PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Biochemistry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 21.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3430380
NIHMSID: NIHMS400182

The bZIP dimer localizes at DNA full-sites where each basic region can alternately translocate and bind to subsites at the half-site

Abstract

Crystal structures of the GCN4 bZIP (basic region/leucine zipper) with the AP-1 or CRE site show how each GCN4 basic region binds to a 4-bp cognate half-site as a single DNA target; however, this may not always fully describe how bZIP proteins interact with their target sites. Previously, we showed that the GCN4 basic region interacts with all 5 bp in half-site TTGCG (termed 5H-LR), and that 5H-LR comprises two 4-bp subsites, TTGC and TGCG, which individually are also target sites of the basic region. In this work, we explored how the basic region interacts with 5H-LR when the bZIP dimer localizes to full-sites. Using AMBER molecular modeling, we simulated GCN4 bZIP complexes with full-sites containing 5H-LR to investigate in silico the interface between the basic region and 5H-LR. We also performed in vitro investigation of bZIP–DNA interactions at a number of full-sites that contain 5H-LR vs. either subsite: we analyzed results from DNase I footprinting and electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) and from EMSA titrations to quantify binding affinities. Our computational and experimental results together support a highly dynamic DNA-binding model: when a bZIP dimer localizes to its target full-site, the basic region can alternately recognize either subsite as a distinct target at 5H-LR and translocate between the subsites, potentially by sliding and hopping. This model provides added insights into how α-helical DNA-binding domains of transcription factors can localize to their gene regulatory sequences in vivo.

Transcription factors use their DNA-binding domains to search for and localize to their cognate gene regulatory sequences to govern gene expression. During search, these domains translocate along genomic DNA, and the protein–DNA interactions are mostly nonspecific. During localization, however, the same domains contact their cognate target sites, and the interactions are sequence-specific. The processes of search and localization, as well as transition between them, are not well-understood.1 We therefore explored sequence-selective (sub-specific) interactions between DNA-binding domains and noncognate target sites. Research on such protein–DNA interactions can provide further understanding of how the same DNA-binding domains execute the coupled search and localization tasks in vivo.

At these regulatory sequences, DNA-binding domains of basic region/leucine zipper (bZIP) transcription factors, such as yeast GCN4, bind to DNA as a dimer of short, continuous α-helices (~60/residues).2 The bZIP motif is the simplest structure used by transcription factors to contact specific DNA sequences. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the mechanisms that such a simple structure can use to interact with DNA target sites will facilitate research on artificial transcription factors and more complicated DNA/binding proteins.

Each bZIP α-helix comprises a C-terminal leucine zipper for dimerization and N/terminal basic region for DNA binding (for a review, see ref. 2). McKnight and coworkers exchanged leucine zippers between bZIP proteins GCN4 and C/EBP (CCAAT/enhancer binding protein), and showed that sequence selectivity for DNA binding follows the basic regions.3 The GCN4 bZIP dimer targets cognate full-site AP-1 (7/bp TGACTCA), while the basic region binds to 4-bp cognate half-site TGA(C/G).4 The GCN4 bZIP also targets the CRE site (8-bp TGACGTCA), which differs from AP-1 by one central bp.5,6 Crystal structures of this bZIP with AP-1 or CRE show that each basic region makes a static set of base-specific contacts with 4-bp TGA(C/G),4/6 indicating that the basic region recognizes the 4-bp cognate half-site as a single DNA target.

However, this may not always fully describe how bZIP proteins interact with their target sites. We studied sequence-selective bZIP–DNA interactions to explore how bZIP proteins search for and localize to their target sites. Consequently, we found that 4-bp TTGC and TGCG are noncognate target sites of the GCN4 basic region and can overlap to give 5-bp TTGCG.7,8 Therefore, we named 4-bp TTGC as “L” (left) and TGCG as “R” (right), the 5’ and 3’ subsites of 5-bp TTGCG, respectively; we termed this 5-bp sequence “5H/LR” as a 5-bp hybrid of subsites L and R. Additionally, the basic region exhibited ≥10/fold higher affinity at 5H-LR than that at either L or R.8 This indicates that the basic region interacts with 5-bp TTGCG at 5H-LR, not just with L or R. Hence, 5H-LR acts as an overall half-site. Not only is 5H-LR 1-bp longer than the 4-bp cognate half-site, but it contains two 4-bp subsites which are also target sites of the same basic region. We hence surmised that the basic region may not recognize 5H-LR as a single DNA target.

When the bZIP dimer localizes to full-sites, how does the basic region interact with 5H-LR? We explored the answer in this work. First, we examined whether the basic region recognizes 5H-LR always as a single target, or recognizes either subsite as part of its interaction with 5H-LR. If the latter is possible, how would it be achieved? We examined the following possibilities. Would the basic region bind to either subsite followed by complete dissociation from DNA, resulting in a mixture of some GCN4 basic regions specifically contacting subsite L and others contacting subsite R? Would the basic region be mobile along 5H-LR and thus recognize the subsites alternately?

