![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 21, 19183-19190, May 24, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the
Received for publication, December 20, 2001, and in revised form, February 28, 2002
Members of the IclR family of transcription
regulators modulate signal-dependent expression of genes
involved in carbon metabolism in bacteria and archaea. The
Thermotoga maritima TM0065 gene codes for a protein
(TM-IclR) that is homologous to the IclR family. We have determined the
crystal structure of TM-IclR at 2.2 Å resolution using MAD
phasing and synchrotron radiation. The protein is composed of two
domains: the N-terminal DNA-binding domain contains the winged
helix-turn-helix motif, and the C-terminal presumed regulatory domain
is involved in binding signal molecule. In a proposed signal-binding site, a bound Zn2+ ion was found. In the crystal, TM-IclR
forms a dimer through interactions between DNA-binding domains. In the
dimer, the DNA-binding domains are 2-fold related, but the dimer is
asymmetric with respect to the orientation of signal-binding domains.
Crystal packing analysis showed that TM-IclR dimers form a tetramer
through interactions exclusively by signal-binding domains. A
model is proposed for binding of IclR-like factors to DNA, and it
suggests that signal-dependent transcription regulation is
accomplished by affecting an oligomerization state of IclR and
therefore its affinity for DNA target.
The IclR (isocitrate lyase regulator) family of prokaryotic
transcription regulators mediates the signal-dependent
expression of operons related to carbon metabolism in eubacteria and
archaea (1). There are over 100 known members of the IclR family found in 44 species of bacteria and 2 archaea, with 9 IclR homologues in
Escherichia coli alone
(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/cgi-bin/Entrez/blink?pid = 7442884). The
most well-characterized members of the IclR family include the E. coli IclR glyoxylate shunt repressor that regulates acetate
utilization encoded by aceBAK operon (2, 3), the Erwinia chrysanthemi pectin degradation pathway repressor
KdgR (4), and the glycerol catabolism pathway repressor GylR of Streptomyces coelicolor (5). In each instance, the role of the IclR family member is to repress transcription of specific catabolic genes in the absence of specific substrates and then mediate
de-repression in response to an excess of a signaling molecule. Several
IclR-like proteins have been shown to regulate aromatic acid metabolism
(6), and they also have been implicated in control of expression of
sporulation and virulence genes (7, 8). However, a specific regulatory
function has not been defined for many IclR sequence homologues.
The mechanism of signal-dependent transcriptional
repression and de-repression can be deduced from the gene and operon
structure and from genetic and mutagenesis studies. It has been
proposed that IclR family members comprise two domains. The N-terminal domain, which has been designated PF01614 in the Pfam catalogue of
motifs (9), contains a helix-turn-helix
(HTH)1 DNA-binding motif,
which is responsible for binding to the palindromic operator sequence
(10, 11). The regulatory C-terminal domain most likely binds the signal
molecule (small ligand). Mutations in the C-terminal region of the PobR
repressor, a member of IclR family, alter the signal specificity
without altering transcription activation or DNA binding functions (6).
The mechanism of signal binding is unknown; however, the current model
assumes that binding of the signal molecule to the C-terminal domain
de-represses transcription by modulating either DNA binding, receptor
multimerization, or the interaction of the repressor with the
transcriptional machinery (6, 11).
The IclR-like protein of Thermotoga maritima (TM0065) was
targeted as part of an ongoing structural genomics and proteomics initiative (www.mcsg.anl.gov) because it shows strong sequence similarity to other members of the IclR family (Fig.
1), and there was no structural
information available about this class of transcription regulators.
Although the specific biochemical function of this protein is unknown,
a role in sugar metabolism is predicted. The TM0065 gene is located
within a cluster of genes that is implicated in xylulose metabolism,
and in E. coli, the catabolism of endogenously formed
xylulose is mediated by the T. maritime IclR homologue YiaJ
(12). In this report, we present the first crystal structure of an
IclR-like transcriptional regulator at 2.2 Å resolution. TM-IclR is a
dimer; each monomer consists of an N-terminal DNA-binding domain with a
HTH motif and a C-terminal Protein Cloning Expression and Purification--
The open
reading frame of TM-IclR was amplified and cloned, and protein was
purified and concentrated following procedures described previously
(13). The open reading frame of iclR was amplified by PCR
from T. maritima genomic DNA (American Type Culture Collection). The gene was cloned into the NdeI and
BamHI sites of a modified pET15b cloning vector (Novagen) in
which the TEV protease cleavage site replaced the thrombin cleavage
site, and a double stop codon was introduced downstream from the
BamHI site. This construct provides for an N-terminal
His6 tag separated from the gene by a TEV protease
recognition site (ENLYFQ
Large-scale expression of the recombinant proteins was performed by
subculturing a 25-ml culture grown in a 250-ml flask, inoculated from
fresh transformants, into 2 liters of LB with appropriate antibiotics
in either a 6-liter flask or a custom-baffled 4-liter flask. The sample
was induced at an A600 of 0.6-0.8 with 0.4 mM isopropyl-1-thio- Protein Crystallization--
The protein was crystallized by
vapor diffusion in hanging drops by mixing 2 µl of the protein
solution (9 mg/ml) with 2 µl of 0.1 M HEPES pH 7, 5%
PEG 8000, and 5% glycerol and equilibrated at 20 °C over 100 µl of this solution. Crystals, which appeared after 3 days, were
flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen with crystallization buffer plus 20%
glycerol as cryoprotectant prior to data collection.
