|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M207022200 on September 19, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 47, 44886-44897, November 22, 2002
Characterization of Simian Virus 40 T-antigen Double Hexamers
Bound to a Replication Fork
THE ACTIVE FORM OF THE HELICASE*
Alexander I.
Alexandrov ,
Michael R.
Botchan, and
Nicholas R.
Cozzarelli§
From the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of
California, Berkeley, California 94720
Received for publication, July 12, 2002, and in revised form, September 19, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
Large T-antigen (T-ag) is a viral helicase
required for the initiation and elongation of simian virus 40 DNA
replication. The unwinding activity of the helicase is powered by ATP
hydrolysis and is critically dependent on the oligomeric state of the
protein. We confirmed that the double hexamer is the active form of the helicase on synthetic replication forks. In contrast, the single hexamer cannot unwind synthetic forks and remains bound to the DNA as
ATP is hydrolyzed. This inability of the T-ag single hexamer to release
the DNA fork is the likely explanation for its poor helicase activity.
We characterized the interactions of T-ag single and double hexamers
with synthetic forks and single-stranded (ss) DNA. We demonstrated that
DNA forks promote the formation of T-ag double hexamer. The lengths of
the duplex region and the 3' tail of the synthetic forks are the
critical factors in assembly of the double hexamer, which is bound to a
single fork. We found that the cooperativity of T-ag binding to ss
oligonucleotides increased with DNA length, suggesting that multiple
consecutive subunits in the hexamer engage the ssDNA.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
DNA helicases are ubiquitous enzymes that function as cellular
motors to unwind DNA duplexes at the expense of NTP hydrolysis (1).
Helicases must not only bind to DNA but also translocate along it.
Translocation involves a series of binding and release events during
which helicases cycle between DNA binding states varying in affinity
using steps in the NTP hydrolysis cycle as "switches." Helicases
translocate unidirectionally along
ssDNA.1 This directionality
is also intrinsic to their unwinding activity and is revealed by a
tight association to only one of the product single strands. Two
general groups of helicases are thus distinguished: 3' 5' and
5' 3'.
Helicases are also classified according to their quaternary structure
as monomeric, dimeric, and hexameric. Hexameric helicases form rings
around DNA and function primarily in replication. Simian virus 40 (SV40) T-antigen (T-ag) is a 3' 5'-hexameric helicase (2-4). Its
essential role in DNA replication depends on its ability to bind
specifically to the SV40 origin of replication and subsequently to
power bi-directional unwinding via its helicase activity. Thus, as in
other well studied DNA replication programs, the origin recognition and
helicase loading steps may be studied separately. In the case of SV40 a
single protein is responsible for all of these reactions. An initiation
complex at the origin assembles through the binding of T-ag monomers to
precisely spaced and oriented GAGGC repeats (5-7). T-ag hexamers can
also form in the absence of DNA, but these cannot load productively
onto origin-containing duplex fragments (8). The pre-replication origin
complex consists of two bound T-ag hexamers in a head-to-head
orientation (9). Once unwinding starts from the origin, the two T-ag
hexamers could remain attached to one another or separate and move away
from each other. Evidence for both scenarios has been obtained by
electron microscopy (EM) of in vitro unwinding intermediates
(10). The finding of unwinding intermediates with two hexamers linked
to each other has been interpreted as suggesting that double hexamers are the active helicase machine.
T-ag is a complex DNA-binding protein. It binds double- (11), as well
as single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) (12, 13). Moreover, the duplex DNA
binding can be specific to SV40 origin sequences or be
sequence-independent (14). The nonspecific binding is crucial for the
helicase activity of T-ag. EM analyses of unwinding intermediates
in vivo (15) and in vitro (10) have shown that the physiological substrate of T-ag is the border between the melted
ssDNA and the intact upstream duplex. In this study we will focus
exclusively upon T-ag complexes bound to synthetic replication forks
that mimic the structure of the in vivo substrate. The forks
we constructed contain a duplex part and 3' and 5' ssDNA tails. In
principle, T-ag could bind to any combination of these three regions.
Moreover, the strength and distribution of these contacts are expected
to change during ATP hydrolysis to bring about unwinding. Knowing how
T-ag engages its substrate is essential for understanding the molecular
mechanism of its helicase activity. Two previous footprinting studies
have reached somewhat different conclusions as to how T-ag binds to
forks. Wessel et al. (10) have presented evidence that T-ag
protects both the duplex and the two ssDNA tails, and SenGupta and
Borowiec (16) have proposed that T-ag engages the forks through
interactions with only the 3' ssDNA tail.
Binding of T-ag to either synthetic forks or replication bubbles
results in the formation of two distinct complexes, which differ in gel
mobility and sedimentation velocity (17). We designate the faster
migrating complex on gels as type I and the slower as type II. Smelkova
and Borowiec (17) have found that type II complexes are 15 times more
active helicases than type I complexes. Based on parallels with the
origin binding activity of T-ag and the structures formed at the SV40
replication origin (18), the authors proposed that type I complexes are
single hexamers, whereas type II complexes are dimers of type I
complexes held together by protein-protein interactions. However, the
evidence supporting this model for type II complexes is not strong, and
little is known about what governs the formation of the two types of
T-ag complexes. Recently Smelkova and Borowiec (19) found that
efficient assembly of type II complexes on replication bubbles requires a ssDNA region of at least 40 nucleotides (nt).
To construct a model for how T-ag interacts with the replication forks
during unwinding, we systematically characterized the binding of T-ag
to ssDNA and to synthetic DNA forks, in the presence or absence of
nucleotide cofactors. AMP-PNP (a non-hydrolyzable ATP analog) and ADP
were used to mimic the pre-hydrolysis and post-hydrolysis states,
respectively, of T-ag helicase. We varied independently the length of
the three components of the forks, the duplex region and the 3' and 5'
ssDNA tails, and found that extension of either the 3' ssDNA tail or
the duplex markedly stimulated the formation of type II complexes. We
further demonstrated that T-ag forms a double hexamer in type II
complexes but that both type I and type II complexes contain only a
single DNA fork. This result required a revision of the model for how
double hexamers are arranged at a fork. We found that type I complexes
are extremely stable, independent of the bound nucleotide cofactor. In
contrast, type II complexes are bound tightly to their substrate in the presence of AMP-PNP but loosen their grip on the DNA when ADP is bound
by the helicase. These differences in DNA binding affinities can
explain why type II complexes have much higher helicase activity than
do type I complexes.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
SV40 T-ag Purification--
SV40 T-ag was
immunoaffinity-purified from Sf9 cells as described (20) using
the monoclonal antibody PAb419 with the following modifications.
T-ag was eluted either with 50% ethylene glycol, 20 mM
Tris, 500 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 10% glycerol (pH
8.5) or with 56.5 µl of triethanolamine in 20 ml of 10% glycerol (pH
~10.8). Eluted T-ag was dialyzed overnight against 10 mM
Pipes, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 0.5 mM EDTA, 5 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 0.5 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (pH 7.0) and stored at 80 °C.
DNA Substrates--
Oligonucleotides were from Operon and
purified by PAGE. All DNA forks contained a duplex part and two
poly(dT) tails. DNA forks with duplex lengths of 25, 55, or 80 bp were
used. The sequences of the 5' 3' strand of the duplex are as
follows: 1) 25 bp, CCC GGT CGT CCA GGT AGT CAC AGA A; 2) 55 bp, CCC GGT
CGT CCA GGT AGT CAC AGA AAT GAA GAT CCA TTC GTT TGT GAA TAT CAA G; and
3) 80 bp, CCC GGT CGT CCA GGT AGT CAC AGA AAT GAA GAT CGA ATT CTT TGT
GAA TAT CAA GAC TCA TCA TCA CTA GAT GGC ACC TT. The sequences of the ssDNA oligonucleotides used are as follows: 7-mer, TTT TTT T; 13-mer,
TCG AAG CTA CGA A; 17-mer, CGA GCT CGG TAC CCG GG; 24-mer, CCC GGT CGT
CCA GGT AGT CAC AGA; 32-mer, (T)8 CCC GGT CGT CCA GGT AGT
CAC AGA; 44-mer, (T)20 CCC GGT CGT CCA GGT AGT CAC AGA; and
54-mer, (T)30 CCC GGT CGT CCA GGT AGT CAC AGA.
Preparation of Forks and Origin-containing
Duplex--
Oligonucleotides were 5'-32P-labeled using T4
polynucleotide kinase and [ -32P]ATP (21) to a specific
activity of ~1·108 cpm/µg. Polynucleotide kinase was
heat-inactivated by a 20-min incubation at 65 °C, and unincorporated
32P was removed by passage through a Biospin-6 column
(Bio-Rad). Synthetic replication forks and origin duplex were prepared
by annealing two partially complementary oligonucleotides in 50-µl reaction mixtures containing 5 pmol of labeled oligo and 5 pmol of cold
oligo, 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), and 10 mM
MgCl2. Reaction mixtures were heated to 96 °C and cooled overnight.
Preparation of a Biotinylated Origin-containing Duplex--
The
origin duplex, formed by annealing two complementary oligonucleotides
of 83 and 84 nt, contained a single nucleotide (A) 5' overhang. Klenow
fragment was used to fill-in the end of the duplex with a single
Biotin-16-dUTP (Roche Molecular Biochemicals). Four pmol of origin
duplex with a 5' overhang were incubated with 5 units of Klenow
fragment (New England Biolabs) at 30 °C for 1 h in a 30-µl
reaction containing 1× DNA polymerase buffer (New England Biolabs) and
100 µM biotin-16-dUTP.
T-ag Binding Reactions and Cross-linking--
Unless otherwise
stated, T-ag·fork complexes were assembled in standard reaction
mixtures (10 µl) containing 50 mM triethanolamine (pH 7.6), 7 mM MgCl2, nucleotide cofactor
AMP-PNP, ADP, or ATP at final concentrations indicated in the figure
legends, 15 fmol (1.5 nM) of labeled fork, 15 fmol (1.5 nM) of labeled SV40 origin-containing fragment, or 100 fmol
(10 nM) of ssDNA oligo and the appropriate amount of T-ag.
