![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 32, 28491-28497, August 9, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,
i
Sponer§¶
, and
**
From the
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics,
Arrhenius Laboratory, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden,
the § J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical
Chemistry, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Dolej
kova
3, 182 23 Prague 8, Czech Republic, and the ¶ Institute of
Biophysics and National Center for Biomolecular Research, Academy
of Science of the Czech Republic, Kralovopolska 135, 612 65 Brno, Czech Republic
Received for publication, March 27, 2002, and in revised form, May 7, 2002
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Sequences of four or more AT base pairs without a
5'-TA-3' step, so-called A-tracts, influence the global properties of
DNA by causing curvature of the helix axis if phased with the helical repeat and also influence nucleosome packaging. Hence it is interesting to understand this phenomenon on the molecular level, and numerous studies have been devoted to investigations of dynamical and structural features of A-tract DNA. It was early observed that anomalously slow
base pair-opening kinetics were a striking physical property unique to
DNA A-tracts (Leroy, J. L., Charretier, E., Kochoyan, M., and
Gueron, M. (1988) Biochemistry 27, 8894-8898).
Furthermore, a strong correlation between DNA curvature and anomalously
slow base pair-opening dynamics was found. In the present work
it is shown, using imino proton exchange measurements by NMR
spectroscopy that the main contribution to the dampening of the base
pair-opening fluctuations in A-tracts comes from the C5 methylation of
the thymine base. Because the methyl group has been shown to have a
very limited effect on the DNA curvature as well as the structure of
the DNA helix, the thymine C5 methyl group stabilizes the helix directly. Empirical potential energy calculations show that methylation of the tract improves the stacking energy of a base pair with its
neighbors in the tract by 3-4 kcal/mol.
To rationalize the sequence-specific binding of proteins and
ligands to DNA it is important to gain a proper understanding of the
relationship between the sequence of bases in DNA and the stability and
structure of the DNA helix (1, 2). An example is the nucleosome
packaging in chromatin, which is modulated by sequence-directed
nucleosome positioning (3-6). Furthermore, it has been shown that
properly positioned adenine tracts increase the accessibility of nearby
promoter regions by their intrinsic tendency to oppose nucleosome
binding (6, 7). Hence, alterations of the nucleosome packaging affect
the accessibility of promoters and change expression. In this context,
it is important to understand the structural and dynamical properties
of A-tract DNA.
An example of A-tract DNA influencing the global properties of DNA is
the bending of the helix axis that occurs when A-tracts are phased with
the helical repeat of the double helix, originally discovered from the
anomalously slow migration in polyacrylamide gels displayed by such
sequences (8, 9). The A-tracts must be at least four base pairs long
and may contain a 5'-AT-3' step but not a 5'-TA-3' step to produce
significant bending (10-12). Hence, A-tracts of the type
5'-AnTm-3', n + m > 3, produce bending when repeated in phase with the helix screw (13,
14). Apart from the importance of A-tracts for the organization of DNA
in chromatin it has become increasingly apparent that intrinsic bending
of DNA is likely to play an important role in gene expression and
replication (15-18).
Although the presence of DNA bending in these types of alternating
sequences is undisputed the explanation of the phenomenon on the base
pair level has been debated (19-24). Crystal structures reveal that
the base pairs in A-tracts are highly propeller-twisted and that the
minor groove is unusually narrow (25, 26). NMR measurements carried out
in solution (27-29) as well as hydroxyl radical cleavage patterns
(30), cyclobutane thymine-thymine dimerization, (31) and uranyl
photo-probing (32) are compatible with this type of structure.
Another feature typical of A-tract DNA is unusually slow imino proton
exchange rates measured by NMR spectroscopy, signifying anomalously
slow base pair-opening kinetics (33-36). A striking correspondence
with gel mobility data was found. The gel migration anomaly produced by
repeating A-tracts is highly sensitive to changes in the base pair
composition of the tract. Substitution of the central base pair in the
tract by a GC base pair completely restores normal mobility whereas
introduction of a single IC base pair has almost no effect (37, 38).
These results were paralleled in the base pair-opening kinetics
measurements where insertions of base pairs in the tracts known to
restore normal mobility and consequently diminish the bending, always
led to a decrease of the base pair lifetimes to more "normal"
levels, whereas an inserted IC base pair only caused a small reduction
in the lifetimes. No energetic or structural explanation has yet been
given to the anomalously slow kinetics, although it has been assumed
that the structural features that set A-tract DNA apart from general
sequence DNA, e.g. high propeller twist and narrow minor
groove, in some way also are responsible for the unusual kinetics
(33).
Recently, we found that the base pair-opening kinetics in G-tracts,
contrary to what has been observed for A-tracts, is unusually fast in
particular with high opening rates (39). One of many distinctive
features of A- and G-tract DNA (39) is C5-methylation, which is present
on the thymine base but normally absent on the cytosine base and thus
makes the major groove of A- and G-tracts methylated and unmethylated, respectively.