If the second situation is possible, the basic region must translocate between subsites, given that their positions differ by 1 bp. Solution electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) studies show that the GCN4 basic region exhibits backbone mobility even when bound to the cognate AP-1 site9; this suggests the possibility that the basic region can be mobile along 5H-LR. DNA- binding proteins also exhibit mobility by translocating along genomic DNA during target-site search.10 There are four mechanisms for rapid protein translocation along DNA11: (i) sliding – diffusion along DNA without dissociation, (ii) hopping – dissociation and reassociation between closely spaced DNA segments, (iii) jumping – dissociation from DNA and rebinding to a distant DNA segment, and (iv) intersegment transfer – moving between two segments brought close by looped DNA. These mechanisms have been exhibited by various proteins and captured in vitro by a variety of techniques; e.g., sliding of protein β clamp by fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)12 and hopping of human DNA repair factor RAD54 by atomic force microscopy (AFM).13 Sliding and hopping are relevant to closely spaced DNA segments. Therefore, we examined the possibility that the basic region slides or hops to translocate between 5H-LR's subsites.

We performed in silico and in vitro studies on how the basic region interacts with 5H-LR. The native GCN4 bZIP used for in silico studies and chimeric wt bZIP used for in vitro studies both contain the GCN4 basic region, but dimerize via the GCN4 or C/EBP leucine zipper, respectively (Figure 1). We previously generated this chimeric bZIP protein and termed it the wt bZIP (“wild-type”), which contains the wild-type GCN4 basic region, to compare with our engineered mutant proteins. We showed that the wt bZIP exhibits the function and structure of the GCN4 bZIP, regardless of zippers7,14,15; therefore, we expected the GCN4 bZIP and wt bZIP to make identical interactions with 5H-LR. The in silico studies included AMBER (Assisted Model Building with Energy Refinement) simulations to obtain snapshots of the interface between the basic region and 5H-LR to analyze DNA sequences recognized by the basic region. The in vitro studies examined DNA-binding affinities of the wt bZIP at full-site C/EBP (eponymous cognate target of the C/EBP bZIP; this site comprises two copies of 5H-LR), half-site 5H-LR, subsites L and R, and derivative target sites (Figure 2); we used DNase I footprinting and electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) to evaluate sequence-selective DNA-binding, and EMSA titrations to determine Kd values of bZIP–DNA complexes. These data were analyzed to explore how the basic region interacts with subsites in 5H-LR and the possibility of basic-region sliding and hopping. Our results provide added insights into how α-helical proteins localize to their target sites and transit between target-site search and localization in vivo.

Figure 1
Protein sequences. Basic regions are in bold with leucine zippers underlined. (A) The native GCN4 bZIP (residues 226-281).49 (B) The wt bZIP: the GCN4 basic region (residues 226-252) fused to C/EBP leucine zipper (residues 310-338).14 N-terminal Met of ...
Figure 2
DNA sequences. Core target sequences are in bold with inserted sequences underlined. (A) Sequences used in DNase I footprinting analysis. Only the core target site and surrounding flanking sequences from each DNA duplex are shown. The flanking sequences ...

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

In Silico Studies – Molecular Modeling

We used AMBER software (version 9) and force field ff99SB, and performed energy minimization to obtain snapshots of GCN4 bZIP complexes with the C/EBP or C/EBP-1 site. The force field was chosen due to its improved protein backbone parameters suitable for simulations of α-helical proteins.16 For every simulation, a truncated octahedral unit cell, with an 8.00 Å buffer between the solute and box edge, was solvated with explicit TIP3P water. Na+ ions were added to achieve neutrality.17 The simulations were conducted in 20,000 steps, performed using a 9.00 Å cut-off on real-space interactions, and run on four nodes at the Center for Molecular Design and Preformulations (CMDP), University Health Network (Toronto, ON), on a SGI Onyx 3800 supercomputing system. The distances were calculated using Coot (crystallographic object-oriented toolkit) software.18 The images of the energy-minimized complexes were documented using VMD (Visual Molecular Dynamics) software.19 All atom locants were documented using IUPAC nomenclature (Greek superscript letters), after transcription from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) and modeling files (upper-case Roman letters): e.g., Nδ2 = ND2. See Section S1, Supporting Information, for additional details of the simulations.

For our control experiments, 1YSA4 and 1DGC5 (crystal structures of the GCN4 bZIP with the AP-1 and CRE sites, respectively) from the PDB were simulated to obtain energy- minimized complexes 1YSAem and 1DGCem. 1YSA and 1DGC both contain the GCN4 bZIP, residues 226-281 (Figure 1A), with N-terminal MK residues in 1YSA only. See Figure 2 for DNA sequences. See Section S1.2, Supporting Information, for examination of control experiments.

To create α1 and β1, initial structures of the GCN4 bZIP with the C/EBP and C/EBP-1 sites, respectively, we used the “simple mutate” function in Coot to modify the bases of the AP-1 duplex in energy-minimized 1YSAem to match those of the C/EBP and C/EBP-1 duplexes (Figure 2C); the remainder of 1YSAem was unchanged. Initial structures α1 and β1 were simulated to obtain energy-minimized α1-em and β1-em, the first snapshots of the GCN4 bZIP complexes with C/EBP and C/EBP-1, respectively.