T-ag was diluted in 10 mM Pipes (pH 7.6), 1 mM dithiothreitol, 0.5 mM EDTA, 5 mM NaCl, 10%
glycerol and added last to the reaction mixture in 5-µl aliquots.
When needed, the standard binding reaction was scaled up. The final
reaction volume for each experiment is indicated in the figure legends.
Binding of T-ag to ssDNA in the absence of nucleotides was carried out in 1 mM MgCl2. Binding reactions were incubated
for 30 min at 37 °C. Glutaraldehyde (final concentration 0.04%) was
used to cross-link the protein and to stabilize the T-ag·fork
complexes before electrophoresis. Cross-linking was quenched by the
addition of 10× quenching buffer (100 mM glycine, 10 mM Hepes (pH 7.6)). AMP-PNP is a competitive inhibitor of
the helicase activity of T-ag (data not shown).
Helicase Assay--
Indicated amounts of T-ag were incubated
with radiolabeled DNA forks under standard reaction conditions in the
presence of 4 mM ATP. The helicase activity of T-ag leads
to melting of the duplex part of the fork and formation of free
radiolabeled ssDNA. The helicase reactions were terminated by the
addition of SDS and EDTA to final concentrations of 0.5% and 15 mM, respectively. Reactions were further treated with
proteinase K (final concentration of 1 mg/ml) for 10 min at 37 °C
and then analyzed by electrophoresis through an 8% native
polyacrylamide gel. Alternatively, helicase reactions were stopped by
glutaraldehyde cross-linking and analyzed by native PAGE (3.5% gel).
Gel-shift Analysis--
Binding of T-ag to the synthetic forks
or origin-containing duplex was analyzed by gel-shift analysis using
non-denaturing PAGE (4 or 3.5% gels, 0.5× TBE, 6-8 V/cm). After
electrophoresis, the gels were dried on Whatman paper and
autoradiographed or scanned using a Fuji PhosphorImager. Binding was
quantified using the Image Gauge version 3.3 software.
Double Filter Binding Assay--
Filter binding assays were
performed using a 96-well slot-blot apparatus (Schleicher & Schuell) as
described (22).
Isolation of T-ag·fork Complexes on Ferromagnetic
Beads--
Streptavidin-coated ferromagnetic particles were purchased
from Dynal. Before use, the beads were washed 1 time with TE and 3 times with 1 M NaCl and then resuspended in 1 M
NaCl at a concentration of 10 mg/ml. Five µl of the stock were used
for every 30 fmol of biotinylated fork. Beads were added to the
reaction mixtures after the assembly of T-ag-DNA complexes
was completed and incubated for 15 min at 37 °C with occasional
mixing. DNA or protein-DNA complexes bound to the beads were isolated
from the reaction mixture on magnetic separator stands, washed, and
processed as described in the individual experiments.
Assembly State of T-ag on Forks and at the SV40
Origin--
Cross-linked T-ag-DNA complexes were pulled down on
streptavidin-coated beads, washed in 50 µl of TE, and allowed to
stand for 3 min at room temperature. The TE wash was repeated 2 more times, and the beads were incubated with 20 µl of 1× SDS loading buffer (10 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.2), 1% SDS, 0.1 M dithiothreitol, 0.005% bromphenol blue, 10% glycerol)
for 5 min at 50 °C and 15 min at room temperature. The beads were
pulled down, and the supernatant, containing the cross-linked T-ag
oligomers, was recovered and used for SDS-PAGE.
Denaturing Gel and Western Analysis of Cross-linked
T-ag--
Cross-linked T-ag was separated on SDS/PO4 gels
according to the procedure of Weber et al. (23). Gels
consisted of 0.5% agarose, 3% acrylamide with a ratio of
acrylamide/bisacrylamide of 80:1. Gels were run at 0.8 V/cm for 24 h with constant circulation of the buffer and then transferred to
polyvinylidene difluoride or nitrocellulose membranes using the
semi-dry transfer system (Bio-Rad). Transfer was carried out in Towbin
buffer (without methanol) and lasted for 1.5 h. Membranes were
processed for Western analysis using a mouse anti-SV40 antibody
(PAb101) (BD Biosciences) and secondary horseradish
peroxidase-coupled secondary antibody (Pierce). The protein was
detected using the SuperSignal West Pico chemiluminescence detection
kit (Pierce). The quantification of the signals was done using a
ChemiImager 5500 by Alpha Innotech Corp.
Pull-down Assay--
Cross-linked T-ag-DNA complexes were pulled
down on streptavidin-coated beads, washed once with 20 µl of 1 M NaCl and twice more with 100 µl of TE, and resuspended
in 20 µl of TE. The bead suspension, the supernatants after the
initial pull-down (S), and the NaCl wash (W) were
treated with proteinase K (final concentration of 1 mg/ml) and SDS
(0.5%) at 37 °C for 15 min with occasional mixing to prevent
sedimentation of the beads. The bead suspension was further treated
with NaOH (final concentration of 0.4 N) and incubated for
5 min at room temperature. The beads were pulled down, and the
supernatant (E) containing radiolabeled DNA was recovered.
Salts and sodium hydroxide were removed from samples (S), (W), and (E) by passage through
Biospin-6 columns. The flow-through were collected and analyzed by PAGE.
Gel shifts from the pull-down experiment were analyzed by
PhosphorImager analysis, and the relative percentages of the
individual complexes in the binding reactions were determined for each
experiment. The percentages were used to calculate the corrected
theoretical ratio (corer. Ratio), according to Equation 1,
|
(Eq. 1)
|
The calculation assumes that half of type I complexes are formed
on biotinylated forks.
Thin Layer Chromatography--
One 2-µl aliquot containing
radioactive nucleotides was spotted onto cellulose
polyethyleneimine-thin layer chromatography plates (J. T. Baker
Inc.), separated with 1 M formic acid, 0.5 M
LiCl, air-dried, and quantified using a Fuji PhosphorImager.
Analysis of the Binding Curves with ssDNA--
The total
percentage of all T-ag-ssDNA complexes for each protein concentration
was plotted against the free concentration of monomeric T-ag. Free T-ag
was determined by subtracting the concentration of the bound T-ag from
the total protein concentration, assuming that all complexes represent
bound hexamers. Binding data were fit to sigmoidal binding curves by
nonlinear least square analysis using Prism 3 (GraphPad Software, Inc.,
San Diego). The Hill coefficient (napp) and the
concentration at the mid-point of the titration curves
(S0.5) were determined.
Analysis of the Binding Curves with DNA Forks--
For each
experiment the relative percentages of type I, type II, type III, and
aggregates in each lane were determined from the PhosphorImager
analysis of the gel shifts as described above. The data were plotted as
percent of complexes (type I or combined type II + type III)
versus the total protein concentration expressed as
monomers. Under most conditions, type III complexes and aggregates represent a minor fraction of all assembled complexes, except at very
high protein concentration. Data sets for each fork were fitted to a
sigmoidal binding curve as described for the ssDNA analysis. The Hill
coefficient (napp) and the concentration at the
mid-point of the titration curves (S0.5) were determined. The best-fit values for S0.5 and
napp are presented in the legend to Fig. 2 and
refer to the individual data sets. Standard errors for all best-fit
values were less than 5% for napp and 2% for S0.5. The 95% confidence intervals of all best-fit curves
were narrow, and R2 values were greater than 0.99. The
statistical significance of the differences between the curves was
evaluated by a pairwise F test. We find that the differences
between the curves shown are highly statistically significant, with
p values less than 5 × 10 5. Three of the
presented seven different binding curves in the presence of ADP (Fig.
2B forks with a 25- and 55-bp duplex, and Fig. 2C
forks with a 10- and 30-nt 3' tail) and two of the curves in AMP-PNP
(data not shown) were determined twice. We find that the difference
between the duplicates is not statistically significant as p
values using an F-test were greater than 0.03.
 |
RESULTS |
Binding of T-ag to ssDNA--
As binding of T-ag to synthetic
forks is expected to occur, at least in part, through interactions with
the ssDNA tails, we began our study by investigating the length
dependence of T-ag binding to ssDNA using gel-shift analyses (Fig.
1A). One
predominant complex was formed independent of the length of the
ssDNA. This complex was previously identified as a hexamer (12, 13).
Two minor complexes with slower electrophoretic mobility probably representing higher oligomeric states of T-ag were also detected. We
found that the affinity of T-ag binding increased with oligonucleotide length, saturating at 45-55 nt (Fig. 1B). The T-ag
preference for long ssDNA is manifest in the presence of either AMP-PNP
or ADP. In a competition binding experiment, T-ag bound predominantly to a 54-mer, even in the presence of a more than 1000-fold molar excess
of a 24-mer (Fig. 1C).

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Binding of T-ag to ssDNA. A,
length dependence of the binding of T-ag to ssDNA oligonucleotides
measured by gel-shift analysis. Binding reactions contained 4 mM ADP, 600 ng of T-ag (7.5 × 10 7
M), and 10 nM of a 32P-labeled
oligonucleotide. The oligonucleotides had the following sizes: 7, 13, 17, 24, 32, 44, and 54 nt. B, the percent of DNA bound
in 4 mM ADP (from A) or 4 mM AMP-PNP
for each oligonucleotide was measured and graphed. The data points for
AMP-PNP represent an average of two experiments, whereas the
information for ADP is a quantification of the single experiment shown
in A. C, binding of 600 ng of T-ag to a
32P-labeled 54-mer (10 nM) in 4 mM
ADP was challenged with increasing amounts of cold 24-mer. The
percentage of T-ag-54-mer complexes formed was determined by the double
filter binding method. All data points represent an average of two
experiments. D, complete binding curves for the 24-, 32-, 44-, and 54-mer in the presence of 4 mM ADP and
increasing amounts of T-ag. All data points represent an average of two
experiments. Black lines represent best fits to the
data points. E, T-ag binding curves in the presence of
4 mM ADP at increasing concentrations of a 54-mer.
