1-(22-618); and 3) a model describing the trimeric
binding of KAP-1-(22-618) in which species with KRAB binding one, two,
and three molecules of KAP-1-(22-618) are in equilibrium. The
collected data best fit the model that described a simple one-step
interaction equilibrium, in which one molecule of GST-KRAB binds three
molecules of KAP-1-(22-618). The KAP-1-(22-618) protein was found to
bind to the KRAB protein in a dose-dependent manner (Fig.
9B). The solid lines represent the
best global fits to a simple 1:1 Langmuir binding model. Using this
model, a In this study, we have systematically evaluated the oligomeric
states and hydrodynamic properties of the KRAB and KAP-1 recombinant proteins as well as the binding affinity and stoichiometry of KRAB/KAP-1 association. We conclude the following from our data. 1) The
KRAB domain exists as a monomer in the absence or presence of the RBCC
domain of KAP-1 protein. 2) The interaction between a KRAB and the
KAP-1 protein is direct; it apparently does not require
post-translational modifications and is stable to in vitro biochemical manipulation. 3) A stable ternary complex can be formed between DNA, a DNA-bound KRAB domain, and the KAP-1-RBCC protein; therefore, the KRAB/KAP-1 interaction does not inhibit DNA binding in
the system we used. 4) The stoichiometric analysis shows that one
molecule of KRAB domain directly interacts with three molecules of
KAP-1-RBCC. 5) The real time kinetic analysis of the protein-protein interaction using the optical biosensor indicated that the formation of
this complex is a single-step event with fast association and slow
dissociation rates, indicating that this interaction occurs with high affinity.
Previous studies using purified recombinant proteins indicated that the
RBCC domain of KAP-1 is necessary and sufficient for the interaction
with the KOX1-KRAB domain, and this interaction is direct and specific
(19). We now demonstrate that this interaction does not require
post-translational modifications. The purified bv.KAP-1-RBCC migrated
as a single polypeptide band consistent with its predicted monomeric
molecular mass as detected by SDS-PAGE when expressed in eukaryotic
cells. The bv.KAP-1-RBCC protein behaved identically with the E. coli-expressed protein in all of the biochemical binding assays
(19) and was equally active in KRAB domain interaction as detected by
EMSA assay. Moreover, this interaction is stable to in vitro
biochemical manipulation as detected by gel filtration, sucrose
gradient sedimentation (19), GST association assay, and optical
biosensor assay. Furthermore, binding of a preformed KAP-1·HP1
complex was observed with the GST-KRAB protein, suggesting that a
ternary KRAB·KAP-1·HP1 complex can be readily formed in
vitro.4 These data
suggest that KAP-1 may serve as a bridging molecule between the
KRAB-ZFP and the downstream effectors-HP1 proteins via separate
protein-protein interaction domains, as defined by the KAP-1-RBCC and
the KAP-1-HP1BD, respectively. This evidence supports the current
working model for KRAB-ZFP-KAP-1-mediated transcriptional repression
(see below).
Although it has been demonstrated that the KRAB domain is a potent,
DNA-binding-dependent transcriptional repression module (18, 20, 21, 51), little is known about its structure and the
protein-protein interface of the KRAB·KAP-1 complex. We have
demonstrated that KRAB binding induces and/or stabilizes the oligomeric
species (trimer) of the KAP-1-RBCC protein (19). We now present the
first demonstration that the KRAB domain functions as a monomer to bind
to the homotrimer of the RBCC domain of corepressor KAP-1. Gel
filtration indicates that the KOX1-KRAB domain is an apparent monomer
in solution, although a significant amount of KOX1-KRAB protein
aggregates. Analytical ultracentrifugation experiments show that the
KRAB domain is the predominant monomer. We confirmed these studies
using low molecular weight (monomer) and high molecular weight species
(aggregates) of the KOX1-KRAB protein in an EMSA competition assay.
This study clearly shows that the monomeric species of the KRAB is an
effective competitor of the GAL4-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex, suggesting
that the monomeric KRAB protein has high binding affinity with the
KAP-1-RBCC protein. Together, these observations substantiate the
relationship between the structure and function of the protein.