In addition to this “direct” approach to obtain snapshots α1-em and β1-em, we pursued a “reverse” approach to obtain additional snapshots of the same complexes. We utilized α1-em and restrained four distances using the “makeDIST_RST” function in AMBER: distances from Nδ2 of Asn235 in BRA and BRB (basic regions in the left and right halves, respectively, of the bZIP–DNA complex) to O4 of the T4 and T18 bases, respectively, were restrained to 2.30-2.80 Å; while distances from Nδ2 of Asn235 in BRA and BRB to O4 of the T5 and T19 bases, respectively, were restrained to 5.00-5.50 Å (Table S2). These distance settings were based on those from Nδ2 of Asn235 in BRA to O4 of the T4 and T5 bases in the left half of α1-em. This simulation was run for 20,000 steps, without periodic boundary conditions and with a distance-dependent dielectric (option eedmeth = 5), to create initial structure α2 (with C/EBP). These distance restraints made α2 different from α1 (see analysis and comparison of initial structures α1 and α2 in Section S1.1, Supporting Information). To create initial structure β2 (with C/EBP-1), we modified DNA bases 11 and 18 of α2 (Figure 2C); α2 and β2 were otherwise identical. We simulated α2 and β2 to obtain energy-minimized α2-em and β2-em (second snapshots of the complexes with C/EBP and C/EBP-1, respectively), using the same conditions as those used to give 1YSAem, 1DGCem, α1-em, and β1-em. Unlike the α2 simulation, these simulations were performed without any distance restraints.

In Vitro Studies

Protocols for our in vitro studies have been previously published. See ref. 20 for production of the e-wt bZIP. See ref. 21 for purification of e- and s-wt bZIP by reversed-phase HPLC and verification by ESI-MS. See ref. 21 for protocols of DNase I footprinting analysis and EMSA. See ref. 8 for determination of dimeric Kd values. Section S5, Supporting Information, provides a brief summary of these protocols.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In Silico Studies via Molecular Modeling of GCN4–DNA Complexes

To examine how the GCN4 basic region interacts with the 5H-LR half-site, we first examined whether the basic region recognizes 5H-LR solely as a single DNA target, or recognizes either subsite L or R as part of its interaction with 5H-LR. We therefore explored the interface between the basic region and 5H-LR by analyzing snapshots of the interface from the simulated GCN4 bZIP complexes with the C/EBP or C/EBP-1 site.

We generated these complexes via AMBER energy minimization, using initial structures based on the crystal structure of the GCN4 bZIP with the AP-1 site (1YSA4). The C/EBP site comprises two 5H-LR half-sites (Figure 2). A single-bp mutation at the 3’ end of the C/EBP site gives C/EBP-1; thus, the C/EBP and C/EBP-1 duplexes differ only at bases 11 and 18 (Figure 2C). As a result, the C/EBP-1 site comprises one 5H-LR and one R sequence, which are in the same positions as they are in the C/EBP site. We performed energy minimization on crystal structures 1YSA4 and 1DGC5 (the GCN4 bZIP with the CRE site) to obtain 1YSAem and 1DGCem for control experiments (see Section S1.2, Supporting Information, for examination of control experiments). We generated energy-minimized α1-em and α2-em, which are two different snapshots of the complex with C/EBP, as well as β1-em and β2-em, which are two different snapshots of the complex with C/EBP-1 (Figures 3 and S1; different snapshots were generated via different approaches), to explore the interface between the basic region and 5H-LR.

Figure 3
Direct H-bonds indicate DNA sequences recognized by the basic regions in (A) α1-em and α2-em, different snapshots of the GCN4 complex with the C/EBP site, (B) β1-em and β2-em, different snapshots of the GCN4 complex with ...

In snapshots α1-em, α2-em, β1-em, and β2-em, the GCN4 bZIP appeared as a dimer of continuous α-helices (Figures 3 and S1), as it does in crystal structure 1YSA (with AP-1). The similar bZIP α-helical structures shown by snapshots α1-em and α2-em (both with C/EBP) and crystal structure 1YSA are consistent with the finding that the wt bZIP exhibited similar helicities at C/EBP and AP-1 (65% and 74%, respectively), as shown by the circular dichroism (CD) study presented in an earlier work.7 This indicates that the GCN4 basic region uses similar conformation to interact with 5H-LR (in C/EBP) and the cognate half-site (in AP-1). Therefore, we further explored the contacts, specifically direct hydrogen bonds (H-bonds), between the basic region and 5H-LR in the snapshots with C/EBP or C/EBP-1.