Black lines represent best fits to the data points. F, a schematic depiction of the
competition for binding of T-ag hexamer to two separate ssDNA
oligonucleotide. The 3' and 5' ends of the oligonucleotides are marked.
T-ag subunits are depicted as spheres. The protomers in the
bound T-ag hexamer are numbered 1-6. Three
adjacent T-ag protomers are depicted bound to an ssDNA (dashed
line). The double-headed arrows indicate competitive
binding to the same ssDNA oligonucleotide or a separate ssDNA
(solid line). G, binding of T-ag to a 54-mer
(10 nM) in the presence of 4 mM AMP-PNP, 4 mM ADP, or in the absence of nucleotide cofactors.
Black lines represent best fits to the data points.
|
|
We next compared quantitatively the binding curves for four ssDNA
oligonucleotides with lengths of 24, 32, 44, and 54 nt with increasing
amounts of T-ag (Fig. 1D). The binding data were fit to Hill
equations, and the Hill coefficient (napp) and
S0.5 values, the protein concentration at the mid-point of
the titration curve, were determined (Table
I). The values of
napp we obtained are all much greater than 1 (2.4-4.8), which clearly shows cooperative binding to all the
oligonucleotides. The molecular basis for the preference of T-ag for
binding to long ssDNA seems to be the increase in cooperativity with
increasing oligonucleotide length. Additionally, the Hill coefficient
(napp) generally gives a lower bound to the number of protomers that are recruited into cooperative binding. Thus,
napp can be interpreted as the minimum number of
T-ag protomers within the hexamer that are bound to ssDNA. We could
therefore derive an approximate value for the maximal length of the
ssDNA-binding site of a single T-ag protomer by dividing the length of
the ssDNA oligo by napp. The result for all four
oligonucleotides is that each T-ag protomer binds ~9-10 nt (Table
I). We also found an interesting dependence of T-ag binding on the
absolute concentration of ssDNA oligonucleotide (Fig. 1E and
Table II). The cooperativity of binding
to a 54-nt DNA decreased as its concentration was increased. This
result can be explained if multiple sites on the T-ag hexamer simultaneously bind to the ssDNA. At low concentrations of ssDNA, successive protomers will be recruited to the same ssDNA (Fig. 1F, dashed line). However, as the
concentration of ssDNA in solution is increased, separate ssDNA
molecules (solid line) would be bound, resulting in a loss
of the free energy associated with the binding of adjacent sites on a
single DNA molecule.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table I
Length dependence of the binding of T-ag to ssDNA
Values for S0.5, the protein concentration at the
mid-point of the titration curve and napp, the Hill
coefficient, are derived from averages of two independent experiments
by fitting the data to the Hill equation as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Binding reactions were performed with 4 mM ADP and 10 nM ssDNA.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table II
Concentration dependence of the binding of T-ag to ssDNA
Values for S0.5, the protein concentration at the mid-point of
the titration curve and napp, the Hill coefficient,
are derived by fitting the data to the Hill equation as described under
"Experimental procedures." Binding reactions were performed in 4 mM ADP and the specified amount of a 54-nt ssDNA
oligonucleotide.
|
|
We examined whether the nucleotide cofactors affect the binding of T-ag
to ssDNA (Fig. 1G). Although T-ag binds cooperatively to a
54-mer under all three conditions, the presence of nucleotide cofactors
clearly makes binding stronger and more cooperative. Thus, we conclude
that T-ag binds cooperatively, in a length-dependent fashion to ssDNA, in a reaction stimulated by nucleotide cofactors.
Binding of T-ag to DNA Forks, Effect of Fork Length and Nucleotide
Cofactors--
We next turned our attention to the analysis of how
T-ag binds to synthetic forks, as a model for the in vivo
substrate. As in the ssDNA binding experiments, we investigated first
the effect of the length of the DNA forks and, second, the effect of
nucleotide cofactors on the binding affinity of T-ag. We focused on
data for the formation of type II complexes, as they are the active helicase species. Binding data for type I complexes are shown where
they emphasize important distinctions from type II complexes. To
determine the effect of the fork length, we independently varied the
length of the 3' ssDNA tail, the 5' ssDNA tail, or the duplex region
starting with a fork consisting of a 25-bp duplex, a 30-nt 5' ssDNA
tail, and a 10-nt 3' ssDNA tail. We measured T-ag binding by gel shifts
in protein titration assays. A representative experiment with this fork
is shown in Fig.
2A. As the amount
of T-ag was increased, type I complexes were formed first, but at
higher protein concentrations type II complexes were the predominant
species. A third minor complex, called type III, also formed at high
protein concentration, as did aggregates. Type III complexes form when all of the free DNA fork is already bound and probably reflect binding
of T-ag to type II complexes. For this reason we add the usually small
amount of type III complexes to the type II complexes in quantifying
the results (see "Experimental Procedures").

View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
T-ag binding to synthetic DNA forks. The
DNA forks used in each experiment are depicted as diagrams. All
T-ag·fork complexes were assembled in standard reaction mixtures.
A, gel-shift analysis of T-ag binding in the presence
of 4 mM ADP to a DNA fork with a 25-bp duplex region, 10-nt
3' ssDNA tail, and 30-nt 5' ssDNA tail. The positions of type I, type
II, type III, and aggregates (Aggr.) are indicated.
B, binding curves for the formation of type II + type
III T-ag complexes in the presence of 4 mM ADP on forks
with a 25- ( ), 55- ( ), or 80-bp (*) duplex region. Black
lines indicate best-fit curves. Best-fit values of the mid-point
of the binding curve (S0.5 (nM)) and the Hill
coefficient (napp) are as follows: 25-bp duplex
(S0.5 = 583, napp = 2.7); 55-bp
duplex (S0.5 = 256, napp = 4.1); and
80-bp duplex (S0.5 = 257, napp = 4.1). C, binding curves for the formation of type II + type
III T-ag complexes in the presence of 4 mM ADP on forks
with a 10- ( ), 30- ( ), or 60-nt ( ) long 3' ssDNA tail. The
duplex region in all forks is 25 bp. Black lines indicate
best-fit curves. Best-fit values of the mid-point of the binding curve
(S0.5 (nM)) and the Hill coefficient
(napp) are as follows: 10-nt tail
(S0.5 = 729, napp = 2.7); 30-nt tail
(S0.5 = 538, napp = 3); and 60-nt
tail (S0.5 = 404, napp = 3.4).
D, binding curves for the formation of type II + type
III T-ag complexes in the presence of 4 mM ADP on forks
with a 10- ( ), 30- ( ), or 60-nt ( ) long 3' ssDNA tail. The
duplex region in all forks is 55 bp. Black lines indicate
best-fit curves. Best-fit values of the mid-point of the binding curve
(S0.5 (nM)) and the Hill coefficient
(napp) are as follows: 10-nt tail
(S0.5 = 320, napp = 4.1); 30-nt tail
(S0.5 = 290, napp = 4.7); and 60-nt
tail (S0.5 = 211, napp = 4.7).
E, binding curves for the formation of type II + type
III T-ag complexes in the presence of 4 mM ADP ( ) or 4 mM AMP-PNP ( ). Black lines indicate best-fit
curves. Best-fit values of the mid-point of the binding curve
(S0.5 (nM)) and the Hill coefficient
(napp) are as follows: ADP (S0.5 = 211, napp = 4.7); and AMP-PNP (S0.5 = 251, napp = 5). F, combined
binding data for the formation of type I complexes in the presence of 4 mM ADP from protein titration data for the seven DNA forks
of different length used in B-D. Data points for which the
percent of type II complexes represented less than 15% of the total
amount of radioactivity in the lane were used. Symbols
correspond to the ones used in B-D. The black
line indicates the best-fit curve. G, gel-shift
analysis of the assembly of T-ag complexes in the presence of 400 ng of
T-ag (5 × 10 7 M) and 1 mM
AMP-PNP on forks with a 5' ssDNA tail of 0, 8, 20, and 30 nt.
Aggr., aggregate. H, gel-shift analysis of
the assembly of T-ag·fork complexes in the presence of increasing
concentration of Mg2+ (lanes
1-7, [Mg2+] = 0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 mM). 400 ng of T-ag (5 × 10 7
M) was used for all reactions. I, gel-shift
analysis was used to determine the effect of increasing fork
concentration on the formation of T-ag·fork complexes. The relative
amounts of type I and type II T-ag·fork complexes and free DNA fork
were quantified by PhosphorImager analysis and graphed. The absolute
concentration of type I complexes is included for comparison. All reactions contain 4 mM ADP and 400 ng of T-ag (5 × 10 7
M). J, a schematic representation of the
previously proposed assembly pathway for type I and type II complexes.
T-ag subunits are depicted as spheres. Six T-ag monomers
assemble into a hexamer bound to a DNA fork to form a type I complex.
The protomers in the bound T-ag hexamer are numbered
1-6. Two type I complexes were proposed to dimerize and
form a type II complex. K, model for the structure of
type II complexes. We propose that type II complexes contain a double
hexamer of T-ag bound to a single DNA fork.
|
|
We first examined the effect of the duplex length on T-ag binding. The
percentage of type II complexes formed at each protein concentration
was plotted along with the binding curves for two different DNA forks
(Fig. 2B). The length of the two ssDNA tails was unchanged,
whereas the duplex was extended from 25 to 55 or 80 bp. Extending the
duplex to 55 bp stimulated markedly the formation of type II complexes,
whereas a further increase in length to 80 bp had no additional effect.
Formation of type II complexes on all three forks is clearly
cooperative, and the slope of the binding curves increases as the
length of the duplex is extended from 25 to 55 bp, indicating
increasing cooperativity of T-ag binding.