It has been demonstrated that the KAP-1-RBCC domain must properly
homo-oligomerize in order to bind the KRAB domain (19). However, the
oligomeric state of the KRAB domain and the stoichiometry of
KRAB·KAP-1 complex have not been determined. We attempted to determine the stoichiometry of the KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex from the
analytical ultracentrifugation experiment. Unfortunately, we were
unable to obtain useful data starting with a preformed KOX1-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex, because the protein concentrations of
the complex that could be obtained were too low and the sample partially aggregated under the conditions required for the
ultracentrifugation experiments. Therefore, alternative approaches were
applied to determine the stoichiometry of the protein/protein
interaction complex. First, nondenaturing PAGE analysis of a preformed
KOX1-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex shows that the molecular mass of the
complex is about the sum of the predicted monomeric molecular mass of
the KRAB and trimeric molecular mass of the KAP-1-RBCC. Second,
SDS-PAGE analysis of a preformed KOX1-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex
indicates a 1:3 stoichiometry for the KRAB protein and KAP-1-RBCC
protein. Third, protein-protein interaction analysis using optical
biosensors demonstrated binding with a 1:3 stoichiometry of the KRAB
protein and KAP-1-RBCC protein. The data are best described by a
one-step interaction model in which one molecule of GST-KRAB binds to
three molecules of KAP-1-(22-618) to form a complex. This is
consistent with the results obtained from analytical
ultracentrifugation and gel filtration analysis of the same materials
employed in the optical biosensor experiments. The binding of a KRAB
domain to a trimer of KAP-1-(22-618) protein is a single-step event
with fast association and slow dissociation rates, indicating a high binding affinity of the complex. It will be interesting to determine the dynamic parameters of the multimolecular complexes involving KRAB-ZFP, KAP-1, and HP1 protein-protein interaction using an optical biosensor.
Taken together, all data presented here further support the current
working model for the KRAB-ZFP-KAP-1-mediated transcriptional repression (19). A KRAB-ZFP binds target gene DNA sequence-specifically through its array of C2H2 zinc fingers. The
DNA-bound KRAB domain recruits the KAP-1 corepressor via direct
interaction with the RBCC domain. The KAP-1 apparently self-assembles
into a homotrimer, which is the active form of the protein that binds
the KRAB domain. The HP1BD, plant homeo-domain finger, and bromodomain
of KAP-1 comprise the surfaces that mediate gene silencing via
interaction with the downstream targets. One of the direct targets of
KAP-1 was defined by us and others as the heterochromatin protein HP1 (34, 41). The HP1 proteins are a small family of non-histone chromosomal proteins, some of which are tightly associated with silenced heterochromatin. We have shown that KAP-1 directly binds to
recombinant HP1 protein via KAP-1-HP1BD and that a stable quaternary complex can be formed between DNA, KRAB-ZFP, KAP-1, and HP1. HP1 and
KAP-1 extensively colocalize to heterochromatic regions in interphase
nuclei. KAP-1 binds to HP1, resulting in recruitment of the
KRAB-ZFP-bound target gene to heterochromatin and subsequent silencing
of gene expression. According to this model, it is speculated that the
KAP-1 serves to nucleate HP1-mediated repression on a template and that
the oligomerization of KAP-1 as it binds the KRAB domain has a role in
the nucleation of heterochromatin.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
and KRIP-1 (32, 33).
KAP-1 is a member of an emerging superfamily of transcriptional
co-regulators, including TIF1
and TIF1
(17, 34, 35). The TIF1
family encodes the signature RBCC motif that designates the RING-B
box-coiled-coil tripartite structure. This motif probably functions as
a cooperative protein/protein interaction motif (19, 36, 37). The
definitive element of the tripartite motif is the RING finger, which is
found almost exclusively in the NH2-terminal position in
RBCC proteins and is likely to contribute specificity and/or
multimerization properties to the tripartite motif. Mutational analyses
have confirmed the requirement for the RING finger for proper
biological function (for reviews, see Refs. 36-39). The second
signature motif of the RBCC domain is the B-box (40). Two B-box motifs
are often found immediately COOH-terminal to the RING finger in the
RBCC domain. The third RBCC signature motif is a coiled-coil domain
that displays helical amphipathic character and is probably required
for homo- or heterotypic interaction. Many biological functions of RBCC proteins have been shown to be dependent on multimerization via this
coiled-coil region (36).