We explored direct H-bonds for two reasons. First, in the GCN4–DNA crystal structures, 9 of the 12 or 13 DNA-binding residues of the basic regions make direct H-bonds with DNA.4-6 Hence, direct H-bonds at the GCN4–DNA interface collectively provide significant representation of the interactions between the basic regions and DNA in each snapshot. Second, direct H-bonds made by Nδ2 of Asn235 and by Nη2 of Arg243 with DNA indicate the 5’ and 3’ ends, respectively, of the DNA sequences recognized by the basic region. View the left half of crystal structure 1DGC as an example: Nδ2 of Asn235 and Nη2 of Arg243 each donates a H-bond to the 5’ and 3’ ends of 4-bp TGAC, respectively (Figure 3); BRA (basic region in the left half of the complex) makes no direct H-bond that is base-specific beyond these two ends, indicating that BRA recognizes 4-bp TGAC. Likewise, BRB (basic region in the right half of the complex recognizes 4-bp TGAC in the left half of the same crystal structure. Similar analyses also show that each basic region recognizes a cognate half-site, 4-bp TGA(C/G), in crystal structures 1YSA4 and 2DGC6 (also the GCN4 bZIP with CRE).

We omitted other intermolecular interactions from our analyses for the following reasons. Including water-mediated H-bonds made by Lys231 and Asn235 expands the recognized DNA sequence from 4-bp TGA(C/G) to 5-bp ATGA(C/G). However, Lys231 and Asn235 contact this additional bp inconsistently: Lys231 from BRA does not contact this bp in 1YSA,4 whereas BRA and BRB use Lys231 to contact the DNA backbone at this bp in 1DGC,5 but use Asn235 to make base-specific contact to this bp in 2DGC.6 Moreover, although this bp is preferred by the GCN4 bZIP, it is not highly conserved, and therefore not considered part of the core target sequence.22 Hence, we did not include water-mediated H-bonds in the analyses to find the recognized DNA sequence (although the complexes were simulated with TIP3P water). We also did not include van der Waals interactions, because they are not helpful in distinguishing the ends of sequences recognized by the basic region in the GCN4–DNA crystal structures.4-6

Not only did we explore where H-bonds occur in snapshots α1-em, α2-em, β1-em, and β2-em, but as shown in later discussion, we also compared distances between the same H-bonding pairs among these four snapshots to explore atomic displacements, which can suggest mobility of these atoms at the GCN4–DNA interfaces. Therefore, rather than detecting H-bonds directly, we used <3.00 Å distance between an H-bond donor and acceptor to indicate a direct H-bond.

We found that the same 9 basic-region residues made direct H-bonds with DNA not only in snapshots α1-em, α2-em, β1-em, and β2-em, but also in the GCN4–DNA crystal structures: Arg232, Arg234, Asn235, Thr236, Arg240, Arg241, Ser242, Arg243, and Arg245 (Tables S5 and S6). This finding indicates that the basic region uses the same residues to interact with 5H-LR and the cognate half-sites.

In the following section, we analyzed the DNA sequence recognized by each basic region in snapshots α1-em, α2-em , β1-em, and β2-em. We used direct H-bonds donated by Nδ2 of Asn235 and Nη2 of Arg243 to indicate the ends of the recognized DNA sequences. We used these two H- bond donors because Asn235 and Arg243 are the only residues that make direct H-bonds to the DNA bases; all other DNA-binding residues made direct H-bonds to the DNA backbone only (Tables S5 and S6). Also, the same H-bond donors were used in the above discussion to indicate that each basic region recognizes the 4-bp cognate half-site, in the GCN4–DNA crystal structures [1DGC (Figure 3), 2DGC, and 1YSA].4-6 In this way, we examined whether the basic region recognizes 5H-LR solely as a single DNA target, or recognizes either subsite as part of its interaction with 5H-LR.

DNA Sequences Recognized in Snapshots of the GCN4 bZIP Complex with the C/EBP or C/EBP-1 Site

We examined snapshots α1-em and α2-em of the complex with C/EBP, whose left and right halves each contained 5H-LR. These snapshots differed in their initial structures: BRB recognized 4-bp subsite R in α1 vs. 5-bp 5H-LR in α2, respectively (see analysis of α1 vs. α2 in Section S1.1, Supporting Information). In the left halves of both snapshots, BRA recognized 4-bp subsite L but not 5-bp 5H-LR, as indicated by H-bonds made by Nδ2 of Asn235 and Nη2 of Arg243 (Figure 3). In the right halves of both snapshots, Nη2 of Arg243 from BRB contacted the 3’ end of 5H-LR when Nδ2 of Asn235 was situated between the two 5’-end base pairs, but Nδ2 of Asn235 did not reach the 5’ end of 5H-LR. We found that no basic region recognized the full length of 5H-LR in snapshots α1-em and α2-em.

We also examined snapshots β1-em and β2-em of the complex with C/EBP-1. The left half of each snapshot contained 5H-LR, but BRA recognized only 4-bp subsite L (Figure 3). Thus, we found that BRA did not recognize the full length of 5H-LR in snapshots β1-em and β2-em.

These results from snapshots α1-em, α2-em, β1-em, and β2-em suggest that the basic region can recognize 4-bp subsite L as a distinct target at 5H-LR. Moreover, the right half of the complex with C/EBP-1 contained one R sequence. BRB recognized this R sequence in snapshot β1-em (Figure 3); also, Nδ2 of Asn235 and Nη2 of Arg243 from BRB in snapshots β1-em and β2-em exhibited a very similar H-bonding pattern. Beyond this R sequence, BRB established direct H-bonds only to the DNA backbone, but not to DNA bases. These results suggest that the basic region can recognize 4-bp subsite R as a distinct target, regardless of neighboring base pairs, at 5H-LR. These analyses together suggest that the basic region does not recognize 5H-LR solely as a single target; these analyses offer no evidence for recognition of the full length of 5H- LR (i.e. recognition of both subsites simultaneously). However, our in silico analyses show that basic region can recognize subsites L and R individually as distinct targets in 5H-LR.