We then analyzed the effect of extending the 3' ssDNA tail. We compared
forks with a 3' tail of 10, 30, or 60 nt, a 5' tail of 30 nt, and a
duplex of 25 bp (Fig. 2C). Extending the 3' ssDNA tail
stimulated the formation of type II complexes by increasing the
cooperativity of T-ag binding, similar to what we observed when we
increased the duplex length. However, with forks containing a 55-bp
duplex, the assembly of type II complexes was only modestly enhanced by
extending the 3' ssDNA tail from 10 to 60 nt (Fig. 2D).
Together these results imply that in type II complexes, T-ag interacts
extensively with both the duplex part of the fork and the 3' ssDNA tail.
The finding that the assembly of type II complexes is sensitive to the
length of the DNA forks prompted us to investigated whether the
formation of type I complexes is also DNA length-dependent. The combined binding data for the formation of type I complexes on
seven forks (Fig. 2, B-D) of different lengths in the low
protein concentration range (in which the percentage of type II
complexes was less than 15%) are plotted in Fig. 2F. The
data can all be fit well to a single sigmoidal binding curve
(R2 = 0.97), implying that type I complex formation is
insensitive to an increase in the length of the fork beyond that of the
shortest fork used (25 bp in the duplex, 10 nt in the 3' ssDNA tail,
and 30 nt in the 5' ssDNA tail), even though formation of type I
complexes is also cooperative (Hill coefficient of 3.3).
The second aspect of our studies of T-ag binding to synthetic forks was
the analysis of the effect of different nucleotide cofactors. As we
observed with ssDNA, we found that the binding affinity of T-ag was
similar in the presence of ADP or AMP-PNP. Comparative binding curves
for type II complexes formed in the presence of either ADP or AMP-PNP
on the highest affinity fork (55-bp duplex, 60-nt 3' tail, and 30-nt 5'
tail) are presented in Fig. 2E. Moreover, we found that
extending the length of the duplex and the 3' ssDNA tail stimulates the
formation of type II complexes in the presence of both ADP and AMP-PNP
(data not shown).
The final fork component we varied was the length of the 5' ssDNA tail.
These experiments also revealed an interesting dependence of the ratio
between type I and type II complexes on the concentration of the
nucleotide cofactor. We compared the binding of T-ag to forks with a
duplex of 25 bp, a 3' tail of 30 nt, and a 5' tail of 0, 8, 20, or 30 nt (Fig. 2G). In the presence of 1 mM AMP-PNP the complete removal of the 5' tail reduced the efficiency of type II
formation, so that type I complexes were favored. As the length of the
5' tail was increased from 0 to 20 nt, type II assembly was stimulated
~5-fold. However, the stimulation was less than 2-fold if 4 mM AMP-PNP was used instead of 1 mM. The
nucleotide cofactors could affect the binding of T-ag by chelating
Mg2+ and thus modulating the concentration of free
Mg2+. To test this hypothesis we analyzed the binding of
T-ag to forks in the absence of nucleotide cofactors.
The omission of the nucleotide cofactors from the binding reaction
resulted in complete aggregation of T-ag associated with the DNA forks
(data not shown). In order to prevent T-ag from aggregating, we lowered
the concentration of Mg2+. From the binding of T-ag (400 ng) to a fork with a 55-bp duplex and two 30-nt ssDNA tails in the
presence of increasing amounts of Mg2+ but absence of
nucleotide cofactors (Fig. 2H), we draw several conclusions.
First, T-ag binds poorly to the forks without Mg2+. Second,
the Mg2+ concentration modulates the ratio of type I and
type II complexes. At low Mg2+ concentrations, type I
complexes were formed exclusively. As the concentration of the divalent
ions was increased, type II complexes, type III complexes, and
aggregates formed. Consistent with our findings are the results of
Wessel et al. (11) who found that Mg2+ induces
the aggregation of T-ag hexamers bound to distant sites on a non-origin
containing duplex DNA. Interestingly, such aggregated T-ag could
catalyze nonspecific duplex unwinding upon addition of ATP, suggesting
that the Mg2+- induced association could be
physiologically significant.
Further insight into how type II complexes are assembled was gained
through a reciprocal binding assay, in which we kept the amount of T-ag
constant, while increasing the concentration of the fork (Fig.
2I). Even at the highest concentration of DNA, the
concentration of T-ag hexamers was in excess over the DNA forks. At 1.5 nM, the fork was completely bound, and mostly type II
complexes were formed. As we increased the fork concentration up to
22.5 nM (15-fold increase), the fraction of type II
complexes gradually decreased, whereas the percentages of type I
complexes and unbound fork steadily increased. This result argues
against the model diagramed in Fig. 2J whereby type II
complexes are formed by dimerization via protein-protein interactions
of type I complexes bound to separate DNA forks (17). This model
predicts that an increase in the concentration of type I complexes,
brought about by increasing the total DNA concentration, will result in
increased type II formation. We observe the opposite. We suggest
instead that type II complexes are a double hexamer bound to a single fork (Fig. 2K) and provide direct evidence below.
Structure of Type II Complexes, Assembly State of T-ag and Number
of DNA Forks--
To determine the stoichiometry of protein-to-DNA
forks in type II complexes, we measured directly the number of forks in
these complexes and whether they contained single or double hexamers. We examined the assembly state of T-ag in the oligomeric complexes formed on DNA forks by determining via denaturing gel electrophoresis the mass of the protein component of these complexes. To prepare size
markers for these experiments, we partially cross-linked pre-assembled
T-ag hexamers in the presence of nucleotide cofactors but absence of
DNA, and then we separated the different species on a denaturing
composite agarose-polyacrylamide gel (Fig.
3A). This generated a ladder
of protein bands we identified as cross-linked dimers through hexamers.
The mobility of the cross-linked species was linearly dependent on the
logarithm of the molecular weight of the corresponding T-ag multimers,
increasing our confidence in the assignments (Fig. 3B). The
number of monomers assigned to each band was further corroborated by
comparison of the mobility of the T-ag multimers with the mobility of
cross-linked phosphorylase b markers after silver staining
on pure polyacrylamide gels (data not shown). We confirmed that in the
presence of nucleotide cofactors T-ag forms mostly hexamers. The two
additional bands migrating slower than the hexamer were designated DX1
and DX2, as we believe they are double hexamers (see "Discussion").
The apparent molecular masses of DX1 and DX2, 650 and 840 kDa,
respectively, are both smaller than the predicted molecular mass of the
double hexamer (942 kDa). A deviation from linear resolution is,
however, not unexpected in this high molecular mass range.

View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Assembly state of free T-ag. The
positions of T-ag oligomeric species are indicated in all panels using
the following designations: SX, single hexamer;
DX1 and DX2, double hexamers; TX,
triple hexamer. A, T-ag (400 ng) in the presence of 4 mM AMP-PNP was partially cross-linked with glutaraldehyde
for the times indicated at the top. The cross-linked
multimeric species were separated on a denaturing composite
agarose/acrylamide gel and analyzed by Western blotting. The positions
of T-ag multimers are indicated by numbers corresponding to
the number of protomers in the species. M,
uncross-linked monomer. The numbers on the left
side of the Western blot indicate the molecular mass in kDa of the
used pre-stained protein markers. B, mobility plot of
the cross-linked T-ag multimers from A. Rf
represents the ratio of the distance migrated by each specie and the
distance migrated by the monomer. C, Western analysis
of T-ag oligomers formed in the presence of 4 mM AMP-PNP
(left panel) or 4 mM ADP (right
panel) as a function of T-ag concentration (µg).
|
|
We then analyzed the formation of T-ag oligomers at different protein
concentrations after extensive cross-linking to trap hexamers and other
higher order association states in the absence of DNA. T-ag oligomers
smaller than the hexamer were barely detected due to the high
cooperativity of self-assembly of T-ag (data not shown), ADP, or
AMP-PNP-promoted oligomerization (Fig. 3C). We find that the
T-ag hexamer is the predominant species at low protein concentration
(0.3 and 0.4 µg) in the presence of either ADP or AMP-PNP. A small
amount of the DX1 oligomer is also present, consistent with our recent
EM studies (24) that showed that 8% of all complexes formed at this
protein concentration are double hexamers. ADP was much more effective
than AMP-PNP in stimulating DX2 assembly at high protein concentration.
DX2 has a comparable electrophoretic mobility to the known double
hexamer that assembles at the origin of replication. An 84-bp
biotinylated fragment containing the core SV40 origin was used to form
T-ag-origin complexes at increasing concentrations of T-ag (Fig.
4A). After cross-linking, a
fraction of the reactions was run on a native PAGE gel to assess the
extent of binding (Fig. 4B). The remainder of the complexes
was purified on streptavidin-coated magnetic beads. The protein was
extracted from the DNA and analyzed by SDS-PAGE and Western blotting
(Fig. 4C). Consistent with previous studies (5, 25), T-ag
formed a double hexamer with the origin fragment (Fig. 4, B
and C). The single hexamer (SX) complex, detected at high
concentrations of T-ag, is a result of nonspecific binding to the
ferromagnetic beads. The origin double hexamer has mobility similar to
DX2, thus supporting the assignment of DX2 as a double hexamer.

View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Assembly state of origin- and fork-bound
T-ag. A, outline of the assay. T-ag-DNA complexes were
assembled in 20-µl reactions. Five µl were used for the gel-shift
analysis, and the remainder was used for the Western analysis.
B, gel-shift analysis of T-ag binding to a 84-bp
fragment containing the SV40 origin of replication. The amounts of T-ag
used are as follows: lanes 1-4, 0, 125, 250, and 375 ng. Four mM AMP-PNP was used as a nucleotide cofactor.
C, left panel, Western analysis of T-ag
oligomers extracted off the bound complexes. Lanes 1-3
correspond to lanes 2-4 in B. Lanes
4-6 represent nonspecific (NS) binding to the
ferromagnetic beads at the concentrations of T-ag used for the
gel-shifts in lanes 2-4 in B. Right
panel, lanes 7 and 8 are DNA-free T-ag
oligomers formed at 400 ng and 1000 ng of T-ag in 10 µl reactions in
the presence of 4 mM AMP-PNP. The positions of
SX, DX1, and DX2 are indicated.