Although it is known that neither of the U Sample Preparations and Titrations--
All oligonucleotides
were purified on NAP-10 columns (Amersham Biosciences),
dissolved in a 3 mM borate buffer (90% H2O and 10% D2O) adjusted to pH 8.8 and containing 100 mM NaCl. The duplex concentrations were in the range of
0.2-2 mM. Base catalyst titrations of the duplexes were
carried out at 15 °C with a 6.3 M ammonia buffer
adjusted to pH 8.8. The pH value of the buffer was measured with a
double-junction high-salt Orion 8103 Ross electrode, and the
[acid]/[base] fractions of the buffer were obtained from the amounts of salt and liquid base used to prepare the buffer.
The thymidine and deoxyuridine mononucleosides were dissolved in a 10 mM phthalate buffer to a concentration of 10 mM. The samples were adjusted to pH 4.0 in the NMR tube
with an Orion 9826 Micro-pH electrode with the NMR tube immersed in a
thermostatically controlled water bath maintained at 15 °C before
exchange measurements were carried out by titration of a 0.4 M NH4Cl solution to the mononucleosides. The
Henderson-Hasselbalch equation was used to calculate the base fraction
of the catalyst at each pH value using a pKa
value of 9.56 for ammonia at 15 °C (50).
Imino Proton Exchange Theory--
The connection between base
pair opening and imino proton exchange is based on the assumption that
exchange of the imino proton only occurs when the hydrogen bond to the
acceptor of the complementary base in the base pair is shifted to some
other proton acceptor present in the solvent, i.e. the base
pair has opened (51). Several exchange pathways are possible. Direct
exchange to water or exchange catalyzed by the complementary base
always occurs, although rather inefficiently due to the low
pKa of theses acceptors. By addition of a
catalyst with higher pKa values, e.g.
ammonia, near opening-limited exchange can be reached. For a base pair with multiple open states, formed with rates
k Imino Proton Resonance Assignments--
Imino proton resonance
assignments of the duplexes were obtained from
NOESY1 experiments, run with
a mixing time of 250 ms at 15 °C on a Varian Inova 600 MHz
spectrometer. A jump-return observe pulse was used to avoid excitation
of the solvent resonance (52). Linear prediction was employed in the
indirect dimension to increase resolution. All two-dimensional data
processing were carried out with Felix97 (Molecular Simulations Inc.).
Exchange Measurements--
The NMR experiments on the duplexes
and the mononucleosides were carried out on a Varian Inova 600 spectrometer. The imino proton exchange times
The inversion recovery experiment utilized a 1-1.4-ms iBURP pulse for
selective inversion (54) and a 0.7-1-ms Gaussian observe pulse for
selective detection (55). Right shift and linear prediction of the
free induction decay were employed to correct for magnetization evolution during the observe pulse. For the mononucleosides, exchange times were also obtained from the line widths of the imino proton resonances in presence ( Stacking Energy Calculations--
Before the base pair stacking
calculations were carried out the geometries of the isolated base
pairs, with the sugar-phosphate backbone replaced by hydrogens, were
optimized utilizing the Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation with the
6-31(d,p) basis set of atomic orbitals. The centers of mass of both
base pairs in a base pair step were overlaid (implying no slide and
shift), and a helical twist of 36 ° was introduced by a
counterrotation of the base pairs around an axis passing through their
center of mass (56, 57). When calculating the stacking energy of a base
pair step the propeller twist was introduced as a counterrotation of
the bases around the C-8(pur)-C-6(pyr) base pair axes in the same way
for both base pairs of the step. The vertical separation between
consecutive base pairs was optimized for each value of propeller twist.
Note that optimization of vertical distance between base pairs is
critically important to obtain a correct energy profile (58,
59).
Base stacking energies were calculated using a standard empirical force
field of the form (Equation 7)
The quality of the force field was tested against reference ab
initio quantum-chemical calculations carried out at the MP2 level
with diffuse-polarized 6-31G*(0.25) basis set of atomic orbitals and
with correction for the basis set superposition error (56, 57, 61-63).
We carried out 12 base pair step stacking ab initio
calculations and about 20 adenine-thymine and thymine-thymine dimer
stacking calculations. The empirical potential and ab initio calculations presented here are based on our extensive experience with
base stacking calculations, and more details about the techniques and
their accuracy can be found in the preceding studies (56, 57, 61-63).
Based on these calculations, the van der Waals parameters of the force
field were modified by reducing the van der Waals radius of the methyl
group hydrogen atoms from 1.487 to 1.087 Å. Let us briefly justify
this modification. The modification is due to a clear discrepancy
between the original parameterization and the reference ab
initio calculations leading to steric clashes, in common B-DNA
geometries, between the methyl group and the adenine ring in the ApT
steps. When relaxing the vertical separation of the base pairs, the
unmodified force field shows substantially earlier onset of the
methyl-adenine repulsion, compared with the MP2/6-31G*(0.25) data. It
should be noted that although the Cornell et al. (60) force
field has been parameterized with the aid of Hartree-Fock quantum
chemical calculations, no base stacking calculations were considered in
the parameterization. Our modified parameters provide very close
agreement with the reference ab initio data, and for the
present special-purpose base stacking calculations such corrected
parameters are superior to the original parameterization. It does not
mean, however, that we suggest using the new parameters in condensed
phase simulations unless their balance with other parameters of the
force field is validated. Work is in progress in our laboratory to
investigate the effects of the modification on explicit solvent
simulations of nucleic acids, and the results together with the quantum
chemical calculations will be presented in a forthcoming paper.