Determination of TM-IclR Oligomeric State Using Size Exclusion
Chromatography--
High pressure liquid chromatography size exclusion
chromatography was performed on a Superose-12 HR column (10 × 300 mm; Amersham Biosciences) pre-equilibrated with 10 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 0.5 M NaCl, using the System
Gold (Beckman). The column was calibrated with cytochrome c
(12.4 kDa), carbonic anhydrase (29 kDa), bovine serum albumin (66 kDa),
alcohol dehydrogenase (150 kDa), Data Collection--
Diffraction data were collected at 100 K at
the 19ID beamline of the Structural Biology Center at the Advanced
Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory. The three-wavelength
inverse-beam MAD data up to 2.5 Å (peak, 12.6603 keV (0.9794 Å);
inflection point, 12.6620 keV (0.9793 Å); high energy remote, 13.0000 keV (0.95385 Å)) were collected from a Se-Met-labeled protein crystal. One crystal (0.2 × 0.2 × 0.2 mm) was used to collect at 100 K all data MAD sets to 2.5 Å with 6 s exposure/1°/frame using a 200 mm crystal-to-detector distance. The total oscillation range was
160°, as predicted using strategy module within HKL2000 suite (14).
The space group was C2 with a cell dimension of a = 115.23 Å, b = 61.08 Å, c = 95.91 Å,
and Structure Determination and Refinement--
The structure was
determined by MAD phasing using CNS (15) and initially refined
to 2.7 Å using CNS against the averaged peak data. The initial model
was built manually using O (16), and manual adjustment was completed
using QUANTA (17). The model was further refined against native data to
2.2 Å. The final R was 0.237, and the free R was 0.300 with 2 DNA Binding Modeling and Structural Comparisons--
DNA docking
was done on SGI work station with program O (16) and using
regular B-DNA model. Calculation of binding cavities were done with
SURFNET (18) and VOIDOO (19).
Structure of TM-IclR--
The structure of the full-length (246 residues) TM-IclR was determined and refined to a resolution of 2.2 Å.
The final R-factor is 0.237 with a free R of 0.300 and
preserving proper stereochemistry (Table I). The PROCHECK analysis
showed that all but two residues, Asn31 and
Lys56 in subunit A, had backbone conformations (
The protein consists of two
The HTH DNA-binding motif of the N-terminal domain is composed of two
small, consecutive
The dimerization interface comprises the
The C-terminal putative regulatory and signal-binding domain is
composed of a six-stranded anti-parallel
The crystal structure also revealed a divalent metal ion in each of the
C-terminal domains (modeled as Zn2+ ion) bound to
Cys196 (Zn-S distance is 2.70 Å) and located near the N
terminus of TM-IclR Dimer Is Asymmetric--
The crystal asymmetric unit
contains a dimer that is predicted to be a minimal DNA binding unit
because the majority of proteins with domains containing HTH function
as dimers and bind 2-fold symmetric DNA targets. In promoters known to
be regulated by IclR family members, many palindromes (or
pseudopalindromes) have been identified (10, 11). The 2-fold character
of the operators for the IclR family is therefore consistent with the
2-fold symmetry of the DNA-binding domains in the crystal structure.
The C-terminal ligand-binding domains, which are not directly involved
in dimer formation, are not related by 2-fold symmetry, thus making the
dimer asymmetric. The linking regions (residues 62-79) in the two
monomers in the asymmetric unit adopt two different conformations,
which results in two different orientations of the ligand-binding
domains with respect to the HTH dimer (Fig. 3B). The
difference in the orientation of the two ligand-binding domains is
clearly explained by the differences in the main chain torsion angles
(
Analysis of crystal packing revealed that TM-IclR dimers may form
tetramers. Although the ligand-binding domains do not participate in
formation of the asymmetric dimer, they interact directly with the
corresponding domains from neighboring asymmetric units. These interactions result in the formation of a tetramer, a dimer of identical asymmetric dimers (Fig. 3C). The tetramerization
interface is substantial (5366.3 Å2) and is composed
exclusively of the ligand-binding domains, suggesting that the tetramer
may be of biological relevance. This contention is supported by recent
mass spectroscopy experiments on the DNA-bound form of the IclR protein
from E. coli (22). These experiments also suggested that
both dimeric and tetrameric species existed in solution for IclR and
GclR repressors of E. coli. Size exclusion chromatography
showed that the TM-IclR is a dimer in solution (data not shown). Taken
together, the structural information and the oligomerization
experiments are consistent with the hypothesis that TM-IclR is a dimer
in the absence of signal and DNA but adopts a tetrameric structure when
bound to DNA in the absence of signal molecule.