D, analysis of T-ag·fork complexes formed on forks
with a 80-bp duplex region and a 10-nt 3' ssDNA tail. Left
panel, gel-shift analysis. The percentages of type I and type II
formed are indicated below the corresponding bands in the
autoradiograph. Right panel, T-ag bound to the
biotinylated DNA forks was cross-linked, purified from free T-ag
hexamers using magnetic separation techniques, and analyzed by Western
blotting. The positions of SX, DX1, and
DX2, as well as their relative amounts, expressed as
percentage of all complexes, are indicated above (for DX2)
and below (for SX) the corresponding bands. The
double-headed arrows indicate the relationship between type
I complexes and SX, and type II complexes and DX2. The absolute amounts
of T-ag used are indicated below each lane. A schematic of
the DNA fork is presented below the gel-shift panel.
NS, nonspecific binding to the beads in the presence of
400 ng of T-ag. E, gel-shift (left panel)
and Western (right panel) analysis of T-ag·fork complexes
formed on forks with a 55-bp duplex region and a 60-nt 3' ssDNA tail.
The details of the experiment are the same as in D. TX denotes a triple hexamer of T-ag.
|
|
With an understanding of the T-ag oligomers formed in the absence of
DNA, we proceeded to ask what was the assembly state of T-ag bound to
DNA forks in type II complexes. We used two types of biotinylated DNA
forks. One had an 80-bp duplex and 10 nt 3' ssDNA tail (Fig.
4D), and supported the efficient formation of type II
complexes. The second type of fork had a 55-bp duplex and 60-nt 3' tail
(Fig. 4E) and promoted the assembly of both type II and type
III complexes. The T-ag complexes with forks containing an 80-bp duplex
were cross-linked with glutaraldehyde. Part of the reaction mixtures
was analyzed by gel-shift analysis (Fig. 4D, left
panel), whereas the rest was incubated with streptavidin-coated beads to purify bound from free T-ag. The DNA-bound T-ag oligomers were
extracted with SDS-containing buffer, separated on a
SDS/PO4 gel, and analyzed by Western blotting (Fig.
4D, right panel). Under conditions where T-ag
forms mostly type II complexes, the primary oligomeric species
extracted off the DNA is DX2. We conclude that type II complexes are
indeed double hexamers. At the same concentration of T-ag, but in the
absence of DNA, DX2 is not formed (see Fig. 3C,
AMP-PNP panel, 300 and 400 ng), indicating that DNA forks
stimulate the formation of the double hexameric complex. Forks with a
60-nt ssDNA tail promote the assembly of type III as well as type II
complexes (Fig. 4E, left panel). The Western blot
showed an oligomeric species with apparent molecular mass of ~1200
kDa in addition to DX2 that we designate as TX because we believe it is
a triple hexamer of T-ag (Fig. 4E, right
panel). The TX oligomer is most probably the protein component of
type III complex.
Knowing that the active helicase complex, type II, contains a double
hexamer of T-ag, we next determined whether these complexes contain one
or two forks (Fig. 2, J and K). To do so we used
a pull-down assay with two radiolabeled DNA forks (Fig.
5A) that similarly promote the
formation of type II complexes, yet differ in length and therefore
electrophoretic mobility. T-ag was bound to an equimolar mixture
of the two forks, only one of which was biotinylated, under conditions
favoring the formation of type II complexes (Fig. 5B). The
complexes were cross-linked with glutaraldehyde to stabilize
protein-DNA interactions and prevent disassembly during subsequent
manipulations. The protein-DNA complexes were bound to
streptavidin-coated ferromagnetic beads, which were then washed
vigorously to reduce nonspecific binding. The attached complexes were
then deproteinized by treatment with SDS/proteinase K and treated with
0.4 N NaOH to denature the DNA. The released radioactive
DNA was analyzed by native PAGE. If type II complexes represent a
double hexamer bound to a single fork, then only the biotinylated fork
would be retained on the beads. However, if type II complexes are T-ag
double hexamers bridging two forks, then we would pull down both forks
in a ratio depending on the initial input.

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Analysis of the number of DNA forks bound in
type II T-ag·fork complexes. A, outline of the assay.
Schematic diagrams of the forks used (FBio30 and
F10) are shown. The forks were radiolabeled at the 5' end of
the duplex. The forks differed in the length of the 3' ssDNA tail and
in that FBio30 was biotinylated at the end of the 5' tail. T-ag·fork
complexes were assembled in 20-µl reactions. 5 µl were used for the
gel-shift analysis, whereas the remainder was used for the pull-down
assays. PrK, proteinase K treatment. B,
gel-shift analysis of the assembled T-ag·fork complexes. The
positions and relative percentages of the free DNA forks, type I, type
II, type III complexes, and aggregates (Aggr.) are indicated
next to the corresponding bands. C, PAGE analysis of
the pull-down assay using two forks. The assay was performed in the
absence (lanes 6-8) or presence of T-ag (400 ng)
(lanes 9-11). Radioactivity recovered in the supernatant
(S) after the initial binding to the ferromagnetic beads,
the first wash (W) and the extracted DNA (E)
after the NaOH treatment. I, input ratio of
radiolabeled forks. Also presented are controls of the individual forks
in the absence (lanes 1 and 2) or presence
(lanes 3 and 4) of streptavidin, and the
radiolabeled strands of the two forks (lanes 12 and
13). In lane 4 the shift in the position of the
FBio30 fork is due to the binding of streptavidin. The small amount of
non-biotinylated fork pulled down on the streptavidin-coated beads in
the presence of T-ag is most likely due to nonspecific binding of T-ag
complexes to the beads, aggregation that traps together complexes
assembled on either fork, or may represent a small fraction of a
specific complex with two forks.
|
|
A representative experiment is shown in Fig. 5C in which the
3' ssDNA tails of the two forks used differed by 20 nt (10 versus 30 nt). The longer fork was biotinylated at the 5'
ssDNA tail. In addition to the sample extracted from the beads
(E), we analyzed the supernatant (S) after the
pull-down and the first wash (W). In the control reaction in
the absence of T-ag we recovered only the labeled strand of the
biotinylated fork, as expected (lane 8). In the presence of
T-ag we recovered the radiolabeled 3' strands of both forks in a 9.5:1
(biotinylated/non-biotinylated) ratio (lane 11) (see Table
III, Experiment I). If type II complexes
had two bound forks, the expected ratio is about 1.5:1. As type II complexes coexist with small amounts of free fork DNA and type I
complexes, the corrected ratio is 1.6:1 in Table III, Experiment I. The
results of four individual pull-down experiments presented in Table III
show only small contaminating amounts of the non-biotinylated fork.
Therefore, type II complexes contain only a single fork.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table III
Predicted and observed fork ratios from the pull-down assays
The corrected theoretical ratio reflects the ratio of forks predicted
from the dimerization model (Fig. 2J), corrected for the
presence of type I complexes and free DNA fork in the binding reactions
as described under "Experimental Procedures."
|
|
Stability of Type I and Type II Complexes--
So far we have
characterized the parameters that govern the assembly of type I and
type II complexes. To gain further insights into the protein-DNA
interactions in these complexes, we studied their dissociation
kinetics. The dissociation of T-ag bound to a labeled fork was measured
by gel-shift analysis after the addition of heparin (an ionic
competitor for DNA binding) or excess cold fork. The amount of heparin
was sufficient to block complex formation if added to the reaction
before T-ag (Fig. 6B,
lane 1). After heparin challenge type I complexes were
stable in the presence of either AMP-PNP or ADP (Fig. 6, A
and B). In contrast, type II complexes were stable in the
AMP-PNP-bound form but readily dissociated in the ADP-bound form. Thus,
the protein-DNA contacts within type I and type II complexes differ
substantially.

View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Dissociation kinetics of T-ag·fork and
T-ag-ssDNA complexes. For gel-shift analysis, T-ag·fork
complexes assembled on DNA forks in the presence of 4 mM
AMP-PNP (A, upper panel) or 4 mM ADP
(B, upper panel) were challenged with heparin (1 mg/ml final concentration) to compete off the bound DNA. Reactions
contained 240 ng of T-ag (A) and 200 ng of T-ag
(B). After 10 or 15 min in heparin the remaining protein-DNA
complexes were cross-linked with glutaraldehyde and separated by native
PAGE. Each experiment was repeated four times. Lane C,
control experiment, in which heparin was added before the addition of
T-ag. Quantification of the gel-shift results shown is presented in the
lower panels of A and B. C, gel-shift analysis of T-ag dissociation from DNA
forks in the presence of 4 mM ADP. The gel-shift panel is
representative of two independent experiments. T-ag·fork complexes
were assembled in 120-µl reaction volume. Dissociation was initiated
by the addition of a 100-fold excess of cold fork. Time indicates
minutes after the addition of cold fork. The positions of type I, type
II, type III, and aggregates (Aggr.) are indicated.
C0, T-ag·fork complexes before the
addition of the cold fork. C15, a separate
binding reaction, which was incubated for the same amount of time, 15 min, but without the addition of cold competitor. Six hundred ng of
T-ag were used for every 15 fmol of DNA fork. D,
quantification of the gel-shift experiment shown in C. The
lines represent the best fit to the data points. The results
from a dissociation experiment with T-ag-ssDNA complexes are also
included.
|
|
The dissociation rate of type II complexes, containing labeled forks
with a 55-bp duplex and two 30-nt ssDNA tails and the presence
of ADP, was measured quantitatively. Net dissociation of labeled fork
was started by addition of a 100-fold excess of cold fork. The spectrum
of T-ag complexes remaining at times thereafter was measured by
gel-shift analysis (Fig. 6C). The apparent rate constants
and corresponding half-lives (t1/2) for the
individual complexes and the appearance of protein-free fork were
determined by fitting the results to a one- or two-phase exponential
(Fig. 6D). Based on the results of two independent experiments, we determined that type II complexes in the ADP-bound form
disappear with a half-life of 1.3 min. Type III complexes and the
aggregated material have a similar half-life of 1.5 min. Dissociation
of type II, type III, and the aggregates leads mostly to formation of
type I complexes, which, in contrast, are very stable and
accumulate with time (Fig. 6C). A smaller part of the initial T-ag·fork complexes dissociates directly to free DNA. The
rate of appearance of the free fork was fit to a biphasic curve with a
fast phase (t1/2 = 0.28 min), corresponding to the
release of the fork from type II and type III complexes and aggregates,
and a slow phase (t1/2 = 98 min), corresponding most
probably to the release from the more stable type I complexes,
generated by the dissociation of higher order complexes.