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (61K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Diagram illustrating the architecture of
KOX1/KRAB-ZFP and hKAP-1 proteins. A, amino acid
alignment of the KRAB domains from various zinc finger proteins. Each
gene encodes the indicated KRAB domain at its NH2 terminus.
The numbers refer to amino acid positions in the
corresponding proteins. The KRAB domain consensus residues are
highlighted in black. The periods
represent spaces introduced to obtain maximal alignment. B,
a representation of the KOX1-ZFP protein and recombinant derivatives
used in this study. The KOX1, residues 1-161, and the KRAB domain of
KOX1, residues 1-90, were expressed without a DNA-binding domain and
as a heterologous fusion protein with the DNA-binding domain of GAL4,
residues 1-147. The position of the D18A/V19A mutation, which disrupts
KRAB-mediated repression and association with KAP-1, is indicated.
C, a representation of the hKAP-1 protein. The KAP-1-RBCC
and the KAP-1-(22-618) proteins were expressed.

View larger version (26K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Expression and purification of recombinant
proteins in E. coli and baculovirus express
systems. A, Coomassie Blue-stained SDS-PAGE of the
purified recombinant KOX1-KRAB, KOX1-(1-161), GAL4-KRAB, KAP-1-RBCC,
and bv.KAP-1-RBCC proteins. Ten µg of each indicated purified protein
was loaded per lane. B, the binding of the purified
KAP-1-(22-618) protein and the KAP-1-RBCC protein to a wild-type KRAB
but not a mutant form as detected by GST association assay. The
input lanes represent 5 µg of purified
KAP-1-(22-618) or KAP-1-RBCC protein that was added to each binding
reaction mixture. No binding was detected for GST alone. Note that the
GST-KRAB(DV) protein, which possesses the DV-AA mutation in the KRAB
domain, completely abolishes binding to both KAP-1-(22-618) and
KAP-1-RBCC proteins.

View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
The KOX1-KRAB protein was separated into high
and low molecular weight species. Gel filtration analysis of
C8E5-treated KOX1-KRAB protein was performed.
The proteins were resolved on a Superdex 200 column. The fractions were
collected, and proteins were analyzed by SDS-PAGE (upper
panel). The migration of protein standards is indicated
above the gel. The KOX1-KRAB protein eluted in
two peaks. The high molecular weight species (KOX1-KRABHMW)
eluted with an apparent molecular mass of 670 kDa. The low molecular
weight species (KOX1-KRABLMW) eluted with an apparent
molecular mass of 32.7 kDa. The lower panel shows
the elution profile of the C8E5-treated
KOX1-KRAB protein (solid line) and protein
standards (dotted line).
-sheet,
9.2% turn, and 31% random coil for the purified KOX1-KRAB protein
(Fig. 4A) and 25.3% helix, 39.8%
-sheet, 10.2% turn,
and 24.7% random coil for the purified KOX1-KRABLMW
protein (Fig. 4B). These experimental values are consistent
with secondary structure predictions, suggesting that about 35% of the
KOX1-KRAB domain is helical (Fig. 1A). The CD spectra of the
KAP-1-RBCC protein and the KOX1-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex purified from
gel filtration also show that the proteins have a high degree of
secondary structure (data not shown). These data indicate that the
proteins were all folded under these experimental conditions.

View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
The CD spectra of the KRAB domain of
KOX1. A, a CD spectra of purified KOX1-KRAB protein was
carried out in a buffer containing 20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl, and 10% glycerol at a protein concentration of 1 mg/ml. A calculated CD spectrum for a protein containing 32.4% helix,
27.5%
-sheet, 9.2% turn, and 31% random coil (dashed
line) is plotted with the observed spectrum
(solid line) with the residual difference
spectrum (dotted line). B, a CD
spectrum of purified KOX1-KRABLMW was carried out in a
buffer containing P300 plus 10% glycerol and 10 mM
C8E5 at a protein concentration of 0.8 mg/ml. A
calculated CD spectrum for a protein containing 25.3% helix, 39.8%
-sheet, 10.2% turn, and 24.7% random coil (dashed
line) is plotted with the observed spectrum
(solid line) with the residual difference
spectrum (dotted line).

