Dynamics of Nucleosome Invasion by DNA Binding Proteins

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2011.05.044Get rights and content

Abstract

Nucleosomes sterically occlude their wrapped DNA from interacting with many large protein complexes. How proteins gain access to nucleosomal DNA target sites in vivo is not known. Outer stretches of nucleosomal DNA spontaneously unwrap and rewrap with high frequency, providing rapid and efficient access to regulatory DNA target sites located there; however, rates for access to the nucleosome interior have not been measured. Here we show that for a selected high-affinity nucleosome positioning sequence, the spontaneous DNA unwrapping rate decreases dramatically with distance inside the nucleosome. The rewrapping rate also decreases, but only slightly. Our results explain the previously known strong position dependence on the equilibrium accessibility of nucleosomal DNA, which is characteristic of both selected and natural sequences. Our results point to slow nucleosome conformational fluctuations as a potential source of cell–cell variability in gene activation dynamics, and they reveal the dominant kinetic path by which multiple DNA binding proteins cooperatively invade a nucleosome.

Graphical Abstract

Research Highlights

► Nucleosomal DNA spontaneously unwraps from one end. ► The equilibrium constant for unwrapping decreases with distance inside the nucleosome. ► Proteins bind to unwrapped nucleosomal DNA. ► Unwrapping of the outer stretches of nucleosomal DNA occurs many times per second. ► Unwrapping to sites further inside the nucleosome occurs far more slowly.

Introduction

The large enzyme complexes that carry out replication, transcription, recombination, and DNA repair function on naked DNA substrates, yet most eukaryotic DNAs are wrapped in nucleosomes, which sterically occlude and strongly distort the DNA.1 How these enzyme complexes gain access to their DNA substrates in vivo is not understood. ATP-dependent nucleosome remodeling complexes can help by moving or disassembling nucleosomes,2 creating stretches of naked DNA on which other DNA-binding enzymes can act. What is not understood, however, is how these remodelers themselves “know” which nucleosomes to remodel. The remodelers are recruited to specific chromatin regions through the actions of other site-specific DNA binding regulatory proteins,2, 3, 4, 5 raising a chicken–egg question of how these latter proteins gain access to their own target sites. One potential explanation—that nucleosomes in vivo simply do not cover up critical regulatory target sites—is falsified at over 1000 gene promoters in yeast by the results of genomewide nucleosome mapping studies.6, 7, 8, 9 For example, at the well-studied GAL10–1 locus in yeast, in many cells, a nucleosome centered over the four binding sites for the Gal4 transcription activator protein is occupied by the RSC remodeling complex, leaving the nucleosomes with only ∼ 135 bp of wrapped DNA and potentially facilitating binding by the Gal4 protein.10 However, many other cells in the population have full-length nucleosomes covering this region,7 leaving all Gal4 sites sterically occluded, yet all cells in the population respond appropriately to galactose (L. Chen and J.W., unpublished).

These considerations led us to hypothesize that nucleosomes might not be inert frozen structures, as imaged by X-ray crystallography,1 but instead might be dynamic, such that DNA wrapped in the time average might nevertheless be transiently accessible to other DNA binding proteins. Using biochemical and fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)11 assays, we and others found that nucleosomes are indeed highly dynamic, spontaneously but transiently unwrapping stretches of their DNA starting from one end,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 while the rest of the nucleosome remains fixed in position along the DNA.12, 13 For both isolated nucleosomes and nucleosomes in long arrays,18, 19 the equilibrium constant for such spontaneous “site exposure” near nucleosomal DNA ends is remarkably high at ∼ 0.01–0.1 (i.e., end stretches of nucleosomal DNA are spontaneously unwrapped 1–10% of the time), decreasing progressively with distance inside the nucleosome, down to 10 5–10 6 for DNA sites near the middle.14, 20

Spontaneous nucleosomal site exposure is thought to facilitate the ability of RNA polymerase and other processive enzymes to elongate through a nucleosome.16, 21, 22, 23 In addition, it may play a role in photolyase-mediated repair of DNA, which occurs more quickly than can be explained by known ATP-dependent remodeling activities,24 and it may contribute to genomewide transcriptional regulation25, 26 through nucleosome-induced cooperativity.27, 28, 29, 30

In order for such intrinsic nucleosome dynamics to contribute to the real abilities of gene regulatory proteins to gain access to their DNA target sites, it is necessary that site exposure occurs both with an acceptably high probability (equilibrium constant) and with an acceptably high rate. In an initial study,16 we analyzed the dynamics of the ends of wrapped nucleosomal DNA and found that nucleosomes indeed spontaneously open up (partially unwrap their DNA) with a remarkably high frequency, ∼ 4 times per second (i.e., DNA remains fully wrapped for only ∼ 250 ms before spontaneously unwrapping). Once unwrapped, this open state lasts for ∼ 10–50 ms before the DNA spontaneously rewraps. Thus, for regulatory DNA target sites located at short distances inside a nucleosome, the rate of spontaneous nucleosome site exposure is sufficiently great so as to plausibly allow regulatory proteins to find and bind to these sites in vivo.

What happens, however, when a critical regulatory binding site is located further inside a nucleosome, where its equilibrium accessibility is not 1–10% but orders of magnitude lower? This question has not been systematically investigated. Moreover, the isolated data that do exist are complicated by problems of heterogeneous nucleosome positioning and unexpected nucleosome disassembly,31 or by blinking of FRET dyes32, 33 (see Koopmans et al.34). On simple thermodynamic grounds, the greatly reduced equilibrium accessibility measured in our earlier work14, 20 must reflect a decreased unwrapping rate, an increased rewrapping rate, or both. Here, we utilize two independent complementary approaches—stopped-flow FRET and FRET fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS)—to measure the rates of nucleosome unwrapping and rewrapping for differing DNA sites from the end of the nucleosomal DNA inward toward the middle. Our results establish that spontaneous access to sites further inside a nucleosome occurs with greatly reduced rate and lead to new conclusions about the dynamics and mechanisms with which proteins can gain access to nucleosomal DNA target sites in vivo.