DNA-binding Domain--
In the dimer, the HTH reading heads are
positioned to interact with a palindromic 12-14-base pair operator,
with specific contacts predominantly in the major groove of the DNA.
The H2
The N-terminal end of the H1
The HTH domain of TM-IclR was compared with other HTH motifs in the
structural data base. When the spatial arrangement of the DNA Binding Model--
Our data indicate that TM-IclR is a dimer
in solution in the absence of the signal molecule and the DNA target.
We modeled TM-IclR dimer on a linear 20-base pair fragment of B-DNA by
examining other prokaryotic DNA-binding HTH domain-DNA complexes (Fig.
5). Two consecutive major grooves of the DNA are contacted by the two
HTH reading heads, which consist of the two consecutive
Interestingly, the dimer in the crystal structure appears to form a
tetramer with the asymmetric unit dimer that is related by the
crystallographic 2-fold symmetry. The tetramer is created by
interaction between the signal domains of two asymmetric dimers. This
observation is consistent with recent mass spectroscopy experiments suggesting that it is a tetramer that binds the DNA targets (22).
To gain insight as to the possible relevance of the tetramerization
observed by mass spectroscopy and observed in the crystal structure, we
modeled the TM-IclR tetramer on a fragment of duplex DNA (Fig. 5). In
the tetrameric assembly found in the crystal structure, the two dimeric
DNA-binding domains are aligned parallel and approximately linearly.
There are two possible ways that this tetramer can bind the DNA target:
(i) model A, two operator sites might be aligned sequentially with a
specific spacing (6-8 bp) between the two sites; or (ii) model B, the
two operator sites might be aligned side by side (from two different
duplexes or a looped duplex) (Fig. 5). In model A, the tetramer binds a
DNA target composed of two 2-fold symmetry-related binding sites; each
binding site would contain two 2-fold symmetry-related half-sites. This
interaction would be predicted to increase the specificity for an
operator consisting of two 14-bp half-sites with the proper half-site
spacing. In model B, the two DNA sites would be located in two
different duplexes or on the same duplex with a separation of >100 bp.
In this model, either the DNA loops back, forming an anti-parallel
arrangement, or the DNA loops around, forming a parallel arrangement
reminiscent of the tetrameric lac repressor-operator interaction (28). Analysis of the acetate operon (10, 11, 22, 29),
whose expression is under the transcriptional control of the
iclR gene in E. coli, indicated that the E. coli IclR repressor recognizes a 35-bp palindromic sequence. This
observation is consistent with the binding of two IclR dimers to two
14-bp binding sites separated by 7 bp (model A).
The Signal-binding Domain--
The C-terminal domain comprises a
six strand anti-parallel
In the TM-IclR structure, the pocket is occupied by water molecules and
a divalent metal ion (assigned as Zn2+) bound to
Cys196. This region is formed by parts of TM-IclR that
mediate tetramer formation, residues 214-220 and 114-118. The
proximity of the presumed ligand-binding region to the region involved
in tetramerization suggests that ligand binding and tetramerization may
be linked. Because tetramerization and DNA binding are also connected,
the proximity of the signal-binding and tetramerization domains
revealed in the crystal structure may provide the link between signal
binding and DNA binding.
Based on the structural data, we can propose the following
mechanism for TM-IclR-mediated gene regulation. We suggest that TM-IclR
binds weakly to DNA as a dimer in the absence of signal molecule. In
the presence of two adjacent binding sites, IclR cooperatively forms a
high-affinity, stable tetrameric complex that represses transcription.
In the presence of the signal molecule, whose identity at present
remains unknown, binding to the specific site leads to a disruption of
the tetramer, decreased affinity for DNA, and increased transcription.
This hypothesis is consistent with published data, in which it has been
shown that the binding of ligands to IclR inhibits DNA binding. For
example, the formation of the IclR-DNA complex is inhibited by the
binding of phosphoenol pyruvate, one of the metabolites involved in
glyoxylate bypass (29). Glyoxylate bypass occurs when acetate becomes
the sole source of carbon. The enzymes in the glyoxylate pathway are
encoded by the aceBAK operon, which is also under IclR control.
There is also some evidence that IclR-mediated gene regulation
can be further modulated by the level of IclR expression (30), which could affect equilibrium between dimers and tetramers.
We thank all members of the Structural
Biology Center at Argonne National Laboratory for their help in
conducting experiments.