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Analytical ultracentrifugation analysis of
KOX1-KRAB and KAP-1-(22-618). A, sedimentation
equilibrium analysis of KOX1-KRAB was performed at 43,400 rpm and
4 °C. Panel d shows the con- centration versus radius data for three loading
concentrations of the KOX1-KRAB (circles). The three data
sets were fitted globally with a model describing monomers and small
amounts of aggregates, using the nonlinear regression program NONLIN
(44). Each data set yielded different association constants, indicating
the species were not in reversible equilibrium. The solid
lines represent the calculated fit. Panels
a-c show the residuals of the fitted curves to the data
points for the three protein concentrations displayed from the highest
(top) to the lowest concentration. B,
sedimentation equilibrium analysis of KAP-1-(22-618) was performed
with three different loading concentrations in separate cells at 16,000 rpm at 4 °C. The circles in panel d
show the concentrations versus radius data for three
different initial loading concentrations at equilibrium. The three data
sets were fitted globally with a model describing a monomer-trimer
(n = 2.9) equilibrium, using the nonlinear regression
program NONLIN (44). The highest concentration showed a 4-fold weaker
binding affinity compared with the two lower concentrations, suggesting
some nonreversibility at higher protein concentrations.
Solid lines represent the calculated fits.
Panels a-c show the residuals of the fitted
curves to the data points at the three protein concentrations, from the
highest to the lowest concentration.

View larger version (35K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Binding of purified E. coli
or baculovirus-expressed KAP-1-RBCC to a wild-type KOX1-KRAB
domain as detected by EMSA. EMSA was performed as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Each reaction contained a constant
amount of purified GAL4-KRAB (100 ng), a 32P-labeled DNA
probe containing the canonical GAL4 binding site, and increasing
amounts of purified E. coli-expressed KAP-1-RBCC
(A) or baculovirus-expressed KAP-1-RBCC (B). The
arrow indicates the DNA·GAL4-KRAB binary complex. The
bracket represents the slower migrating
DNA·GAL4-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex. FP, free
probe.

View larger version (44K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
Purified KOX1-KRAB actively competes purified
KAP-1-RBCC binding to GAL4-KRAB. A, competition of the
GAL4-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex formation by the purified
KOX1-KRABHMW and KOX1-KRABLMW. A constant
amount of GAL4-KRAB (100 ng) and KAP-1-RBCC (1 µg) was incubated with
increasing amounts of either KOX1-KRABHMW (250, 500, 1000, and 2000 ng) (lanes 4-7) or
KOX1-KRABLMW (63, 125, 250, and 500 ng) (lanes
8-11) prior to the addition of DNA probe. B, a
constant amount of purified KAP-1-RBCC (1 µg) was incubated with
increasing amounts of KOX1-KRABHMW (250, 500, 1000, and
2000 ng) (lanes 4-7) or KOX1-KRABLMW
(63, 125, 250, and 500 ng) (lanes 8-11) for 15 min at 30 °C. A constant amount of GAL4-KRAB (100 ng) was then
added, and the reaction was incubated for an additional 15 min at
30 °C. The GAL4 probe was then added and incubated with the complex
for 15 min at 30 °C. The arrow indicates the
DNA·GAL4-KRAB binary complex. The bracket represents the
slower migrating DNA·GAL4-KRAB·KAP-1-RBCC complex.
FP, free probe.

View larger version (43K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 8.