In Vitro Studies via DNase I Footprinting and EMSA

Our in silico analyses suggest that the GCN4 basic region can recognize the L and R subsites as distinct targets at 5H-LR. We performed in vitro studies to further examine this finding. Therefore, we explored the contribution of each subsite to the affinity between the basic region and 5H-LR by analyzing the change in bZIP–DNA affinity when each subsite is eliminated from C/EBP (contains two copies of 5H-LR; each 5H-LR contains one L and one R subsite): we examined the Kd values of the wt bZIP at subsites L and R, half-site 5H-LR, full-site C/EBP, and derivative target sites (Figures 2B and S3). We first investigated DNA-binding activities of the wt bZIP at these target sites using DNase I footprinting and EMSA to establish the DNA sequences contacted by each basic region.

We used the wt bZIP for two reasons. First, it contains the GCN4 basic region (Figure 1) and mimics the GCN4 bZIP in α-helical structure and DNA-binding function.7,14,15 We also examined the Kd values of the wt bZIP vs. GCN4 bZIP at the AP-1 and CRE sites, and at the cognate TGAC half-site, and found their DNA-binding functions to be comparable (Section S6.4, Supporting Information). Second, using the wt bZIP allows direct comparison with results reported in our previous work and obtained from the same proteins and techniques,7,8,21 including the e-wt bZIP for footprinting and e- and s-wt bZIPs for EMSA.

The derivative target sites are C/EBP-1, C/EBP-2, XRE1, Arnt E-box, AC, and AC-1. We made a single-bp T-A mutation to the 3’ end of the C/EBP site to generate C/EBP-1, which comprises one 5H-LR and one R sequence. We made the same mutation to each end of the C/EBP site to generate C/EBP-2, which comprises two R sequences. XRE1 contains one 5H-LR and one TCAC (Arnt E-box half-site), whereas Arnt E-box contains two copies of TCAC. The AC site comprises one TGAC (cognate half-site) and one 5H-LR. We made a single-bp T-A mutation to the 3’ end of the AC site to generate AC-1, which contains one TGAC and one R sequence. These T-A mutations result in C/EBP-1, C/EBP-2, and AC, which are still flanked by A/T base pairs (Figure 2B); A/T flanking bp are preferred by GCN4,23 utilized in the yeast his3 promoter region,22,24 and present in the GCN4–DNA crystal structures.4-6 All target sites used for Kd analyses are consistently flanked by A/T base pairs; hence, changes in Kd values of bZIP–DNA complexes directly relate to changes in target site sequences.

As shown previously by footprinting and EMSA,7,8,21 the wt bZIP achieves sequence-selective DNA binding at full-sites C/EBP, C/EBP-2, XRE1, and Arnt E-box; half-sites 5H-LR and Arnt E-box (TCAC); and individual L and R sequences (EMSA conditions were optimized to show sequence-selective DNA-binding by the wt bZIP; discussed in Section S6.4, Supporting Information). In this work, EMSA showed that the s-wt bZIP dimer bound to the AC, AC-1, and C/EBP-1 sites in a sequence-selective manner (Figure 4). We assayed other target sites for direct comparison, and observed that wt bZIP complexes with some target sites migrated slightly faster than others, potentially due to the basic region's interaction with 5H-LR differing from that at the cognate half-site (discussed in Section S2.2, Supporting Information). We also observed clear footprints of the e-wt bZIP at AC, AC-1, and C/EBP-1 (Figure S4; quantitative phosphorimaging in Figure S5). As with EMSA, the footprinting showed sequence-selective DNA binding of the wt bZIP at AC, AC-1, and C/EBP-1.

Figure 4
Qualitative EMSA analysis. This figure is from a single gel with additional lanes removed. Lane 1: free AP-1 DNA control. Lanes 2-13: DNA duplexes with μM s-wt bZIP. AP- 1 serves as the specific control for full-site DNA binding, and AP-1H24 for ...

We determined apparent dimeric Kd values of wt bZIP–DNA complexes by EMSA titrations with the s-wt bZIP (Tables 1 and S7). The net bound DNA fractions, Δθapp (Table S7), and representative binding isotherms (Figure S2) are given as qualitative references of the Kd values (see explanation of Δθapp in Section S5.4, Supporting Information).

Table 1
Dissociation Constants for the Synthetic wt bZIP in Complex with the C/EBP vs. Related Target Sites

By analyzing the results from footprinting and EMSA (Section S3, Supporting Information), we confirmed (i) no adventitious sequences targeted by the basic region in any DNA duplex used for Kd determination, and (ii) the DNA sequences contacted by each basic region within C/EBP, C/EBP-1, C/EBP-2, XRE1, Arnt E-box, AC, and AC-1. The contacted DNA sequences within these target sites are listed in Table 1, except those within AC and AC-1 are listed in Table S17. In the following sections, we analyzed the data presented in Table 1 to explore how the basic region contacts either subsite and interacts with 5-bp TTGCG at 5H-LR.