*
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health
Grant GM62414, the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund, and
by the United States Department of Energy Office of Biological and
Environmental Research under contract W-31-109-Eng-38. The submitted
manuscript has been created by the University of Chicago as Operator of
Argonne National Laboratory ("Argonne") under Contract No.
W-31-109-ENG-38 with the United States Department of Energy.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.
The atomic coordinates and the structure factors (code 1JMR and RCSB013946) have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank, Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (http://www.rcsb.org/).
§
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
**
Investigator of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
§§
To whom correspondence may be addressed. Tel.: 416-946-3436; Fax:
416-978-8528; E-mail: aled.edwards@utoronto.ca.
¶¶
To whom correspondence may be addressed: Biosciences
Division and Structural Biology Center, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Ave., Bldg. 202, Argonne, IL 60439. Tel.: 630-252-3926; Fax: 630-252-6126; E-mail: andrzejj@anl.gov.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 4, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M112171200
The abbreviations used are:
HTH, helix-turn-helix;
DBD, DNA-binding domain;
MAD, multiple wavelength
anomalous dispersion.
Crystal Structure of Thermotoga maritima 0065, a
Member of the IclR Transcriptional Factor Family*
§,
§,
,
§§,
¶¶, and
Biosciences Division and Structural Biology
Center, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, 
Banting and Best Department of Medical
Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1L6, Canada,
¶ Clinical Genomics Centre/Proteomics, University Health Network,
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1L7, Canada, and
Department of
Crystallography, Birbeck College, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX, United
Kingdom
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
/
domain. The C-terminal domain has
features that are consistent with binding of a small signal molecule
that may inhibit repression by TM-IclR. The model for TM-IclR mediated
regulation is proposed.

View larger version (97K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Protein sequence comparison. 14 members
of the IclR family are compared, with completely conserved
residues shown in red, and highly conserved residues shown
in blue.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
G). The fusion protein was overexpressed in
E. coli BL21-Gold (DE3) (Stratagene) harboring an extra
plasmid encoding three rare tRNAs (AGG and AGA for Arg, and ATA for Ile).
-D-galactopyranoside
after growth at 37 °C, 220 rpm and grown overnight at 15 °C, 220 rpm. The cells were harvested by centrifugation (10 min at 8000 rpm;
Beckman Coulter Avanti J-20 centrifuge). The cell pellet was
resuspended to 40 ml with binding buffer, supplemented with 1 mM each of the protease inhibitors phenylmethylsulfonyl
fluoride and benzamidine, flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored
at
70 °C. The purification procedure used buffers containing 50 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 500 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol, and
5, 30, and 250 mM imidazole for the binding, wash, and
elution buffers, respectively. The harvested cells were lysed by adding
0.5% Nonidet P-40 to the thawed sample before sonication (5 × 30 s; duty cycle, 50%; operation load, 6). Fresh protease
inhibitors were added before the sample was clarified by centrifugation
(30 min at 17000 rpm; Beckman Coulter Avanti J-25 centrifuge). The
clarified lysate was passed by gravity through a DE52 column in series
with a Ni2+ column. Contaminating proteins were removed by
washing the Ni2+ column with 50 column volumes of wash
buffer. The bound protein was removed with elution buffer as
qualitatively determined by the Bradford assay. The sample was then
brought to a final concentration of 0.5 mM EDTA, followed
by the addition of a final concentration of 0.5 mM
dithiothreitol. The His tag was removed by cleavage with
recombinant His-tagged TEV protease (60 µg TEV/mg recombinant protein). The cleavage step was done concurrently with dialysis in
binding buffer without imidazole at 4 °C overnight. The cut His tag
and His-tagged TEV protease were removed from the purified recombinant
protein by passage through a second Ni2+ column. The sample
was prepared for crystallization screening by a second dialysis in 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 500 mM NaCl, followed by
concentration to 10 mg/ml using a BioMax concentrator (Millipore). Finally, any particulate matter was removed from the sample by passage
through a 0.2 µm Ultrafree-MC centrifugal filtration device (Millipore).
-amylase (200 kDa), and blue
dextran (2000 kDa). A 25-µl TM-IclR protein sample at a 2 mg/ml
concentration or premixed with standard proteins was centrifuged at
14,000 rpm for 10 min before being injected into the column through a
20-µl injection loop. Chromatography was carried out at 20 °C at a
flow rate of 1 ml/min. The eluted proteins were detected by measuring
the absorbance at 280 nm.
= 110.51°. All data were processed and scaled with
HKL2000 (Table I) to an R-merge of 6.6%,
7.0%, and 8.0% for inflection point, peak, and remote, respectively. The native data were collected at 1.0332 Å wavelength to 2.2 Å (R-merge, 6.0%) from a single crystal at the SBC 19ID beamline and
were used for phase extension and model refinement.