The KOX1-(1-161)·KAP-1-RBCC complex
exhibits an apparent 1:3 stoichiometry. A, gel
filtration analysis of the KOX1-(1-161)·KAP-1-RBCC complex. The
proteins were resolved on a Superose 6 column. The fractions were
collected, and the proteins were analyzed by Coomassie Blue-stained
SDS-PAGE gel. The migration of protein standards is indicated
above the gels. The reconstitution of
KOX1-(1-161)·KAP-1-RBCC complex in vitro is described
under "Experimental Procedures." The peak fraction of the complex
(fraction 26) eluted with an apparent molecular mass slightly larger
than the 158-kDa standard. B, stoichiometry of the
KOX1-(1-161)·KAP-1-RBCC complex. The complex, the KOX1-(1-161), and
the KAP-1-RBCC proteins were analyzed by Coomassie Blue-stained
SDS-PAGE. The amount of the KOX1-(1-161) and the KAP-1-RBCC proteins
is indicated at the top of the gel. The peak
fraction (fraction 26) of the complex from the gel filtration was
concentrated by deoxycholate-trichloroacetic acid precipitation. The
proteins were resolved on a SDS-PAGE gel and stained with Coomassie
Blue. The quantitation of the proteins was analyzed by
densitometry.
2 value was calculated to be 0.936, indicating
a good fit. The fitted Rmax (maximum response)
was consistently 3-fold higher after subtracting the nonspecific
contribution of the GST-KRAB(DV) control surface to the interaction.
This indicates that 3 mol of KAP-1-(22-618) bound per mol of GST-KRAB
captured on the target. The kinetic parameters were calculated by
fitting the data globally to a model for a single step with variable
Rmax. The interaction parameters for a 1:3
stoichiometry of GST-KRAB to KAP-1-(22-618) are shown in Table
I. The on and off rates for the
KRAB/KAP-1 interaction determined from the sensor analysis were
1.7 × 103 M
1
S
1 and 2.42 × 10
4 S
1,
respectively, yielding a Kd of 142 nM.

View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 9.
The kinetics of the KOX1-KRAB and
KAP-1-(1-618) interaction. A, Coomassie Blue-stained
SDS-PAGE of the purified recombinant proteins in kinetic studies using
optical biosensors. B, overlays of sensorgrams showing
binding of the indicated concentrations of analytes (KAP-1-(22-618))
to immobilized ligands (captured GST-KRAB and GST-KRAB(DV-AA)).
Injections of analytes were at 0 s, injections of running buffer
were at ~300 s; experiments were performed with a BIA3000
instrument.
Biosensor-derived kinetic parameters for KRAB/KAP-1 repressor system
2 is a measure of goodness of fit (
(value of model
value of experiment)/(n0
data points
fitted parameters)).
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank G. Canziani and I. M. Chaiken of the Biosensor/Interaction Analysis Core (University of Pennsylvania) for use of the Biacore system and data analysis; X. Li for help in preparation of the figures; and W. J. Fredericks, D. C. Schultz, and M. S. Lechner for helpful discussions. We thank the Wistar Institute Protein Core Facility for providing baculovirus-infected cell pellets and the DNA Core Facility for DNA sequencing.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* 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.
Supported by Wistar Basic Cancer Research Training Grant CA 09171.
§ Present address: Gillian E. Begg, Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, New South Wales 2010, Australia.
¶ Supported by CA 74294 and CA 66671.
Supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grants CA
52009, CA 10815, DK 49210, and GM 54220; American Cancer Society Grant
NP-954; the Irving A. Hansen Memorial Foundation; the Mary A. Rumsey
Memorial Foundation; and the Pew Scholars Program in the Biomedical
Sciences. To whom correspondence should be addressed: The Wistar
Institute, 3601 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Tel.: 215-898-0995;
Fax: 215-898-3929; E-mail: rauscher@wistar.upenn.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 30, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M001499200