Mononucleoside Exchange--
To utilize the exchange of the imino
protons with the water protons to measure base pair-opening kinetics it
is necessary to know the exchange expected for the imino proton in the
free nucleoside where it is freely exposed to the solvent (see Eq. 2
and 4).
The exchange rates of the nucleoside imino protons were obtained from
resonance broadening measured when increasing amounts of ammonia was
added, using Equation 6. The imino proton transfer rates per mole of
added base (k Base Pair-opening Dynamics in A-tracts--
The imino proton
exchange of eight self-complementary oligomers,
d(CATCAYGATG)2,
d(CATA2Y2ATG)2,
d(CGCGA2Y2CGCG)2, and
d(CAGA4Y4CTG)2, with the
pyrimidine base Y being either T or U were measured, and the base
pair-opening dynamics were derived. Because the upstream and downstream
halves of self-complementary oligonucleotides are equivalent and
because only one base per base pair carries an imino proton (G and T),
the base pairs have been numbered from the 5'-end to the center of the
oligomers in the following presentation. As an example, the base pairs
of d(CATAATTATG)2 are denoted GC1, AT2, AT3, AT4, and
AT5, and the corresponding imino protons are denoted G1, T2, T3, T4,
and T5. In Table I the symmetry of the self-complementary oligomers has been taken to advantage by listing the
base pair lifetimes (
In Fig. 2, A-C the exchange data of the central AT base
pair of the d(CATGATCATG)2 oligomer has been
included as the line obtained by fitting the exchange data to Equation 4 yielding
By inspection of Fig. 2, A-C and Table I it is clear that a
U
However, the dampening of the base pair fluctuations are largest in the
interior of the tracts. For example, the central AT base pair of
d(CATA2T2ATG)2 has a base pair
lifetime of 18 ms and an apparent dissociation constant of 0.5 × 10
It can also be seen that the kinetics in the
A2Y2-tracts of the dodecamers
d(CGCGA2Y2CGCG)2 is slower than in
the decamer d(CATA2Y2ATG)2, in
particular for the outer base pair of the
A2T2-tracts, probably reflecting reduction of
the end fraying by the longer flanking sequences in the dodecamer.
The second trend evident by inspection of Fig. 2, and common to both
the U- and T-tracts, is an increased damping of the base pair-opening
fluctuations when the tracts become longer. For example, the central AU
base pair of the decamer
d(CATA2U2ATG)2 has almost the
same base pair-opening kinetics as the reference AT base pair. The
central AU7 base pair of
d(CAGA4U4CTG)2, on the other hand, exchanges much slower than the reference. As judged from the
dissociation constant the base pair is 20 times more stable, whereas
the lifetime shows that the base pair opens six times less frequently
than the reference base pair (AT) in this case (Table I). As mentioned above, the stability of the T-tracts are even larger. The central AT7
base pair of d(CAGA4T4CTG)2 is 60 times more stable and opens 50 times less frequently than the central
reference AT base pair of d(CATGATCATG)2.
Another common feature for the exchange of the two types of
A4Y4-tracts is a destabilization of the central AY-step compared with the neighboring AA-steps (Fig. 2, Table I).
It is shown in Fig. 2, D-F that the base pair flanking the
central tracts, AT3 of
d(CATR2Y2ATG)2
and GC3 of d(CGCGA2Y2CGCG)2
and
d(CAGA4Y4CTG)2, displays a very similar kinetics independent of the state of
methylation of the tracts. This shows that the faster base pair-opening
dynamics in the U-tracts compared with the T-tracts is not due to an
overall lower stability of the U-oligomers.
Stacking Energies--
Fig. 3 shows
how the calculated intrinsic stacking energies for the central base
pair of the trinucleotides AAA(TTT), AAA(UUU), AAT(ATT), and
AAU(AUU) depend on the propeller twist. For all
trinucleotides, propeller twisting is energetically favorable with an
energy minimum found when the propeller twist is in the range of
12-20 °. The energy gain by propeller twisting is 3 kcal/mol for
AAA(TTT), 2 kcal/mol for both
AAA(UUU) and AAT(ATT), whereas the smallest improvement, 1 kcal/mol, is calculated for the
propeller twisting of AAU(AUU). Furthermore, for
all values of the propeller twist the U
It should be noted that the stacking energy data presented above were
calculated for an idealized B-DNA geometry (see "Experimental Procedures"). Because, in practice, the helicoidal parameters exhibit
sequence dependence, we examined how changing the parameters helix
twist and slide/shift (see Ref. 65 for definitions) influenced the
stacking energies. The helix twist was varied from 30-42 °, and the
slide/shift was varied up to 1 Å away from the idealized geometry.
Furthermore, also the stagger parameter was considered. Variation of
stagger has a similar effect as changing the propeller twist axis away
from the C-6-C-8 one (58). Thus stagger influences the inter-strand
interactions of exocyclic groups with adjacent base pairs (58).
These calculations (data not shown) reveal that, reasonably close to
the idealized geometry, the variations of the above parameters do not
change the relative differences of the base pair steps studied,
regarding magnitude of the intrinsic stacking energy, its propeller
twist profile, and effect of C5 methylation. As a representative
example, the energetic gain by propeller twisting an AA (TT) step to
the optimal value is 1.36 and 1.41 kcal/mol at a helical twist of
30 ° and 42 °, respectively.