Summary of crystal and MAD data
data
(Table II). Electron density calculated
at 1.2
is well connected for most of the main chain, except for a
few areas on the surface of the molecules (Fig. 1). Molecule A is
better ordered than molecule B. The stereochemistry of the structure
was checked with PROCHECK (18) and the Ramachandran plot. The main
chain torsion angles for all residues except two residues are in
allowed regions, and the two residues are in additional allowed
regions.
Crystallographic statistics
![]()
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
,
)
in the most favorable region. These two residues (
,
) are in the
additionally allowed region. The electron density for the main chain is
continuous except for some regions on the surface of the molecules, and
the electron density for most of the side chains is excellent (Fig. 2).

View larger version (142K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Electron density representation of the dimer
interface of the DNA-binding domain. The 2Fo-Fc
electron density contoured at 1.2
represents a part of the dimer
interface between the two DNA-binding domains (DBDs) from each monomer.
Several hydrophobic residues including 4 phenylalanine amino acids in
H1s are well defined at 2.2 Å resolution.
/
domains, a small N-terminal
DNA-binding domain and a larger C-terminal putative signal-binding (repression inhibition) domain (Fig. 3).
These domains are linked by an
-helix and a short loop, which we
term the "linking region." The protein crystallized as a dimer; the
dimerization interface is formed entirely by the DNA-binding domain
(Fig. 3B).

View larger version (50K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
IclR topology and its dimer and tetramer
arrangement. A, IclR topology. The DNA-binding
domain consists of three
-helices (H1-H3) and a
-hairpin forming
a wing. The signal-binding domain forms a half TIM barrel with three
small
-helices in the concave side and two longer
-helices in the
convex side of the barrel. The two domains are linked by an
-helix
(H4). B, the asymmetric dimer. The dimer interface is
formed exclusively between the two HTH DNA-binding domains. Each
monomer is color-coded red and green.
C, the tetramer viewed from the top (DBD) is composed
of two asymmetric dimers represented as four different colors,
red and green for one asymmetric unit and
yellow and magenta for the other. The tetramer
interface is formed exclusively between signal-binding domains, which
also include a metal ion in a putative ligand-binding pocket in each
domain. D, IclR tetramer represented as a charge potential
surface drawing in top and side views.
-helices (H2 and H3 and the 4-residue turn
connecting them). This motif is found in many other transcriptional regulators (20). The HTH motif is followed by a short
-helix and a
-hairpin, which connects to the linking region. The architecture of
the DNA-binding domain closely resembles that of the winged HTH, a
relatively recently recognized but well-established major groove
DNA-binding domain (21). The distance between HTH motifs in the dimer
is relatively short (33.46 Å between C
of Val34 in
HTH), suggesting that IclR spans a narrow minor groove and recognizes a
rather short (12-14-bp) palindromic DNA sequence, consistent with the
proposed AT-rich 14-bp binding site for the E. coli IclR
protein (10, 11). It is also quite clear that in order for the HTH
motifs to interact with the major groove, the N termini must be
inserted into the minor groove of the DNA.
-helices H1 and H4. The
hydrophobic interface formed by the two H1
-helices from the
N-terminal domains includes four aromatic side chains, two from each
monomer. A number of additional hydrophobic interactions (such as
Ala7-Leu4) and H-bonds (such as
Asp12-Tyr67) are also found at the dimer interface.
-sheet, five
-helices, and one short 310 helix (Fig. 3). The strongly curved
-sheet forms a half barrel and divides the five
-helices into two
subgroups; two relatively longer
-helices (H4 and H5) lie on the
outside of the curved sheet with the remaining three (H6, H7, and H8) on the inside, forming an
/
/
structure. The H6
-helix is
inserted into the half barrel and is parallel to the sheet surface. The
-helices H7 and H8 close one end of the half barrel. There is an
additional short
-strand (S5') within the long loop (L3) at the edge
of the
-sheet (Fig. 3). In the dimer, the C-terminal domains do not
contact each other.
-helix H6 (Fig. 4). In
addition, the metal-binding site (443 Å3), as obtained
from SURFNET (18), contains three water molecules and is the best
candidate region for a signal-binding pocket. Moreover, an unassigned
electron density was found also at the subunit interface formed by
-helices H4 in the "linking region." A molecule of formate
(HCO

View larger version (27K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Putative signal-binding pocket. The
putative signal-binding pockets formed between the two signal-binding
domains from either molecules A and B' (A) or molecules B
and A' (B). A' and B' were generated by 2-fold
(crystallographic) symmetry operation of A and B, respectively. Due to
the two different orientations of these domains, the two pockets are
slightly different in size, shape, and location relative to the DBDs.