Section snippets

Coupled protein binding/FRET assay for position-dependent site exposure

To investigate the position-dependent kinetics of nucleosome site exposure, we take advantage of the steric occlusion of wrapped nucleosomal DNA by coupling site exposure to the binding of a site-specific DNA binding protein. For convenience, we use the LexA repressor protein of Escherichia coli. We construct homogeneously positioned nucleosomes that contain somewhere within their wrapped DNA a specific target site for LexA, such that LexA would “like” to bind to its target site but cannot

Dynamics of position-dependent site exposure

Our major finding is that the rate at which the nucleosomal DNA spontaneously unwraps to make buried DNA target sites accessible for binding decreases dramatically (by orders of magnitude) for target sites located increasingly further inside the nucleosome. The rewrapping rates vary, too, but much less so, and are opposite in direction to what might have been anticipated from the known position-dependent equilibrium constants for accessibility.

The outer stretch of the nucleosomal DNA

DNA, histones, and LexA protein

Cy3-labeled DNA LexA 8–27 (also used as FRET–FCS construct Cy3-1) was prepared exactly as described previously12 using a two-stage PCR procedure. The first stage incorporates a LexA consensus sequence (TACTGTATGAGCATACAGTA) into base pairs 8–27 of the 147-bp “601” nucleosome positioning sequence.12, 38, 39 The second stage incorporates the Cy3 dye into the 5′ end of base pair 1. A commercially synthesized 5′-Cy3-labeled primer is first purified away from an unlabeled primer and free Cy3 by

Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Poirier for help with data analysis, Daniel Grilley and Georgette Moyle for help with preliminary FCS experiments, the Keck Biophysics Facility and Biological Imaging Facility at Northwestern University for the use of instruments, and members of the Widom laboratory for discussions. J.W. acknowledges research support from the National Institutes of Health and the Morris Belkin Visiting Professorship at the Weizmann Institute of Science. H.S.T. acknowledges support from a

References (67)

  • PolachK.J. et al.

    A model for the cooperative binding of eukaryotic regulatory proteins to nucleosomal target sites

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1996)
  • VasheeS. et al.

    Synergistic activation of transcription by physiologically unrelated transcription factors through cooperative DNA-binding

    Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.

    (1998)
  • PolachK.J. et al.

    Restriction enzymes as probes of nucleosome stability and dynamics

    Methods Enzymol.

    (1999)
  • ThåströmA. et al.

    Nucleosomal locations of dominant DNA sequence motifs for histone–DNA interactions and nucleosome positioning

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (2004)
  • LowaryP.T. et al.

    New DNA sequence rules for high affinity binding to histone octamer and sequence-directed nucleosome positioning

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1998)
  • ThåströmA. et al.

    Sequence motifs and free energies of selected natural and non-natural nucleosome positioning DNA sequences

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1999)
  • KwonJ. et al.

    Accessibility of nucleosomal DNA to V(D)J cleavage is modulated by RSS positioning and HMG1

    Mol. Cell

    (1998)
  • LugerK. et al.

    Preparation of nucleosome core particle from recombinant histones

    Methods Enzymol.

    (1999)
  • TimsH.S. et al.

    Stopped-flow fluorescence resonance energy transfer for analysis of nucleosome dynamics

    Methods

    (2007)
  • ThåströmA. et al.

    Measurement of histone–DNA interaction free energy in nucleosomes

    Methods

    (2004)
  • GansenA. et al.

    Single-pair fluorescence resonance energy transfer of nucleosomes in free diffusion: optimizing stability and resolution of subpopulations

    Anal. Biochem.

    (2007)
  • RichmondT.J. et al.

    The structure of DNA in the nucleosome core

    Nature

    (2003)
  • ClapierC. et al.

    The biology of chromatin remodeling complexes

    Annu. Rev. Biochem.

    (2009)
  • NgH.H. et al.

    Genome-wide location and regulated recruitment of the RSC nucleosome–remodeling complex

    Genes Dev.

    (2002)
  • LeeW. et al.

    A High-resolution atlas of nucleosome occupancy in yeast

    Nat. Genet.

    (2007)
  • FieldY. et al.

    Distinct modes of regulation by chromatin encoded through nucleosome positioning signals

    PLoS Comput. Biol.

    (2008)
  • MavrichT.N. et al.

    A barrier nucleosome model for statistical positioning of nucleosomes throughout the yeast genome

    Genome Res.

    (2008)
  • KaplanN. et al.

    The DNA-encoded nucleosome organization of a eukaryotic genome

    Nature

    (2009)
  • LiG. et al.

    Nucleosomes facilitate their own invasion

    Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.

    (2004)
  • AndersonJ.D. et al.

    Spontaneous access of proteins to buried nucleosomal DNA target sites occurs via a mechanism that is distinct from nucleosome translocation

    Mol. Cell. Biol.

    (2002)
  • LiG. et al.

    Rapid spontaneous accessibility of nucleosomal DNA

    Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.

    (2005)
  • GansenA. et al.

    Nucleosome disassembly intermediates characterized by single-molecule FRET

    Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA

    (2009)
  • PoirierM. et al.

    Dynamics and function of compact nucleosome arrays

    Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.

    (2009)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text