In the present work we have investigated the base pair-opening
dynamics in a series of oligonucleotides with A-tract cores of the form
AnYn, where the pyrimidine base Y either is
thymidine or deoxyuridine. It is well known that the exocyclic N-2
amino group strongly influences the extent of bending as detected by polyacrylamide gel mobility, both when introduced inside the A-tracts and in the intervening sequences (32, 37, 38). However, the effects of
the exocyclic C5 methyl group on polyacrylamide gel mobility is much
smaller (46-49).
Particularly striking is the results by Hagerman on the polyacrylamide
gel mobility of repeating DNA of the form
(GA4T4C)n and
(GA4U4C)n. Although the
sequences formed by both repeating units display a similar and
pronounced reduction of the electrophoretic mobility, the migration of
the non-methylated GA4U4C is in fact the
slowest (48). The small influence of C5 methylation is also supported
by an earlier study by Koo and Crothers (37) on repeating DNA sequences
where the tracts were A5/T5 and
A5/U5. In this case only a slight increase of
mobility of non-methylated tract was found. Hence, in view of the
strong correlation between anomalous polyacrylamide gel mobility and
base pair-opening kinetics previously observed (33) a large effect by
methylation on the base pair-opening dynamics would not be expected.
Furthermore, only small differences are discernable when structures
with and without the C5 methyl group are compared in crystals (40, 43)
as well as in solution (41, 42, 44, 45). The NOESY spectra of the
d(CATA2T2ATG)2 and
d(CATA2U2ATG)2 oligomers that have
been investigated in the present study are in agreement with these
earlier studies. In Fig. 4 the H6/8-H1'
cross-peak regions are shown, and it is evident that the cross-peak
intensities are virtually identical in the two oligomers indicating
that the base-sugar distances are independent of the C5 methylation.
Most importantly, a cross peak connecting A5H2 with the sugar proton of
the 5' neighbor of the complementary base (T/U7H1') is present in both
sequences with similar intensity. The presence of this type of
cross-peaks is a typical feature of A-tract DNA and arises from a high
propeller twist that compresses the minor groove (27, 66). Moreover,
chemical shift differences are mainly restricted to protons in the
direct vicinity of the C5 positions (Fig. 4). These spectral features
indicate that the C5 methyl group exerts only a minor influence on the
helix structure in keeping with crystal (40, 43) as well as solution
structure studies (41, 42, 44, 45).
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
T or C
5m-C C5
methylations have a significant effect on the helix structure (40-45)
or the bending of the DNA helix axis (10, 46-49), we show in the
present study that the thymine methyl groups provide the dominant
contribution to the high stability of AT base pairs in A-tracts.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES


the total imino proton exchange rate kex
equals the sum of the exchange rate from each mode (36) (as shown in
Equation 2)
(Eq. 1)
where k
(Eq. 2)

and
(Eq. 3)
n is a parameter taking into
account the different accessibility of the imino proton in the open
states and in the mononucleoside. For a base pair with a single opening
mode (n = 1) and with kop
kcl, Equation 2 can be rewritten as Equation 4
where
(Eq. 4)
ex and
op are the inverse
exchange and opening rates, respectively, and Kd = kop/kcl is the base pair
dissociation constant. If Equation 4 is valid, a plot of
ex versus 1/[B] yields a straight line
where
op is obtained from the y-axis
intercept and
Kd is obtained from the slope.
ex, at
different catalyst concentrations, were obtained from measurements of
the inversion recovery times in presence (Trec) and in
absence (Taac) of exchange catalyst according to Equation 5.
Apart from longitudinal dipolar relaxation, direct exchange to
water as well as exchange catalyzed by OH
(Eq. 5)
ions and the
acceptor nitrogen of the opposite base (53) contribute to the recovery
rate of the imino protons in the absence of added catalyst
(1/Taac). However, these contributions remain constant when
the catalyst is added and will be canceled in Equation 5. Consequently,
the exchange time
ex represents exchange only
via the added catalyst.
cat) and in absence
(
aac) of exchange catalyst according to Equation 6.
Line widths were measured in spectra acquired with a jump-return
observe pulse (52).
(Eq. 6)
where Rij are inter-atomic distances, Qi
and Qj are atom-centered point charges, and Aij
and Bij are constants of the van der Waals term taken from
the Cornell et al. force field (60) with one modification
specified below. The atomic charges were derived by fitting to the
molecular electrostatic potential around the bases obtained using the
second-order Moeller Plesset (MP2) perturbational method with the
extended aug-cc-pVDZ basis set of atomic orbitals.
(Eq. 7)
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

1 mol
1
and 1.7 × 108 s
1 mol
1 at
pH 4.0 and 15 °C for deoxyuridine and thymidine, respectively, by
fitting the exchange rates to Equation 3 (Fig.
1). The latter value is in reasonable
agreement with a previous measurement yielding 2.0 × 108 s
1 mol
1 at the same
temperature (64). Experiments carried out at pH 4.5 and 5.0 gave
similar results, indicating that the
k

View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Ammonia catalysis of the imino proton
exchange rates of thymidine and deoxyuridine at 15 °C and pH
4.0.