The volume (calculated with VOIDOO (19)) of the pocket between molecule
A and B' is bigger (10 Å3) than that between molecules B
and A' (2.3 Å3). The former is opened toward the DBD, and
the latter is opened to the opposite side of DBD. The small size of
these pockets suggests that only a portion of the signal molecule would
fit into the void.
,
) for the residues Phe75 (
66.9°, 135.9°
versus
97.7°, 93.1°) and Asn76
(
113.5°, 94.4° versus
47.7°,
40.0°) in the
linking regions in the two monomers. Therefore, it is clear that
Phe75 and Asn76 can assume two distinct
conformations. This asymmetry may have functional implications (see below).
-helix is aligned ~90° to the predicted recognition
-helix (H3). The
-helix H3 is partially disordered in molecule B,
perhaps because the DNA is absent from the structure. The two helices are connected by a short loop. The 3 residues that connect the H2 and
H3
-helices (Asn31, Met32, and
Ser33) are in left-handed helix,
-helix, and
-helix
conformations, respectively. These residues constitute a typical turn
in a HTH motif. In TM-IclR, the surface encompassing the HTH is
positively charged (Figs. 3D and
5), providing additional verification for DNA binding. The amino acid sequences of H2 and H3
-helices are not
conserved among members of IclR family, except for two hydrophobic resides (Met41 and Leu44) as well as
Glu25 and Ser35 (Fig. 1), which suggests that
these
-helices mediate DNA sequence specificity among IclR family
members that recognize different DNA targets.

View larger version (50K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
DNA binding model. A,
B-DNA is modeled to bind a IclR tetramer as shown in the space-filling
model on top of the IclR tetramer represented in the charge potential
surface drawing. The known IclR DNA target and the consensus sequences
are included. B, proposed DNA binding model A: a
tetramer IclR binds to two consecutive palindromic DNA targets.
C, proposed DNA binding model B: a tetrameric IclR
binds to two palindromic DNA targets that are far apart (>100 bp),
looped, and come back and lined either in parallel (left) or
in anti-parallel (right).
-helix that precedes the HTH appears to
be in a position to contact the minor groove of the DNA (the N
terminus, Asn2, Thr3, Lys5, and
Lys6 are good candidates to make contacts with DNA),
therefore suggesting that nucleotides near the 2-fold dyad may affect
IclR specificity. These interactions would be enhanced by partial
positive charge of the N terminus of
-helix. The sequence of the H1
-helix is not conserved, except for Leu4 and
Ile10 (Fig. 1). In addition, the region consisting of the
-hairpin (the wing) and the loop connecting H1 and H2
-helices in
the N-terminal DNA-binding domain may serve as a flexible hinge
(Gly19 and conserved Gly48 and
Gly61) to accommodate DNA targets with different half-site
spacing. Therefore, the wing portion of the winged HTH in TM-IclR may
be functionally/structurally different from that of other winged domains such as hRFX1 (23). However, the flexibility of this moiety and
its contribution to DNA binding need to be thoroughly examined by
biochemical/physical analyses including high-resolution x-ray
crystallography using a number of different DNA targets with different
half-site spacings, although the TM-IclR DNA target has yet to be
identified. In any case, the
-hairpin in TM-IclR is much smaller
than that of hRFX1 and may not interact with DNA directly as seen in
the hRFX1 structure.
-helices
H1, H2, and H3 was compared, the HTH domain of TM-IclR was most similar
to those of three HTH protein groups: toxin repressor (24), CAP (25),
and HNF-3/fork head (26). The wing portion of TM-IclR was also compared
with other proteins and was found to be quite different from other
domains with respect to the size of the loop. The histone H5 and HNF-3
winged domains have longer loops compared with TM-IclR (27); the toxin
repressor family has shorter loops (24). However, the SmtB HTH,
Synechococcus PCC7942 trans-acting dimeric repressor, is
structurally almost identical to the HTH of TM-IclR (27).
-helices (H2-H3) connected by the sharp turn. The
-helix H1 is modeled to be
in close contact with the minor groove between the two major grooves.
Although the DNA-binding domain of TM-IclR has a winged HTH motif, the
wing is too far from DNA and may not interact directly with DNA.
Rather, it may provide flexibility to the reading head if the protein
binds DNA targets with different half-site spacing.
-sheet, which separates five
-helices.
The fold most closely resembles the structure of profilin, an
actin-binding protein, although there is little sequence identity
(6%). Both structures contain a pocket within the
-sheet. In
TM-IclR, the pocket is formed by the inner surface of concave
-sheet, the loop (L3), and a small
-helix (H6). The pocket
contains the residues in PobR that mediate inducer (6) and are
reasonably conserved among IclR family members (Fig. 1).
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Nasser, W.,
Reverchon, S.,
Condemine, G.,
and Robert-Baudouy, J.
(1994)
J. Mol. Biol.
236,
427-440[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
Maloy, S. R.,
and Nunn, W. D.