2 D. Schultz, unpublished data.
3 M. Lechner, unpublished data.
4 H. Peng, G. E. Begg, S. L. Harper, J. R. Friedman, D. W. Speicher, and F. J. Rauscher III, unpublished data.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: KRAB, Kruppel-associated box; RBCC, RING finger, B boxes, and coiled-coil region; NTA, nitrilotriacetic acid; PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis; EMSA, electrophoretic mobility shift assay; bv, baculovirus; ZFP, zinc finger protein; C8E5, polyoxyethylene 5-octyl ether; GST, glutathione S-transferase; HP1BD, HP1 binding domain.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Tjian, R., and Maniatis, T. (1994) Cell 77, 5-8 |
| 2. | Maldonado, E., Hampsey, M., and Reinberg, D. (1999) Cell 99, 455-458 |
| 3. | Zawel, L., and Reinberg, D. (1995) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 64, 533-561 |
| 4. | Guarente, L. (1995) Trends Biochem. Sci. 20, 517-521 |
| 5. | Torchia, J., Glass, C., and Rosenfeld, M. G. (1998) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 10, 373-383 |
| 6. | Fondell, J. D., Roy, A. L., and Roeder, R. G. (1993) Genes Dev. 7, 1400-1410 |
| 7. | Fondell, J. D., Brunel, F., Hisatake, K., and Roeder, R. G. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 281-287 |
| 8. | Baniahmad, A., Leng, X., Burris, T. P., Tsai, S. Y., Tsai, M. J., and O'Malley, B. W. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 76-86 |
| 9. | Sauer, F., Fondell, J. D., Ohkuma, Y., Roeder, R. G., and Jackle, H. (1995) Nature 375, 162-164 |
| 10. | Knoepfler, P. S., and Eisenman, R. N. (1999) Cell 99, 447-450 |
| 11. | Glass, C. K., and Rosenfeld, M. G. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 121-141 |
| 12. | Albagli, O., Dhordain, P., Deweindt, C., Lecocq, G., and Leprince, D. (1995) Cell Growth Differ. 6, 1193-1198 |
| 13. | Bellefroid, E. J., Poncelet, D. A., Lecocq, P. J., Revelant, O., and Martial, J. A. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 3608-3612 |
| 14. | Dawson, S. R., Turner, D. L., Weintraub, H., and Parkhurst, S. M. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 6923-6931 |
| 15. | Grimes, H. L., Gilks, C. B., Chan, T. O., Porter, S., and Tsichlis, P. N. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 14569-14573 |
| 16. | Williams, A. J., Khachigian, L. M., Shows, T., and Collins, T. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 22143-22152 |
| 17. | Friedman, J. R., Fredericks, W. J., Jensen, D. E., Speicher, D. W., Huang, X. P., Neilson, E. G., and Rauscher, F. J., III (1996) Genes Dev. 10, 2067-2078 |
| 18. | Margolin, J. F., Friedman, J. R., Meyer, W. K., Vissing, H., Theisen, H. J., and Rauscher, F. J., III (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 4509-4513 |
| 19. | Peng, H., Begg, G. E., Schultz, D. C., Friedman, J. R., Jensen, D. E., Speicher, D. W., and Rauscher, F. J., III (2000) J. Mol. Biol. 295, 1139-1162 |
| 20. | Vissing, H., Meyer, W. K., Aagaard, L., Tommerup, N., and Thiesen, H. J. (1995) FEBS Lett. 369, 153-157 |
| 21. | Witzgall, R., O'Leary, E., Leaf, A., Onaldi, D., and Bonventre, J. V. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 4514-4518 |
| 22. | Klug, A., and Schwabe, J. W. (1995) FASEB J. 9, 597-604 |
| 23. | Rosati, M., Marino, M., Franze, A., Tramontano, A., and Grimaldi, G. (1991) Nucleic Acids Res. 19, 5661-5667 |
| 24. | Bellefroid, E. J., Marine, J. C., Ried, T., Lecocq, P. J., Riviere, M., Amemiya, C., Poncelet, D. A., Coulie, P. G., de Jong, P., Szpirer, C., Ward, D. C., and Martial, J. A. (1993) EMBO J. 12, 1363-1374 |