, thymidine and
, deoxyuridine. The fitting of the
exchange data to Equation 3 yields
k
1 mol
1 for dT and dU,
respectively.
op) to the left and the
apparent base pair dissociation constants (
Kd) to
the right of the center of symmetry that is indicated by a
vertical line. We have previously found that
ex versus 1/[B] plots, which according to
Equation 4 should be linear, sometimes display a curvature that can be
satisfactorily accounted for by allowing the exchange to take place
from two different open states, according to Equation 2 (36). In this
study we observe a clear curvature for T5 and T6 of
d(CATA2T2ATG)2 and
d(CGCGA2T2CGCG)2, respectively. A
weak curvature is also observed for U5 of
d(CATA2U2ATG)2. For the purpose of
the present work we only discuss the opening mode from which exchange
predominately occurs at high catalyst concentration. We have denoted
this opening mode as the fast mode because it occurs more frequently
but has a lower dissociation constant and therefore will dominate the
exchange at the highest exchange catalyst concentrations (for a more
complete discussion see Wärmländer et
al.) (36). It is interesting to note that the curvatures of
T5 of d(CATA2T2ATG)2 and T6 of
d(CGCGA2T2CGCG)2 (cf.
Fig. 2, A and B)
are very similar and apparently are an intrinsic property of this base
pair when present in a short A2T2-tract.
Kinetic parameters for base pair opening of self-complementary T-
and U-tracts at 15 °C

View larger version (30K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Ammonia catalysis of the imino proton
exchange in AnYn-tracts shown in Table I at 15 °C
and pH 8.8. T- and U-tract data are shown with filled
and empty symbols, respectively. A, B,
and C shows the exchange data for the base pairs in the
AnYn-tracts while
D, E, and F show the exchange data for
the flanking base pairs. A and D,
5'-CGTA2Y2ATG-3'; B and
E, 5'-CGCGA2Y2CGCG-3'; and
C and F, 5'-CAGA4Y4CTG-3'
with Y = T or U. A, T/U5:
,
; and T/U4:
,
;
B, T/U6:
,
; and T/U5:
,
; C, T/U7:
,
; T/U6,
,
; T/U5,
,
; and T/U4:
,
;
D, T3:
,
; E, G4:
,
; and G3,
,
; F, G3:
,
. The thick solid line
displayed in A, B, and C has
been fitted to the exchange times of the central AT base pair of
5'-CATGATCATG-3' and provides a reference data set for base pair
dynamics of an AT base pair in a non-tract environment
(
op = 2 ± 0.1 ms and
Kd = 18 ± 4 × 10
6).
op = 2 ms and
Kd = 18 × 10
6. This line serves as a reference that
shows the kinetics expected for an AT base pair in a non-A-tract
environment. The corresponding values for the AU base pair of
d(CATGAUCATG)2 were found to be
op < 1 ms and
Kd = 32 × 10
6. The same vertical scale has been used in
panels A-C to facilitate comparison of the dynamics in the
different tracts. The very slow imino proton exchange in the
A4T4-tract made it necessary, however, to add
an inset in Fig. 2C to clearly show these data.
T methylation invariably leads to a damping of the opening fluctuations manifested by longer base pair lifetimes and a lower base
pair dissociation constant. This is also true for the non-tract reference sequences d(CATGATCATG)2 and
d(CATGAUCATG)2, where the dissociation constant
is a factor of 2 higher for the central base pair if the pyrimidine
bases are unmethylated (see above) and the base pair lifetime is also
shorter (see above).
6, whereas the base pair lifetime is 4.5 times shorter
and the base pair dissociation constant more than 40 times higher for the corresponding central AU base pair of
d(CATA2U2ATG)2. As a second
example, the AT6 and AU6 base pair of the A4Y4
tracts (Fig. 2C) have base pair lifetimes of 149 and 26 ms
and dissociation constants of 0.1 × 10
6 and
0.8 × 10
6, respectively (Table I). Hence, the
dissociation constant for the AU base pair is a factor of 8 higher,
whereas the base pair lifetime is a factor of 6 shorter (Table I).
T methylation improves the
stacking energy. At the optimal propeller twist the U
T methylation
provides 3 and 4 kcal/mol of stabilization for the central base pair of
the AAA(UUU) and AAU(AUU) trinucleotides, respectively. From Fig. 3 it can also be seen that
inclusion of a RY-steps leads to a less favorable stacking energy and
that the energy penalty becomes more pronounced when the propeller
twist increases. Examination of the different terms contributing to the
energies in Fig. 3 reveals that stabilization mainly originates from
the van der Waals energy, whereas the electrostatic term is weakly
repulsive and insensitive to the propeller twist magnitude. The
stacking energy is dominated by intra-strand base-base terms, and the
improved stacking by the U
T substitution is almost exclusively due
to the intra-strand van der Waals terms, in particular T-T term in the
AA step and A-T terms in the AT step.

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Stacking energies calculated for the central
base pairs in A-tract trinucleotide segments at varying propeller
twist. AAA(UUU)
;
AAU(AUU),
; AAA(TTT),
; and AAT(ATT),
. The stacking energies for
the base pairs in bold were obtained by adding the
interaction energies with the two neighboring base pairs. The
complementary strand is shown in parentheses.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
NOESY spectra of the H8/H6-H1'cross-peak
region of CATAATTATG (thick contour levels) and
CATAAUUATG (thin contour levels). The spectra
were acquired with 250 ms of mixing time at 15 °C. The assignment
pathway for the T-tract oligomer is shown with the intraresidual
H6/8-H1'cross-peak denoted with the residue number. The
stars indicate the interstrand cross-peaks connecting AH2 of
the central AT/U base pair with the H-1' sugar proton of the 5'
neighbor of the complementary T/U nucleotide.