We next performed a similar quantitative dissociation experiment of
T-ag complexes assembled on a labeled 54-nt ssDNA in the presence of
ADP, where type I complexes predominate. A 100-fold excess of cold
54-nt ssDNA initiated dissociation. The T-ag-ssDNA-ADP complexes were
extremely stable (Fig. 6D). We conclude that type I T-ag-DNA
complexes are very stable independent of whether they form on ssDNA or
a synthetic fork.
Helicase Activity of Type I and Type II Complexes--
So far we
have investigated the DNA binding properties of T-ag in the presence of
ATP analogs, which trap the helicase in different states of the
unwinding cycle. We now turn our attention to the condition that allows
helicase activity, the presence of ATP. Under these conditions, T-ag
separates the two strands of the synthetic fork, which leads to
accumulation of ssDNA (Fig. 7A). Similar to previous
studies (17), we observed that the fraction of substrate unwound
increases with increasing amounts of T-ag, but not all of the substrate
is unwound. One explanation for the limited unwinding is that only a
subset of the assembled T-ag·fork complexes is active. If type II
complexes are the active helicase (17), then pre-assembling these
complexes before the onset of the strand separation would increase the
amount of unwinding. We tested this hypothesis by first forming type II
complexes in a low concentration of AMP-PNP, after which they were made
competent for unwinding by addition of excess ATP. The time course of
formation of ssDNA for two concentrations of T-ag was followed by PAGE
and is plotted in Fig. 7B. The indicated percent of
pre-assembled type II complexes in each reaction was determined by
gel-shift analysis. The helicase activity was robust, with the 25-bp
duplex region unwound within less than a minute after the addition of ATP. The plateau value of the unwinding matched the amount of pre-formed type II complexes, as expected if they are the active helicase species.

View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Analysis of the helicase activity of type I
and type II complexes. A, standard helicase assay
was carried out using forks with a 25-bp duplex and 30-nt ssDNA tails
and 0, 150, 300, or 600 ng of T-ag. Reactions were quenched as
described under "Experimental Procedures," and the products were
separated by electrophoresis on an 8% native polyacrylamide gel. The
percent ssDNA released is shown below each lane.
B, time course of unwinding of pre-assembled
T-ag·fork complexes. Complexes were formed in 100 µM
AMP-PNP on the forks shown in A using 0.3 µM
( ) or 0.6 µM ( ) T-ag. The percent of pre-assembled
type II complexes, as determined by gel-shift analysis, is indicated on
the right side of the graphs. Four mM ATP was
added to the reactions to initiate unwinding and product was measured
after 10, 20, 30, 45, 60, and 120 s. The black lines
represent best fits to first-order reactions. The plateau values for
the best-fit curves are 39% ( ) and 64% ( ). C, a
helicase assay was carried with 0.5 µM T-ag using 6 nM forks with a 55-bp duplex region and 30-nt ssDNA tails.
Aliquots were taken at 0.3, 0.7. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 min,
cross-linked with glutaraldehyde to stop the unwinding, and analyzed by
PAGE. D, quantification of the results in C. Solid lines are single exponential fits to the data.
E, a helicase reaction using 1.5 nM
radiolabeled, biotinylated DNA forks was carried out with 0.6 µM T-ag. After 5 min, cold non-biotinylated fork was
added. After 5 more min the reaction was terminated by glutaraldehyde
cross-linking. The single-stranded products of DNA unwinding, the fork
substrate, and the remaining T-ag·fork complexes were separated by
native PAGE. D, denatured fork. A diagram of the fork used
is shown next to the gel panel. F, after
cross-linking, the stable T-ag·fork complexes were pulled down on
ferromagnetic beads and analyzed by Western blotting. A control
reaction contained no DNA. The positions of the single hexamer
(SX) and the double hexamer (DX1) are indicated.
G, a standard helicase reaction in a 20-µl volume was
performed with a biotin-labeled fork but in the presence of
[ -32P]ATP. The stable T-ag·fork complexes were
purified from the reaction mixture using streptavidin-coated magnetic
beads. The nucleotide cofactors bound by the protein were extracted and
separated by thin layer chromatography (TLC). The observed
ratio of ATP/ADP averaged in two independent experiments is
5.4:1.
|
|
This conclusion was corroborated and extended by analysis of the
turnover rates of type II complexes. T-ag and forks with a 55-bp duplex
were mixed in the presence of ATP. At times thereafter we determined by
gel-shift analysis the relative amounts of labeled DNA fork bound in
type I and type II complexes, as well as the amount of ssDNA product
(Fig. 7, C and D). Both type I and type II
complexes assembled rapidly within less than a minute and then turned
over. We fit the decay phase to an exponential equation and calculated
the rates of turnover (k). From the average of two
experiments we estimate that type II complexes (k = 0.49) turn over 9 times faster than type I complexes (k = 0.057), and the rate of disappearance coincided with the rate of
appearance of ssDNA (k = 0.52). It is clear that type
II complexes are the active helicase assembly.
DNA unwinding relies on the coupling of cyclic changes in DNA binding
to ATP binding and hydrolysis. The finding that type I complexes remain
bound to synthetic forks for a longer time than type II complexes
suggested to us that they may have a defect in the ATP hydrolysis
cycle. T-ag bound in a type I complex may not be able to bind and/or
hydrolyze ATP well, or the products of hydrolysis may release too
slowly for the cycle to continue efficiently. To distinguish among
these alternatives, we determined the nucleotide cofactors bound to
T-ag in type I complexes. We purified these complexes in the following
way. T-ag was incubated with a radiolabeled biotinylated fork in the
presence of 4 mM ATP. After 5 min, a 50-fold excess of cold
DNA was added to soak up free T-ag. After cross-linking with
glutaraldehyde, an aliquot of the reaction mixture was analyzed by
native PAGE (Fig. 7E). Most of the stable protein-DNA
complexes are type I complexes. The remainder of the reaction was
adsorbed to streptavidin-coated magnetic beads to purify the stable
T-ag·fork complexes. The assembly state of T-ag in these complexes
was analyzed by Western blotting (Fig. 7F), which
demonstrated that these complexes are indeed single hexamers.
To determine the nucleotide-cofactors bound in the single hexameric
T-ag·fork complexes, cold ATP was replaced by
[ -32P]ATP, and the steps of the previously described
experiment were repeated. At the end of the reaction, all
DNA-containing species were pulled down with streptavidin-coated
ferromagnetic beads, and the bound nucleotides were analyzed by thin
layer chromatography (Fig. 7G). Both ADP and ATP were bound
to the T-ag·fork complexes, and the ATP/ADP ratio was 5.4:1. The
simplest interpretation is that approximately one of the subunits in
the T-ag hexamer is bound to ADP and the rest to ATP. Both ATP and ADP
were stably bound because they were not washed away by cold ATP. The
total number of bound nucleotides, ~6(5.4 + 1), is consistent with
our own (data not shown) and previously published estimates for the number of nucleotides bound in the T-ag hexamer (26).
Because the T-ag hexamer in type I complexes can clearly hydrolyze ATP,
we suggest that the unwinding defect of these complexes is associated
with failure to continue the hydrolysis cycle after the first of the
six ATPs is hydrolyzed. Perhaps an inability to release ADP from the
first nucleotide-binding site of the T-ag hexamer blocks the subsequent
hydrolysis events.
 |
DISCUSSION |
To help understand the mechanism of the T-ag helicase, we
undertook a thorough characterization of T-ag interaction with a synthetic DNA replication fork. The pattern of DNA binding by T-ag is
complex, as the binding is linked to the assembly of higher order
oligomeric structures of T-ag. In a previous study, Smelkova and
Borowiec (17) detected by gel-shift analysis two forms of oligomeric
T-ag associated with forks and showed that the slower mobility complex
(referred to as type II in this paper) was the more active helicase.
They speculated that this active form contained a double hexamer, with
each hexamer loaded on a separate fork. Our data show that the type II
complexes are indeed the active helicase assemblies, but they
are double hexamers bound to a single fork. Additionally,
we compared the DNA binding properties of the single and double
hexameric complexes of T-ag in two ways. First, we identified the
parameters that affect the assembly of the two major oligomeric
complexes as follows: the concentrations of T-ag and of DNA; the type
of DNA substrate (ssDNA, synthetic forks, and origin-containing
duplex); the length of the DNA forks; nucleotide cofactors; and
Mg2+ concentration. Second, we studied the energetics of
the interactions through measurements of the kinetics of dissociation
of T-ag-DNA complexes. Our results give credence to the idea that the
double hexamer, rather than the single hexamer, is the active helicase machine at the replication fork. Our explanation for the robust helicase activity of the T-ag double hexamer is its ability to cycle
timely between a high and low affinity state for the DNA forks, coupled
to the binding and hydrolysis of ATP, to allow the unwinding and
subsequent translocation along the DNA. In contrast, the single
hexameric complex locks tightly to the DNA fork for an inappropriately
long time, only slowly progressing through the ATP binding/hydrolysis
cycle and thus failing to bring about fast unwinding (Figs. 6 and
7).
The identification of the double hexamer as the active helicase
assembly provides support for the model for bi-directional unwinding
from the SV40 origin in vivo, in which the two hexamers remain attached to each other with the DNA actively spooled through the
protein complex (10). The alternative model, in which the two hexamers
each travel away from the origin of replication along with a growing
fork, is not attractive in light of the finding that the single
hexamers are poor at unwinding. Our data show that even with a single
fork, a double hexamer is needed for efficient unwinding. We did not
find two forks bound to a double hexamer in type II complexes most
probably because forks were limiting in concentration. This would not
be an issue at the SV40 origin in vivo, where the two forks
would be in close proximity and their local concentration would be very high.