(1982)
J. Bacteriol.
149,
173-180 3.
Sunnarborg, A.,
Klumpp, D.,
Chung, T.,
and LaPorte, D. C.
(1990)
J. Bacteriol.
172,
2642-2649 4.
Nasser, W.,
Reverchon, S.,
and Robert-Baudouy, J.
(1992)
Mol. Microbiol.
6,
257-265[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
5.
Hindle, Z.,
and Smith, C. P.
(1994)
Mol. Microbiol.
12,
737-745[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
6.
Kok, R. G.,
D'Argenio, D. A.,
and Ornston, L. N.
(1998)
J. Bacteriol.
180,
5058-5069 7.
van Wezel, G. P.,
van der Meulen, J.,
Kawamoto, S.,
Luiten, R. G.,
Koerten, H. K.,
and Kraal, B.
(2000)
J. Bacteriol.
182,
5653-5662 8.
Nomura, K.,
Nasser, W.,
Kawagishi, H.,
and Tsuyumu, S.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
14034-14039 9.
Bateman, A.,
Birney, E.,
Durbin, R.,
Eddy, S. R.,
Howe, K. L.,
and Sonnhammer, E. L.
(2000)
Nucleic Acids Res.
28,
263-266 10.
Pan, B.,
Unnikrishnan, I.,
and LaPorte, D. C.
(1996)
J. Bacteriol.
178,
3982-3984 11.
Donald, L. J.,
Chernushevich, I. V.,
Zhou, J.,
Verentchikov, A.,
Poppe-Schriemer, N.,
Hosfield, D. J.,
Westmore, J. B.,
Ens, W.,
Duckworth, H. W.,
and Standing, K. G.
(1996)
Protein Sci.
5,
1613-1624[Abstract]
12.
Ibanez, E.,
Campos, E.,
Baldoma, L.,
Aguilar, J.,
and Badia, J.
(2000)
J. Bacteriol.
182,
4617-4624 13.
Korolev, S.,
Ikeguchi, Y.,
Skarina, T.,
Beasley, S.,
Edwards, A.,
Joachimiak, A.,
Pegg, A. E.,
and Savchenko, A.
(2001)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
9,
27-31[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
14.
Otwinowski, Z.,
and Minor, W.
(1997)
Methods Enzymol.
276,
307-326
15.
Brunger, A. T.,
Adams, P. D.,
Clore, G. M.,
DeLano, W. L.,
Gros, P.,
Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W.,
Jiang, J.-S.,
Kuszewski, J.,
Nilges, M.,
Pannu, N. S.,
Read, R. J.,
Rice, L. M.,
Simonson, T.,
and Warren, G. L.
(1998)
Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr.
54,
905-921[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
16.
Jones, T. A.,
Zou, J. Y.,
Cowan, S. W.,
and Kjeldgaard, M.
(1991)
Acta Crystallogr.
A47,
110-119
17.
Molecular Simulations Inc..
(2000)
QUANTA
, San Diego, CA
18.
Laskowski, R. A.
(1995)
J. Mol. Graph.
13,
323-330[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
19.
Kleywegt, G. J.,
and Jones, T. A.
(1994)
Acta Crystallogr.
D50,
178-185
20.
Wintjens, R.,
and Rooman, M.
(1996)
J. Mol. Biol.
262,
294-313[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
21.
Clubb, R. T.,
Omichinski, J. G.,
Savilahti, H.,
Mizuuchi, K.,
Gronenborn, A. M.,
and Clore, G. M.
(1994)
Structure
2,
1041-1048[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
22.
Donald, L. J.,
Hosfield, D. J.,
Cuvelier, S. L.,
Ens, W.,
Standing, K. G.,
and Duckworth, H. W.
(2001)
Protein Sci.
10,
1370-1380 23.
Gajiwala, K. S.,
Chen, H.,
Cornille, F.,
Roques, B. P.,
Reith, W.,
Mach, B.,
and Burley, S. K.
(2000)
Nature
403,
916-921[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
24.
Pohl, E.,
Holmes, R. K.,
and Hol, W. G.
(1999)
J. Mol. Biol.
292,
653-667[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
25.
Passner, J. M.,
and Steitz, T. A.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
2843-2847 26.
Clark, K. L.,
Halay, E. D.,
Lai, E.,
and Burley, S. K.
(1993)
Nature
364,
412-420[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
27.
Cook, W. J.,
Kar, S. R.,
Taylor, K. B.,
and Hall, L. M.
(1998)
J. Mol. Biol.
275,
337-346[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
28.
Friedman, A. M.,
Fischmann, T. O.,
and Steitz, T. A.
(1995)
Science
268,
1721-1727 29.
Cortay, J. C.,
Negre, D.,
Galinier, A.,
Duclos, B.,
Perriere, G.,
and Cozzone, A. J.