In view of this lack of significant structural impact by the U
T
C5 methylation, the very large effect on the base pair-opening dynamics
seen in Fig. 2 is
surprising.2 For example, in
Fig. 2A both AU base pairs of
d(CATAAUUATG)2 exhibit faster base pair-opening
dynamics than the central AT base pair of
d(CATGATCATG)2 that is represent by a solid line
in Fig. 2, A-C and used as a reference for non-A-tract
kinetics. The central AT base pair of
d(CATAATTATG)2 displays much slower kinetics
with about a 40-times lower dissociation constant than the
corresponding unmethylated base pair (Table I), whereas the outer base
pair of the A2T2 tract exhibits kinetics
closely similar to the reference base pair (Fig 2). Given that the
helical structures of
d(CATA2U2ATG)2 and
d(CATA2T2ATG)2 are closely similar, the anomalously strong damping of the base pair dynamics of the AT base
pairs of the A2T2 tract can be entirely
attributed to the presence of C5 methyl groups. The kinetic behavior of
the dodecamers, d(CGCGA2Y2CGCG)2 in
Fig. 2B is similar to that of the decamers, although overall
somewhat slower both in the U- and T-tract.
From the results on the longer tracts in Fig. 2C it is, however, clear that the unmethylated A4U4-tract exhibits anomalously slow imino proton exchange kinetics as well, in fact, quite similar to the exchange kinetics of the central AT base pairs of the A2T2-tracts. Hence, methylation is not the only factor that contributes to the damping of base pair-opening fluctuations in A-tracts. Because the A-tract type of structure is known to cooperatively build up with the length of the tract (67) and if we assume that the structure roughly is independent of the state of methylation, we may conclude that the A-tract type structure also exerts a dampening effect on base pair-opening fluctuations by itself even in the absence of methylation. However, the largest contribution to the suppression of base pair opening in A-tracts clearly comes from the C5 methylation (Fig. 2, Table I).
It was recognized early that propeller twisting of the base pairs in many dinucleotide steps are energetically beneficial (68, 69). Notable exceptions are 5'-YR-3' steps where a purine-purine cross-strand clash prevents propeller twisting and steps including the guanine base where the minor groove N-2 amino group sterically interferes with propeller twisting. The calculated stacking energies of Fig. 3 have been obtained by adding the two dinucleotide stacking energies of the central base pair of a trinucleotide. It is seen that propeller twisting lowers the stacking energy of all base pairs of the tracts, including those of the central 5'-AY-3'step of the AnYn-tracts. Furthermore, methylation improves the stacking energy, and this improvement becomes larger for larger propeller twists. Hence, favorable stacking energies contribute to the higher stability of the methylated tracts and may also favor higher propeller twist.
Other effects may also contribute to the reduction of base pair breathing by the C5 methyl groups. Besides improving the stacking energies between the base pairs the methyl groups are also likely to alter the hydration pattern in the major groove, which potentially could affect the dynamics. Furthermore, the larger hydrophobicity of the thymine base should favor less solvent-exposed geometries, and this could possibly yield a reduced base pair breathing relative to that of the uracil base.
Another reason for the higher stability of AT versus AU base
pairs could be stronger hydrogen bonds in the former. To investigate this possibility we calculated the base pair interaction energies on
the MP2/6-31G**//HF-6-31G** level. For the AT and AU base pairs the
interaction energies were
12.35 and
12.47 kcal/mol, respectively. The difference in base pair hydrogen bond strengths is consequently negligible.
In view of the structural similarity of tracts with and without C5
methylation, it is not likely that the propeller twist is much
different in the T- and U-tracts on average. Rather the stability
toward the flattening of the propeller twist of the base pairs should
be higher in the T-tract. All base pair dissociation constants in Table
I fall in the range 10
4-10
7. Hence, only a
very small fraction of the ensemble of a particular base pair is opened
at any time, whether being a part of a methylated tract or not.
Consequently, this fraction does not contribute significantly to the
average structure that is reflected in NMR resonance chemical shifts
and nuclear Overhauser effect intensities (Fig. 4). The lack of
structural impact of C5 methylation as evidenced by Fig. 4 and previous
studies (41, 42, 44, 45) is therefore compatible with the large
dynamical effects.
In summary, we have in the present study shown that the main factor contributing to the anomalously slow base pair-opening dynamics in A-tract DNA is the C5 methyl group of the thymine base, which provides a continuous methylation of the major groove in A-tract DNA. Potential energy calculations using the Cornell et al. force field (60) suggest that improved stacking energy contributes to the unexpected dynamic stabilization exerted by the methyl group. Structural alterations of the helix caused by the methylation are likely to play a minor role.