The GCN4 Basic Region Interacts with Both Subsites at 5H-LR

C/EBP-2 comprises two R sequences. The wt bZIP showed [dbl less than]5-fold stronger affinity at C/EBP-2 than at a single R sequence (Kd values at C/EBP-2 vs. subsite R, Table 1).8 This indicates that BRA and BRB of the wt bZIP dimer contact one R sequence each at C/EBP-2. Furthermore, C/EBP-1 comprises one 5H-LR and one R sequence. The wt bZIP showed ≥5-fold stronger affinity at C/EBP-1 than at either 5H-LR or a single R sequence. Therefore, BRA interacts with 5H-LR at C/EBP-1 when BRB contacts one R sequence.

The wt bZIP at C/EBP-1 or C/EBP-2 differs in that BRA interacts with 5H-LR (comprising L and R) at C/EBP-1, but contacts only one R sequence at C/EBP-2 (Table 1). The wt bZIP also exhibited 8-fold stronger affinity at C/EBP-1 than at C/EBP-2. This indicates that BRA contacts not only subsite R at C/EBP-1, as it does at C/EBP-2, but also subsite L. These analyses together show how the wt bZIP interacts with C/EBP-1: BRA interacts with both subsites at 5H-LR, and BRB contacts one R sequence.

Arnt E-box comprises two copies of TCAC (Table 1). The wt bZIP exhibited ~30-fold stronger affinity at Arnt E-box than at a single TCAC (Kd values at the Arnt E-box vs. Arnt E-box half-site, Table 1).8 This indicates that BRA and BRB contact TCAC each at Arnt E-box. Moreover, XRE1 contains one 5H-LR and one TCAC. The wt bZIP exhibited ≥20-fold stronger affinity at XRE1 than at either 5H-LR or TCAC. Hence, BRA interacts with 5H-LR at XRE1 when BRB contacts TCAC.

The wt bZIP at XRE1 or Arnt E-box differs in that BRA interacts with 5H-LR (comprising L and R) at XRE1, but contacts TCAC at Arnt E-box (Table 1); L and TCAC are thermodynamically equivalent (they exhibited same Δθapp values, and thus same affinities, for the wt bZIP, Table S7; also, in silico results showed that the GCN4 basic region at L makes base- specific H-bonds only to the end base pairs, which are the same in TCAC). The wt bZIP also exhibited 6-fold stronger affinity at XRE1 than at Arnt E-box. This indicates that BRA contacts not only subsite L at XRE1, which is thermodynamically equivalent to contacting TCAC at Arnt E-box, but also contacts subsite R. These analyses together show how the wt bZIP interacts with XRE1: BRA interacts with both subsites at 5H-LR, and BRB contacts TCAC.

The wt bZIP at C/EBP, C/EBP-1, or XRE1 differs in that BRB interacts with 5H-LR (comprising L and R) at C/EBP, but contacts one R sequence at C/EBP-1, or TCAC (equivalent to L) at XRE1. The wt bZIP also exhibited 16- or 4-fold stronger affinity at C/EBP than at C/EBP-1 or XRE1. This indicates that BRB interacts with both L and R subsites at 5H-LR. These analyses together show how the wt bZIP interacts with C/EBP: BRA and BRB each interact with both subsites at 5H-LR.

During these Kd analyses, we found that one subsite in the absence or presence of the other subsite enhances the DNA-binding affinity of the wt bZIP to the same degree, as shown in the following. The wt bZIP exhibited 5-fold stronger affinity at C/EBP-1 than at 5H-LR (Table 1); these two sites differ in that BRB contacts one R sequence at C/EBP-1, but nonspecific DNA at 5H-LR. This shows that BRB's affinity is enhanced due to interaction with this R by 5-fold from nonspecific DNA binding. The wt bZIP exhibited 4-fold stronger affinity at C/EBP than at XRE1; these two sites differ in that BRB interacts with both L and R subsites at C/EBP, but contacts TCAC (equivalent to L) at XRE1. This shows that BRB's affinity was enhanced due to interaction with subsite R by 4-fold from binding to only subsite L, similar to the 5-fold increase from nonspecific DNA binding.

Similarly, the wt bZIP exhibited 20-fold stronger affinity at XRE1 than at 5H-LR; BRB contacts TCAC (equivalent to L) at XRE1, but contacts nonspecific DNA at 5H-LR (Table 1). The wt bZIP exhibited 16-fold stronger affinity at C/EBP than at C/EBP-1; BRB interacts with both L and R subsites at C/EBP, but contacts R only at C/EBP-1. These comparisons show that BRB's affinity was enhanced due to interaction with subsite L by 20-fold from nonspecific DNA binding, similar to the 16-fold increase from binding to only subsite R. These analyses show that each subsite enhances the DNA-binding affinity of the wt bZIP, independently from the other subsite. This in vitro finding supports the same conclusion from our in silico studies: the basic region recognized either subsite as distinct targets at 5H-LR.