Our findings may have implications for the higher order organization of
the replication machinery. In prokaryotes, cytological evidence
supports the conclusion that the two forks of bi-directional replication from an origin remain juxtaposed through DNA synthesis and
are coordinately regulated. This model has been dubbed the factory
model (27). The observation of dense zones of replication in high
eukaryotes has led to the speculation that many such factories may be
localized and jointly controlled (28). Hexameric rings can form higher
oligomers in several different ways (24). Therefore, they may provide
some of the interacting surfaces that hold the factories together and
may serve as platforms for assembly of the multimolecular replication complexes.
T-ag Double Hexamers--
The profound effect of the oligomeric
structure on the helicase activity of T-ag shows that the interactions
between the hexamers are critical for efficient ATP hydrolysis and DNA
unwinding. Unfortunately, the structure of T-ag double hexamer is not
as well studied as the single hexamer. The latter is a planar ring with
two different faces: an N-terminal face formed by the six J-domains and
a C-terminal face formed by the C-terminal domains (24). The double
hexamer can exist in several alternative configurations (24). VanLoock et al. (24) observed association of single hexamers through the N-terminal faces (N-N double hexamer) and through the C-terminal faces (C-C double hexamer). A double hexamer, in which the two individual hexamers appear to interact through their J-domains, was
observed by Valle et al. (9) bound to the SV40 origin of replication. However, mutational studies suggest that the linker between the J-domain and the origin DNA binding domain (OBD) and the
OBD itself are the domains required for bridging the two hexamers (29).
Interestingly, neither the OBD nor the linker contact each other in the
two currently described structures of T-ag double hexamers (N-N and
C-C). This finding raises the possibility that the helicase complex
active in bi-directional DNA unwinding may represent still a third
configuration of double hexamers.
We identified two T-ag oligomers, DX1 and DX2, that after cross-linking
had a lower electrophoretic mobility than the single hexamers on
denaturing PAGE. The identification of DX2 as a double hexamer is
straightforward based on its apparent molecular weight (840 kDa) and an
electrophoretic mobility similar to the origin-bound double hexamer.
Our best argument that DX1 is also a double hexamer is that under
conditions where we observe only DX1, EM shows that 8% of all protein
complexes are double hexamers (24). The alternative is that DX1 is an
oligomer intermediate between the hexamer and the double hexamer that
arises because of its inherent stability or incomplete cross-linking.
We do not favor this alternative for two reasons. First, formation of
the T-ag hexamer is highly cooperative and intermediates in the
assembly are rare (Refs. 30 and 31 and data not shown); EM did not
reveal any evidence for the existence of intermediates between the
hexamer and the double hexamer (24). Second, the extent of
cross-linking did not influence the amount of DX1 (data not shown).
What do these multiple configurations of T-ag double hexamers
represent? We speculate that the identified structures of the double
hexamer may reflect intermediates in the conversion of the static
double hexamer bound to the origin to a moving helicase. A more trivial
explanation is that they arise from nonspecific association between two
single hexamers.
Binding of T-ag to ssDNA and Synthetic DNA Forks--
As ssDNA
binding is essential for the helicase activity of T-ag, we studied how
T-ag engages ssDNA. The increase in the cooperativity of T-ag binding
with the length of the ssDNA, as well as the decrease in the
cooperativity of binding of T-ag with increasing concentrations of
ssDNA, indicate that multiple adjacent sites on the T-ag hexamer are
involved in interactions with ssDNA. This finding was unexpected because hexameric DNA helicases are generally thought to interact with
ssDNA via only one or two of their subunits (32). T-ag seems more
similar to the hexameric RNA helicase rho, which interacts with about
70 nt of ssRNA by simultaneously engaging all six binding sites on the
hexamer (33). ssDNA probably winds around the T-ag hexamer contacting
each subunit.
Our data provide an upper limit for the size of the ssDNA-binding site
per T-ag protomer of 9-10 nt, similar to that found with other
helicases. Quantitative binding studies with PriA (34) and rho (35), as
well as the co-crystal structures of the Rep (36), hepatitis C virus
NS3 (37), and PcrA (38) helicases with ssDNA or partial duplexes show
that generally 7-8 nt are bound by each subunit.
Earlier biochemical analyses had suggested a much longer ssDNA-binding
site for DnaB (39) and T7 gp4 helicase (22), 20 and 30 nt,
respectively. Thermodynamic studies with DnaB, however, showed that the
ssDNA-binding site is actually built of two subsites, each of which
encompasses ~10 nt (40). The recently determined crystal structure of
T7 gp4 helicase showed that the ssDNA-binding site could extend to even
three subunits without any steric constraints (41). If so, the size of
the binding site allocated to each subunit would be ~10 nt. We
conclude that many helicases may bind to ssDNA in a similar way with a
binding site size of 8-10 nt per monomer. The questions that remain
open, however, are why all subunits of the T-ag hexamer appear to
engage the ssDNA simultaneously, and whether this represents an
important distinction with other helicases.
The two major T-ag·fork complexes, type I and type II, differ as
follows: 1) in protein-DNA contacts; 2) in T-ag assembly states; 3) in
the Mg2+ requirements for assembly; and 4) in helicase
activities. Type II complexes are markedly favored with forks
containing a long duplex or a long 3' ssDNA tail, suggesting that T-ag
interacts extensively with both fork regions in these complexes. In
contrast, for type I complexes the contacts between T-ag and the fork
are more limited. The differences in DNA-protein contacts as directly measured by footprinting will be presented in another
study.2 In brief, the
contacts in type II complexes are very different form type I complexes
and are much more extensive in the duplex and in the 3' ssDNA tail.
These results are consistent with our finding here that double hexamer
formation is poorly supported by ssDNA alone, yet markedly promoted on
forks with a long duplex region.
The differences in protein-DNA contacts between type I and type II
complexes are manifested also by the contrasting kinetics of
dissociation. The active type II complexes show a clear nucleotide dependence of the T-ag DNA binding affinity, whereas in type I complexes T-ag is tightly bound to the DNA fork independent of the
nature of the bound nucleotide cofactor. Type I complexes contain T-ag
that is trapped on DNA forks in a state in which at least one subunit
has hydrolyzed ADP, whereas the other subunits are in an ATP-bound
state (Fig. 6F). Presumably, in type II complexes the T-ag
helicase moves rapidly along the DNA substrate (300 bp unwound per min,
data not shown) apace with the ATPase cycle.
How does the oligomeric structure influence the ATPase activity of
T-ag? The recently solved structures of hexameric helicases show that
ATP is cradled between the subunits (41, 42). ATP hydrolysis and
release of the phosphate would untether the two subunits sharing the
ATP and allow an intersubunit rearrangement, most probably a relative
rotation. Such conformational changes could be associated with a high
energetic barrier in single T-ag hexamers bound to DNA forks that is
alleviated in double hexameric complexes.
We see two possible ways whereby the double hexameric structure could
influence the rates of subunit rotations and thus affect the helicase
activity of T-ag. First, the double hexameric structure could change
the number of T-ag protomers bound to the DNA. The rate of ATP
processing/conformational change at a pair of T-ag protomers could be
affected by whether or not their immediate neighbors also contact DNA.
Only two of the six protomers of type I complexes change their
conformations in the presence of DNA and are presumably bound to the
DNA fork (24). Given the requirement for long forks for the assembly of
the double hexamer (Fig. 2, B-D), and that all six
protomers of the single hexamer seem to bind long ssDNA (Fig. 1,
A-D), more than two T-ag protomers may be bound to DNA in
type II complexes.
Second, the formation of the double hexamer could lead to a global
change in the conformation of the individual hexamers that affect the
T-ag intersubunit contacts. Nucleotide cofactors, which probably bind
at the interface between the subunits, influence differently the
association of T-ag hexamers, with ADP promoting the formation of
double hexamer (DX2) substantially better than AMP-PNP (Fig.
3C). Additionally, formation of the double hexamer on DNA
depends strongly on the concentration of Mg2+ (Fig.
2H). The finding that an increase of only 1 mM
Mg2+ is sufficient to shift the assembly of T-ag·fork
complexes from type I to predominantly type II suggests a cooperative
change in the structure of the oligomeric complex. Other hexameric
helicases are known to exhibit substantial polymorphism at the level of quaternary structure. Interconverting populations of hexamers with
3-fold (C3) or 6-fold (C6) axes of symmetry
have been observed by EM for Escherichia coli DnaB (43),
bacteriophage SPP1 G40P helicase (44), and the close functional homolog
of T-ag, the bovine papillomavirus E1 protein (45).
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT |
We thank Nancy Crisona for valuable
suggestions and for the critical reading of the manuscript.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported in part by National Institutes of
Health Grant GM31655 (to N. R. C.) and CA42414 (to M. R. B.).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.
Fellow of the Program in Mathematics and Molecular Biology and
supported by a Burroughs Welcome Fund fellowship.
§
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Molecular and
Cell Biology, Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 401 Barker Hall 3204, Berkeley, CA 94720-3204. Tel.: 510-642-5266; Fax:
510-643-1079; E-mail: ncozzare@socrates.berkeley.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, September 19, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M207022200
2
A. Alexandrov, M. Stone, M. Botchan and N. Cozzarelli, manuscript in preparation.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
ssDNA, single-stranded DNA;
AMP-PNP, adenylyl imidodiphosphate;
nt, nucleotide(s);
OBD- origin DNA binding domain, T-ag, T-antigen;
Pipes, 1,4-piperazinediethanesulfonic acid;
oligo, oligonucleotide.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Lohman, T. M.,
and Bjornson, K. P.
(1996)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
65,
169-214[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Stahl, H.,
Droge, P.,
and Knippers, R.
(1986)
EMBO J.
5,
1939-1944[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Bullock, P. A.
(1997)
Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol.
32,
503-568[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 4.
|
Simmons, D. T.