It is intriguing to speculate that a similar dampening of the base
pair-opening fluctuations by methylation of the cytosine base
contributes to reduction in gene expression commonly observed by this
base modification (70, 71). In this case it is unlikely that the base
pair will take on a high propeller twist. However, as seen from Fig. 3,
for a flat base pair methylation is energetically favorable also.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council, by the Magnus Bergvall Foundation, by the Harald Jeansson Foundation (to M. L.), and by Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic Grant LN00A016 (National Center for Biomolecular Research) (to J. S.).The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
To whom correspondence and direct questions regarding the
energy calculations may be addressed. Tel.: 420-5-415-17-133; Fax: 420-5-412-12-179; E-mail: sponer@ibp.cz.
** To whom correspondence may be addressed. Tel: 46-8-16-24-47; Fax: 46-8-15-55-97; E-mail: leijon@dbb.su.se.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, May 23, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M202989200
2
From Fig. 1 it is seen that if an AT and an AU
base pair exhibit the same base pair-opening kinetics the slope of the
ex versus 1/[B] plots will differ by 20%
as a consequence of the different intrinsic imino proton transfer rates
of the thymidine and deoxyuridine nucleosides. This is much smaller
than the differences typically observed in Fig. 2, which consequently
mainly reflects changes in base pair-opening kinetics.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviation used is: NOESY, nuclear Overhauser effect spectroscopy.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Steitz, T. A. (1990) Q. Rev. Biophys. 23, 205-280[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 2. |
Rozenberg, H.,
Rabinovich, D.,
Frolow, F.,
Hegde, R. S.,
and Shakked, Z.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
15194-15199 |
| 3. | Widlund, H. R., Cao, H., Simonsson, S., Magnusson, E., Simonsson, T., Nielsen, P. E., Kahn, J. D., Crothers, D. M., and Kubista, M. (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 267, 807-817[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 4. | Cao, H., Widlund, H. R., Simonsson, T., and Kubista, M. (1998) J. Mol. Biol. 281, 253-260[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 5. |
Widlund, H. R.,
Kuduvalli, P. N.,
Bengtsson, M.,
Cao, H.,
Tullius, T. D.,
and Kubista, M.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
31847-31852 |
| 6. | Shimizu, M., Mori, T., Sakurai, T., and Shindo, H. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 3358-3365[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 7. |
Blomquist, P.,
Belikov, S.,
and Wrange, Ö.
(1999)
Nucleic Acids Res.
27,
517-525 |
| 8. |
Marini, J. C.,
Levene, S. D.,
Crothers, D. M.,
and Englund, P. T.
(1982)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
79,
7664-7668 |
| 9. | Wu, H. M., and Crothers, D. M. (1984) Nature 308, 509-513[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 10. | Koo, H. S., Wu, H. M., and Crothers, D. M. (1986) Nature 320, 501-506[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 11. | Burkhoff, A. M., and Tullius, T. D. (1988) Nature 331, 455-457[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 12. | Price, M. A., and Tullius, T. D. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 127-136[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 13. | Hagerman, P. J. (1985) Biochemistry 24, 7033-7037[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 14. | Hagerman, P. J. (1986) Nature 321, 449-450[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 15. |
Zahn, K.,
and Blattner, F. R.
(1987)
Science
236,
416-422 |
| 16. | Bracco, L., Kotlarz, D., Kolb, A., Diekmann, S., and Buc, H. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 4289-4296[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. | Parvin, J. D., McCormick, R. J., Sharp, P. A., and Fisher, D. E. (1995) Nature 373, 724-727[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 18. | Schätz, T., and Langowski, J. (1997) J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 15, 265-275[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 19. | Haran, T. E., Kahn, J. D., and Crothers, D. M. (1994) J. Mol. Biol. 244, 135-143[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 20. |
Dickerson, R. E.,
Goodsell, D. S.,
and Neidle, S.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
3579-3583 |
| 21. | Harvey, S. C., Dlakic, M., Griffith, J., Harrington, R., Park, K., Sprous, D., and Zacharias, W. (1995) J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 13, 301-307[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 22. | Ganunis, R. M., Guo, H., and Tullius, T. D. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 13729-13732[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 23. |
Dlakic, M.,
Park, K.,
Griffith, J. D.,
Harvey, S. C.,
and Harrington, R. E.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
17911-17919 |
| 24. | Dickerson, R. E., Goodsell, D., and Kopka, M. L. (1996) J. Mol. Biol. 256, 108-125[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 25. | Nelson, H. C., Finch, J. T., Luisi, B. F., and Klug, A. (1987) Nature 330, 221-226[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 26. |
Coll, M.,
Frederick, C. A.,
Wang, A. H.,
and Rich, A.
(1987)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
84,
8385-8389 |
| 27. |
Katahira, M.,
Sugeta, H.,
Kyogoku, Y.,
Fujii, S.,
Fujisawa, R.,
and Tomita, K.
(1988)
Nucleic Acids Res.
16,
8619-8632 |
| 28. | Celda, B., Widmer, H., Leupin, W., Chazin, W. J., Denny, W. A., and Wuthrich, K. (1989) Biochemistry 28, 1462-1471[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 29. |
Chuprina, V. P.,
Lipanov, A. A.,
Fedoroff, O.,
Kim, S. G.,
Kintanar, A.,
and Reid, B. R.
(1991)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
88,
9087-9091 |
| 30. | Burkhoff, A. M., and Tullius, T. D. (1987) Cell 48, 935-943[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 31. |
Lyamichev, V.
(1991)
Nucleic Acids Res.