The GCN4 Basic Region Interacts with Either Subsite Individually at 5H-LR

Both in vitro and in silico results suggest that the basic region recognizes either subsite individually at 5H-LR. Our in vitro results also show that the basic region interacts with both subsites at 5H-LR. How does the basic region recognize either subsite but interact with both at 5H-LR? We considered two possibilities. Would the basic region bind to either subsite until it dissociates from 5H-LR, or would the basic region be mobile along 5H-LR and contact the subsites alternately?

We examined the first possibility, which results in a mixture of two populations: some GCN4 basic regions could specifically contact only subsite L, and others specifically contact only subsite R, until they dissociate from 5H-LR. If this is the case, the apparent affinity between the basic region and 5H-LR would lie between the affinities at individual L or R sequences. In fact, the wt bZIP exhibited ≥10-fold stronger half-site binding affinity at 5H-LR than at either L or R sequences (Table 1), as shown in our previous work.8 Also, C/EBP and C/EBP-1 differ by a subsite L; C/EBP contains this L subsite, which increases the wt bZIP's affinity by 16-fold. C/EBP and XRE1 differ by a subsite R essentially (L and TCAC are thermodynamic equivalent); C/EBP contains this R subsite, which enhances the wt bZIP's affinity by 4-fold. By comparison, C/EBP and 5H-LR differ by one additional copy of 5H-LR; C/EBP contains this 5H-LR, which increases the wt bZIP's affinity by 70-fold.

These results demonstrate that the affinity between the basic region and 5H-LR is much higher than that at either subsite. These results do not negate the possibility that the basic region can dissociate from one subsite and reassociate with the other at 5H-LR. However, these results show that the basic region binding to either subsite until dissociation from 5H-LR does not sufficiently explain how the basic region interacts with 5H-LR.

If the basic region is mobile along 5H-LR, Nδ2 of Asn235, which contacts the 5’ end of DNA sequences recognized by the basic region, not only would contact the 5’ ends of subsite L or R of 5H-LR, but would also appear between subsite L's and R's 5’ ends. We observed this from snapshots α1-em, α2-em, β1-em, and β2-em: Nδ2 of Asn235 (i) contacted the 5’ end of subsite L in the left halves of snapshots α1-em, α2-em, β1-em, and β2-em, (ii) contacted the 5’ end of subsite R in the right half of snapshot β1-em, and (iii) was at similar distances from O4 of T18 and T19 (Figure 3), which shows that this Nδ2 was situated between the 5’ ends of subsites L and R of 5H-LR in the right halves of snapshots α1-em and α2-em. These results suggest that Nδ2 of Asn235 may be mobile along 5H-LR.

Additionally, we examined the following distances between backbone atoms of Asn235 of BRB and T19 of the C/EBP site in α1-em vs. α2-em: (i) distances from N of the Asn235 backbone to C of the T19 backbone were 11.00 vs. 11.46 Å, and (ii) distances from the same N atom to P of the T19 backbone were 12.07 vs. 12.84 Å. We also found that distances between the centers-of- mass of Asn235 and T19 were 9.52 Å in α1-em vs. 9.94 Å in α2-em. Distance variations indicate displacements of the backbone and centers-of-mass of Asn235 against T19. These results suggest that Asn235 may be mobile along 5H-LR.

If the basic region is mobile along 5H-LR, the pattern of direct H-bonds made by the basic region with either subsite or with 5H-LR must be changeable. In fact, we found that the pattern differs between snapshots α1-em and α2-em (GCN4 bZIP complex with C/EBP), and between snapshots β1-em and β2-em (GCN4 bZIP complex with C/EBP-1): the left halves of α1-em and α2-em differ by 4 H-bonds, and their right halves by 8 H-bonds (Table 2); the left halves of β1-em and β2-em differ by 12 H-bonds (Table S5) and their right halves by 9 H-bonds (Table S6). These results contradict a single set of contacts, as observed between the GCN4 bZIP and DNA in the GCN4–DNA crystal structures.4-6 Moreover, we compared direct H-bonds at the GCN4– DNA interface in crystal structures 1YSA and 1DGC4,5vs. in their energy-minimized complexes 1YSAem and 1DGCem as control experiments; we found that the H-bonds were maintained after energy minimization in both cases, as shown in Section S1.2, Supporting Information. These results suggest that the pattern of direct H-bonds made by the basic region with either subsite or with 5H-LR is variable, which suggests mobility of the basic region along 5H-LR.

Table 2
Different H-Bonding in α1-em vs. α2-em a

We also found distance variations between the same H-bonding pairs at the GCN4–DNA interfaces in α1-em vs. α2-em, and in β1-em vs. β2-em (Tables S5 and S6). The distance variations indicate displacements of H-bonding atoms, and therefore suggest mobility of these atoms at the GCN4–DNA interfaces. Mobility of these atoms at the interfaces also suggests mobility of the basic region along 5H-LR.