(1991)
EMBO J.
10,
675-679[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
30.
Gui, L.,
Sunnarborg, A.,
and LaPorte, D. C.
(1996)
J. Bacteriol.
178,
4704-4709
Copyright © 2002 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. Jerg and U. Gerischer Relevance of nucleotides of the PcaU binding site from Acinetobacter baylyi Microbiology, March 1, 2008; 154(3): 756 - 766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. J. Miller, L. Shuvalova, E. Evdokimova, A. Savchenko, A. F. Yakunin, and W. F. Anderson Structural and biochemical characterization of a novel Mn2+-dependent phosphodiesterase encoded by the yfcE gene Protein Sci., July 1, 2007; 16(7): 1338 - 1348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M.-E. Guazzaroni, M.-T. Gallegos, J. L. Ramos, and T. Krell Different Modes of Binding of Mono- and Biaromatic Effectors to the Transcriptional Regulator TTGV: ROLE IN DIFFERENTIAL DEREPRESSION FROM ITS COGNATE OPERATOR J. Biol. Chem., June 1, 2007; 282(22): 16308 - 16316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. L. Lorca, A. Ezersky, V. V. Lunin, J. R. Walker, S. Altamentova, E. Evdokimova, M. Vedadi, A. Bochkarev, and A. Savchenko Glyoxylate and Pyruvate Are Antagonistic Effectors of the Escherichia coli IclR Transcriptional Regulator J. Biol. Chem., June 1, 2007; 282(22): 16476 - 16491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Gioia, X. Qin, H. Jiang, K. Clinkenbeard, R. Lo, Y. Liu, G. E. Fox, S. Yerrapragada, M. P. McLeod, T. Z. McNeill, et al. The Genome Sequence of Mannheimia haemolytica A1: Insights into Virulence, Natural Competence, and Pasteurellaceae Phylogeny. J. Bacteriol., October 1, 2006; 188(20): 7257 - 7266. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Gorelik, V. V. Lunin, T. Skarina, and A. Savchenko Structural characterization of GntR/HutC family signaling domain Protein Sci., June 1, 2006; 15(6): 1506 - 1511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Krell, A. J. Molina-Henares, and J. L. Ramos The IclR family of transcriptional activators and repressors can be defined by a single profile Protein Sci., May 1, 2006; 15(5): 1207 - 1213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Shi, C. K. Brown, Z.-Y. Gu, B. K. Kozlowicz, G. M. Dunny, D. H. Ohlendorf, and C. A. Earhart Structure of peptide sex pheromone receptor PrgX and PrgX/pheromone complexes and regulation of conjugation in Enterococcus faecalis PNAS, December 20, 2005; 102(51): 18596 - 18601. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Perez-Mendoza, E. Sepulveda, V. Pando, S. Munoz, J. Nogales, J. Olivares, M. J. Soto, J. A. Herrera-Cervera, D. Romero, S. Brom, et al. Identification of the rctA Gene, Which Is Required for Repression of Conjugative Transfer of Rhizobial Symbiotic Megaplasmids J. Bacteriol., November 1, 2005; 187(21): 7341 - 7350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Savchenko, N. Krogan, J. R. Cort, E. Evdokimova, J. M. Lew, A. A. Yee, L. Sanchez-Pulido, M. A. Andrade, A. Bochkarev, J. D. Watson, et al. The Shwachman-Bodian-Diamond Syndrome Protein Family Is Involved in RNA Metabolism J. Biol. Chem., May 13, 2005; 280(19): 19213 - 19220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Tropel and J. R. van der Meer Bacterial Transcriptional Regulators for Degradation Pathways of Aromatic Compounds Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., September 1, 2004; 68(3): 474 - 500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Z. Wei, P. Zhang, Z. Zhou, Z. Cheng, M. Wan, and W. Gong Crystal Structure of Human eIF3k, the First Structure of eIF3 Subunits J. Biol. Chem., August 13, 2004; 279(33): 34983 - 34990. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Reinelt, E. Hofmann, T. Gerharz, M. Bott, and D. R. Madden The Structure of the Periplasmic Ligand-binding Domain of the Sensor Kinase CitA Reveals the First Extracellular PAS Domain J. Biol. Chem., October 3, 2003; 278(40): 39189 - 39196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Jones, J. A. Barker, I. Nobeli, and J. M. Thornton Using structural motif templates to identify proteins with DNA binding function Nucleic Acids Res., June 1, 2003; 31(11): 2811 - 2823. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R.-Y. Wu, R.-G. Zhang, O. Zagnitko, I. Dementieva, N. Maltzev, J. D. Watson, R. Laskowski, P. Gornicki, and A. Joachimiak Crystal Structure of Enterococcus faecalis SlyA-like Transcriptional Factor J. Biol. Chem., May 23, 2003; 278(22): 20240 - 20244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||