(2000)
Adv. Virus Res.
55,
75-134[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 5.
|
Mastrangelo, I. A.,
Hough, P. V.,
Wall, J. S.,
Dodson, M.,
Dean, F. B.,
and Hurwitz, J.
(1989)
Nature
338,
658-662[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Deb, S. P.,
and Tegtmeyer, P.
(1987)
J. Virol.
61,
3649-3654[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Cohen, G. L.,
Wright, P. J.,
DeLucia, A. L.,
Lewton, B. A.,
Anderson, M. E.,
and Tegtmeyer, P.
(1984)
J. Virol.
51,
91-96[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Dean, F. B.,
Borowiec, J. A.,
Eki, T.,
and Hurwitz, J.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
14129-14137[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 9.
|
Valle, M.,
Gruss, C.,
Halmer, L.,
Carazo, J. M.,
and Donate, L. E.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
34-41[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 10.
|
Wessel, R.,
Schweizer, J.,
and Stahl, H.
(1992)
J. Virol.
66,
804-815[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 11.
|
Wessel, R.,
Ramsperger, U.,
Stahl, H.,
and Knippers, R.
(1992)
Virology
189,
293-303[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 12.
|
Wu, C.,
Edgil, D.,
and Simmons, D. T.
(1998)
J. Virol.
72,
10256-10259[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Wu, C.,
Roy, R.,
and Simmons, D. T.
(2001)
J. Virol.
75,
2839-2847[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
Simmons, D. T.,
Wun-Kim, K.,
and Young, W.
(1990)
J. Virol.
64,
4858-4865[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Stahl, H.,
and Knippers, R.
(1983)
J. Virol.
47,
65-76[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
SenGupta, D. J.,
and Borowiec, J. A.
(1992)
Science
256,
1656-1661[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Smelkova, N. V.,
and Borowiec, J. A.
(1997)
J. Virol.
71,
8766-8773[Abstract]
|
| 18.
|
Virshup, D. M.,
Russo, A. A.,
and Kelly, T. J.
(1992)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
12,
4883-4895[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Smelkova, N. V.,
and Borowiec, J. A.
(1998)
J. Virol.
72,
8676-8681[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Simanis, V.,
and Lane, D. P.
(1985)
Virology
144,
88-100[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
Sambrook, J.,
Fritsch, E. F.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1989)
Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual
, 2nd Ed.
, pp. 10.17-10.19, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
|
| 22.
|
Hingorani, M. M.,
and Patel, S. S.
(1993)
Biochemistry
32,
12478-12487[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 23.
|
Weber, K.,
Pringle, J. R.,
and Osborn, M.
(1972)
Methods Enzymol.
26,
3-27[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
VanLoock, M. S.,
Alexandrov, A., Yu, X.,
Cozzarelli, N. R.,
and Egelman, E. H.
(2002)
Curr. Biol.
12,
472-476[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Huang, S. G.,
Weisshart, K.,
Gilbert, I.,
and Fanning, E.
(1998)
Biochemistry
37,
15345-15352[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Huang, S. G.,
Weisshart, K.,
and Fanning, E.
(1998)
Biochemistry
37,
15336-15344[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Lemon, K. P.,
and Grossman, A. D.
(2000)
Mol. Cell
6,
1321-1330[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 28.
|
Pflumm, M. F.,
and Botchan, M. R.
(2001)
Development
128,
1697-1707[Abstract]
|
| 29.
|
Weisshart, K.,
Taneja, P.,
Jenne, A.,
Herbig, U.,
Simmons, D. T.,
and Fanning, E.
(1999)
J. Virol.
73,
2201-2211[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 30.
|
Parsons, R. E.,
Stenger, J. E.,
Ray, S.,
Welker, R.,
Anderson, M. E.,
and Tegtmeyer, P.
(1991)
J. Virol.
65,
2798-2806[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 31.
|
Stenger, J. E.,
Mayr, G. A.,
Mann, K.,
Ray, S.,
Anderson, M. E.,
and Tegtmeyer, P.
(1992)
Genet. Eng.
14,
33-48
|
| 32.
|
Patel, S. S.,
and Picha, K. M.
(2000)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
69,
651-697[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Bear, D. G.,
Hicks, P. S.,
Escudero, K. W.,
Andrews, C. L.,
McSwiggen, J. A.,
and von Hippel, P. H.
(1988)
J. Mol. Biol.
199,
623-635[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Jezewska, M. J.,
Rajendran, S.,
and Bujalowski, W.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
27865-27873[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 35.
|
Geiselmann, J.,
Yager, T. D.,
and von Hippel, P. H.
(1992)
Protein Sci.
1,
861-873[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
Korolev, S.,
Hsieh, J.,
Gauss, G. H.,
Lohman, T. M.,
and Waksman, G.
(1997)
Cell
90,
635-647[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 37.
|
Kim, J. L.,
Morgenstern, K. A.,
Griffith, J. P.,
Dwyer, M. D.,
Thomson, J. A.,
Murcko, M. A.,
Lin, C.,
and Caron, P. R.
(1998)
Structure
6,
89-100[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 38.
|
Velankar, S. S.,
Soultanas, P.,
Dillingham, M. S.,
Subramanya, H. S.,
and Wigley, D. B.
(1999)
Cell
97,
75-84[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 39.
|
Bujalowski, W.,
and Jezewska, M. J.
(1995)
Biochemistry
34,
8513-8519[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 40.
|
Jezewska, M. J.,
Rajendran, S.,
and Bujalowski, W.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
9058-9069[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 41.
|
Singleton, M. R.,
Sawaya, M. R.,
Ellenberger, T.,
and Wigley, D. B.
(2000)
Cell
101,
589-600[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 42.
|
Niedenzu, T.,
Roleke, D.,
Bains, G.,
Scherzinger, E.,
and Saenger, W.
(2001)
J. Mol. Biol.
306,
479-487[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 43.
|
Donate, L. E.,
Llorca, O.,
Barcena, M.,
Brown, S. E.,
Dixon, N. E.,
and Carazo, J. M.
(2000)
J. Mol. Biol.
303,
383-393[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 44.
|
Barcena, M.,
Martin, C. S.,
Weise, F.,
Ayora, S.,
Alonso, J. C.,
and Carazo, J. M.
(1998)
J. Mol. Biol.
283,
809-819[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 45.
|
Fouts, E. T., Yu, X.,
Egelman, E. H.,
and Botchan, M. R.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
4447-4458[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
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:

|
 |

|
 |
 
W. Wang and D. T. Simmons
Simian Virus 40 Large T Antigen Can Specifically Unwind the Central Palindrome at the Origin of DNA Replication
J. Virol.,
April 1, 2009;
83(7):
3312 - 3322.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Fradet-Turcotte, C. Vincent, S. Joubert, P. A. Bullock, and J. Archambault
Quantitative Analysis of the Binding of Simian Virus 40 Large T Antigen to DNA
J. Virol.,
September 1, 2007;
81(17):
9162 - 9174.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
W. Wang, D. Manna, and D. T. Simmons
Role of the Hydrophilic Channels of Simian Virus 40 T-Antigen Helicase in DNA Replication
J. Virol.,
May 1, 2007;
81(9):
4510 - 4519.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. K. Reese, G. Meinke, A. Kumar, S. Moine, K. Chen, J. L. Sudmeier, W. Bachovchin, A. Bohm, and P. A. Bullock
Analyses of the Interaction between the Origin Binding Domain from Simian Virus 40 T Antigen and Single-Stranded DNA Provide Insights into DNA Unwinding and Initiation of DNA Replication
J. Virol.,
December 15, 2006;
80(24):
12248 - 12259.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. R. Choudhury, P. S. Malik, D. K. Singh, M. N. Islam, K. Kaliappan, and S. K. Mukherjee
The oligomeric Rep protein of Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus (MYMIV) is a likely replicative helicase
Nucleic Acids Res.,
December 4, 2006;
34(21):
6362 - 6377.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. Clerot and F. Bernardi
DNA Helicase Activity Is Associated with the Replication Initiator Protein Rep of Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Geminivirus
J. Virol.,
November 15, 2006;
80(22):
11322 - 11330.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. J. Fletcher, J. Shen, Y. Gomez-Llorente, C. S. Martin, J. M. Carazo, and X. S. Chen
Double Hexamer Disruption and Biochemical Activities of Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum MCM
J. Biol. Chem.,
December 23, 2005;
280(51):
42405 - 42410.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Y. Gomez-Llorente, R. J. Fletcher, X. S. Chen, J. M. Carazo, and C. S. Martin
Polymorphism and Double Hexamer Structure in the Archaeal Minichromosome Maintenance (MCM) Helicase from Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum
J. Biol. Chem.,
December 9, 2005;
280(49):
40909 - 40915.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
I. Tato, S. Zunzunegui, F. de la Cruz, and E. Cabezon
TrwB, the coupling protein involved in DNA transport during bacterial conjugation, is a DNA-dependent ATPase
PNAS,
June 7, 2005;
102(23):
8156 - 8161.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Robert. A. Sclafani, R. J. Fletcher, and X. S. Chen
Two heads are better than one: regulation of DNA replication by hexameric helicases
Genes & Dev.,
September 1, 2004;
18(17):
2039 - 2045.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. A. Abbate, J. M. Berger, and M. R. Botchan
The X-ray structure of the papillomavirus helicase in complex with its molecular matchmaker E2
Genes & Dev.,
August 15, 2004;
18(16):
1981 - 1996.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. K. Reese, K. R. Sreekumar, and P. A. Bullock
Interactions Required for Binding of Simian Virus 40 T Antigen to the Viral Origin and Molecular Modeling of Initial Assembly Events
J. Virol.,
March 15, 2004;
78(6):
2921 - 2934.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Jiao and D. T. Simmons
Nonspecific Double-Stranded DNA Binding Activity of Simian Virus 40 Large T Antigen Is Involved in Melting and Unwinding of the Origin
J. Virol.,
December 1, 2003;
77(23):
12720 - 12728.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|