19,
4491-4496 |
| 32. |
Mollegaard, N. E.,
Bailly, C.,
Waring, M. J.,
and Nielsen, P. E.
(1997)
Nucleic Acids Res.
25,
3497-3502 |
| 33. | Leroy, J. L., Charretier, E., Kochoyan, M., and Gueron, M. (1988) Biochemistry 27, 8894-8898[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 34. |
Moe, J. G.,
and Russu, I. M.
(1990)
Nucleic Acids Res.
18,
821-827 |
| 35. |
Leijon, M.,
and Gräslund, A.
(1992)
Nucleic Acids Res.
20,
5339-5343 |
| 36. | Wärmländer, S., Sen, A., and Leijon, M. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 607-615[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 37. | Koo, H. S., and Crothers, D. M. (1987) Biochemistry 26, 3745-3748[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 38. |
Diekmann, S.,
von Kitzing, E.,
McLaughlin, L.,
Ott, J.,
and Eckstein, F.
(1987)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
84,
8257-8261 |
| 39. |
Dornberger, U.,
Leijon, M.,
and Fritzsche, H.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
6957-6962 |
| 40. |
Heinemann, U.,
and Hahn, M.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
7332-7341 |
| 41. | Marcourt, L., Cordier, C., Couesnon, T., and Dodin, G. (1999) Eur. J. Biochem. 265, 1032-1042[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 42. | Lefebvre, A., Mauffret, O., el Antri, S., Monnot, M., Lescot, E., and Fermandjian, S. (1995) Eur. J. Biochem. 229, 445-454[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 43. | Frederick, C. A., Saal, D., van der Marel, G. A., van Boom, J. H., Wang, A. H., and Rich, A. (1987) Biopolymers 26, S145-S160[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 44. | Umemoto, K., Sarma, M. H., Gupta, G., and Sarma, R. H. (1990) Biochemistry 29, 4714-4722[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 45. | Gupta, G., Sarma, M. H., and Sarma, R. H. (1988) Biochemistry 27, 7909-7919[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 46. |
Hodges-Garcia, Y.,
and Hagerman, P. J.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
197-201 |
| 47. | Hodges-Garcia, Y., and Hagerman, P. J. (1992) Biochemistry 31, 7595-7599[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 48. | Hagerman, P. J. (1990) Biochemistry 29, 1980-1983[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 49. | Diekmann, S., Mazzarelli, J. M., McLaughlin, L. W., von Kitzing, E., and Travers, A. A. (1992) J. Mol. Biol. 225, 729-738[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 50. | Perrin, D. D., and Dempsey, B. (1979) Buffers for pH and Metal Ion Control , p. 62, Chapman & Hall, London |
| 51. | Englander, S. W., and Kallenbach, N. R. (1983) Q. Rev. Biophys. 16, 521-655[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 52. | Plateau, P., and Guéron, M. (1982) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 104, 7310-7311[CrossRef] |
| 53. | Guéron, M., Kochoyan, M., and Leroy, J. L. (1987) Nature 328, 89-92[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 54. | Geen, H., and Freeman, R. (1992) J. Magn. Reson. 93, 93-141 |
| 55. | Bauer, C., Freeman, R., Frenkiel, T., Keeler, J., and Shaka, A. J. (1984) J. Magn. Reson. 58, 442-457 |
| 56. |
Sponer, J.,
Gabb, H. A.,
Leszczynski, J.,
and Hobza, P.
(1997)
Biophys. J.
73,
76-87 |
| 57. |
Sponer, J.,
Florian, J., Ng, H. L.,
Sponer, J. E.,
and Spackova, N.
(2000)
Nucleic Acids Res.
28,
4893-4902 |
| 58. | Sponer, J., and Kypr, J. (1993) J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 11, 27-41[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 59. | Sponer, J., and Kypr, J. (1993) J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 11, 277-292[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 60. | Cornell, W. D., Cieplak, P., Bayly, C. I., Gould, I. R., Merz, K. M., Ferguson, D. M., Spellmeyer, D. C., Fox, T., Caldwell, J. W., and Kollman, P. A. (1995) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 117, 5179-5197[CrossRef] |
| 61. | Sponer, J., Leszczynski, J., and Hobza, P. (1996) J. Phys. Chem. 100, 5590-5596[CrossRef] |
| 62. | Hobza, P., and Sponer, J. (1999) Chem. Rev. 99, 3247-3276[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 63. | Sponer, J., Berger, I., Spackova, N., Leszczynski, J., and Hobza, P. (2000) J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 383-407 |
| 64. | Guéron, M., Charretier, E., Hagerhorst, J., Kochoyan, M., Leroy, J. L., and Moraillon, A. (1990) in Structure and Methods (Sarma, R. H. , and Sarma, M. H., eds) , pp. 113-137, Adenine Press, Guilderland, N. Y. |
| 65. | Diekmann, S. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 1-4[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 66. | Leijon, M., Zdunek, J., Fritzsche, H., Sklenar, H., and Gräslund, A. (1995) Eur. J. Biochem. 234, 832-842[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 67. | Haran, T. E., and Crothers, D. M. (1989) Biochemistry 28, 2763-2767[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 68. | Calladine, C. R. (1982) J. Mol. Biol. 161, 343-352[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 69. | Dickerson, R. E. |