| 25. | Lovering, R., and Trowsdale, J. (1991) Nucleic Acids Res. 19, 2921-2928 |
| 26. | Liu, C., Levenstein, M., Chen, J., Tsifrina, E., Yonescu, R., Griffin, C., Civin, C. I., and Small, D. (1999) Exp. Hematol. 27, 313-325 |
| 27. | Tommerup, N., Aagaard, L., Lund, C. L., Boel, E., Baxendale, S., Bates, G. P., Lehrach, H., and Vissing, H. (1993) Hum. Mol. Genet. 2, 1571-1575 |
| 28. | Crew, A. J., Clark, J., Fisher, C., Gill, S., Grimer, R., Chand, A., Shipley, J., Gusterson, B. A., and Cooper, C. S. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 2333-2340 |
| 29. | Shannon, M., Ashworth, L. K., Mucenski, M. L., Lamerdin, J. E., Branscomb, E., and Stubbs, L. (1996) Genomics 33, 112-120 |
| 30. | Bellefroid, E. J., Lecocq, P. J., Benhida, A., Poncelet, D. A., Belayew, A., and Martial, J. A. (1989) DNA 8, 377-387 |
| 31. | Han, Z. G., Zhang, Q. H., Ye, M., Kan, L. X., Gu, B. W., He, K. L., Shi, S. L., Zhou, J., Fu, G., Mao, M., Chen, S. J., Yu, L., and Chen, Z. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 35741-35748 |
| 32. | Moosmann, P., Georgiev, O., Le Douarin, B., Bourquin, J. P., and Schaffner, W. (1996) Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 4859-4867 |
| 33. | Kim, S. S., Chen, Y. M., O'Leary, E., Witzgall, R., Vidal, M., and Bonventre, J. V. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 15299-15304 |
| 34. | Le Douarin, B., Zechel, C., Garnier, J. M., Lutz, Y., Tora, L., Pierrat, P., Heery, D., Gronemeyer, H., Chambon, P., and Losson, R. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 2020-2033 |
| 35. | Venturini, L., You, J., Stadler, M., Galien, R., Lallemand, V., Koken, M. H., Mattei, M. G., Ganser, A., Chambon, P., Losson, R., and de The, H. (1999) Oncogene 18, 1209-1217 |
| 36. | Saurin, A. J., Borden, K. L., Boddy, M. N., and Freemont, P. S. (1996) Trends Biochem. Sci. 21, 208-214 |
| 37. | Borden, K. L. (1998) Biochem. Cell Biol. 76, 351-358 |
| 38. | Boddy, M. N., Duprez, E., Borden, K. L., and Freemont, P. S. (1997) J. Cell Sci. 110, 2197-2205 |
| 39. | Cao, T., Borden, K. L., Freemont, P. S., and Etkin, L. D. (1997) J. Cell Sci. 110, 1563-1571 |
| 40. | Reddy, B. A., and Etkin, L. D. (1991) Nucleic Acids Res. 19, 6330 |
| 41. | Ryan, R. F., Schultz, D. C., Ayyanathan, K., Singh, P. B., Friedman, J. R., Fredericks, W. J., and Rauscher, F. J., III (1999) Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 4366-4378 |
| 42. | Shi, P. Y., Maizels, N., and Weiner, A. M. (1997) BioTechniques 23, 1036-1038 |
| 43. | Fredericks, W. J., Galili, N., Mukhopadhyay, S., Rovera, G., Bennicelli, J., Barr, F. G., and Rauscher, F. J., III (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 1522-1535 |
| 44. | Johnson, M. L., Correia, J. J., Yphantis, D. A., and Halvorson, H. R. (1981) Biophys. J. 36, 575-588 |
| 45. | Laue, T. M., Shah, B., Ridgeway, T. M., and Pelletier, S. L. (1992) in Analytical Ultracentrifugation in Biochemistry and Polymer Science (Harding, S. E. , Rowe, A. J. , and Horton, L. C., eds) , Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge |
| 46. | Peterson, G. L. (1977) Anal. Biochem. 83, 346-356 |
| 47. | Andersson, K., Hamalainen, M., and Malmqvist, M. (1998) Biasymposium `98 , Biacore, Edinburgh |
| 48. | Karlsson, R., and Falt, A. (1997) J. Immunol. Methods 200, 121-133 |
| 49. | Morton, T. A., Myszka, D. G., and Chaiken, I. M. (1995) Anal. Biochem. 227, 176-185 |
| 50. | Fleming, K. G., Ackerman, A. L., and Engelman, D. M. (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 272, 266-275 |
| 51. | Pengue, G., Caputo, A., Rossi, C., Barbanti-Brodano, G., and Lania, L. (1995) J. Virol. 69, 6577-6580 |