Translocation of the GCN4 Basic Region between Subsites

Our in vitro and in silico results together suggest the mobility of the GCN4 basic region along 5H-LR and thus suggest the possibility for the basic region to recognize the L and R subsites alternately. The basic region must translocate between the subsites to recognize them alternately, given that their positions differ by 1 bp. How is this accomplished?

In fact, DNA-binding proteins translocate along DNA through the genome to search for their target sites. Adam and Delbruck in 1968 formulated a two-stage process: proteins first reach a genomic DNA segment via random diffusion, and then translocate along DNA; the second stage reduces dimensionality and thus accelerates target-site search.25 Riggs et al. in 1970 reported that Lac repressor accomplishes target-site search about two orders of magnitude faster than random diffusion.26 In 1981, Berg et al. developed mathematical descriptions of four mechanisms for rapid protein translocation along DNA: sliding, hopping, jumping, and intersegment transfer.10,11,27-29 Among these, sliding and hopping are relevant to closely spaced DNA segments, and therefore, relevant to the L and R subsites in 5H-LR.

The sliding mechanism has been studied using various proteins, including transcription factors30 (for a review, see ref. 31). The sliding motion has been captured in vitro by a variety of techniques including single-molecule AFM and FRET31; e.g., sliding of protein Ku was shown by EMSA.32 The hopping mechanism has also been explored using diverse proteins and captured by various techniques; e.g. hopping of the HoxD9 homeodomain was shown by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).33

The sliding and hopping mechanisms occur during target-site search. Transcription factors use the same DNA-binding domains to search for and then localize to their target sites. NMR studies of the HoxD9 homeodomain indicated that DNA-binding domains employ similar structures to both search for and bind to target sites.33 Similarly, CD studies presented in our previous work showed similar α-helicity in the wt bZIP in the presence of the C/EBP site and a nonspecific DNA sequence.7 This suggests that the GCN4 basic region can use similar structure, and thus the same protein surface and DNA-binding residues, to search for and bind to target sites. These similarities suggest the possibility for a basic region to alternate between spcific binding to its target site and sliding or hopping along DNA.

In fact, many proteins have shown target-site binding followed by sliding along flanking DNA segments, e.g. EcoRI methylase, RNA polymerase and Lac repressor (for a review, see ref. 34). For these proteins, dissociation from target sites has been found to be a two-step process: proteins slide onto DNA segments flanking the target sites and then dissociate into bulk solution, as shown by RNA polymerase.35 This is contrary to direct dissociation from target sites. This two-step process allows dissociation from target sites to be combined with an association mediated by the sliding mechanism. Nonspecific flanking DNA segments may also act as antennae to collect proteins for later binding to their target sites and may allow proteins to return to their target sites, permitting a transient secondary contact, further stabilizing complexes with target sites.34 Several studies have found that extending the length of this antenna increases affinity by trapping or attracting the proteins along the DNA duplex for later binding. Surby and Reich found that extending the DNA duplex length from 14 bp to 775 bp, thus raising the sliding length, increased target-site affinity by 20-fold for EcoRI methylase.36,37 Similarly by extending the DNA duplex length from 36 bp to 50,000 bp, Khoury et al. observed 15-fold affinity increases for Lac repressor.38 These findings may explain how the sliding mechanism increases affinities between proteins and their target sites, and why we observed affinity increases when the GCN4 basic region interacts with 5H-LR.

We suggest this explanation because of the following. If the basic region only binds to and directly dissociates from individual L and R subsites, the affinity of the basic region at 5H- LR should lie between the affinities at either the L or R sequence. However, the wt bZIP exhibited ≥10-fold stronger half-site binding affinity at 5H-LR than at either the L or R sequence, as shown previously8 (Table 1); similar results were obtained when we analyzed above the Kd values at C/EBP vs. 5H-LR, C/EBP vs. C/EBP-1, and C/EBP vs. XRE1. These results suggest that other factors are involved in further increasing affinity of this interaction. We note that in the cases of EcoRI methylase and Lac repressor, proteins sliding onto nonspecific DNA, even with weak affinity at individual nonspecific DNA segments, exhibit much higher affinity at their target sites. However, in our case, the basic region translocates between subsites where the basic region already exhibits affinity higher than nonspecific DNA binding. The further enhanced affinity suggests that the basic region can slide between subsites, which increases overall affinity at 5H-LR.

Would the basic region also hop between subsites whose positions differ by 1 bp? Wunderlich and Mirny have discussed that for some proteins, the theoretical prediction indicates a median hopping distance of about 1 bp; such a short distance is within the observational limitations of various experimental techniques, and thus would be missed by single-molecule experiments.39 For this reason, the authors suggest that within such a short distance, hopping could be considered equivalent to sliding. Furthermore, Winter et al. estimated a 100-bp sliding length for Lac repressor before dissociation from DNA.27 In 5H-LR, the subsite positions only differ by 1 bp. This suggests that the basic region is likely to slide between subsites at 5H-LR.

A Highly Dynamic DNA-binding Model for the GCN4 Basic Region to Interact with 5H-LR

In this work, we explored how the GCN4 basic region interacts with the 5H-LR half-site. We investigated the interface between the basic region and 5H-LR by analyzing snapshots of the interface generated by AMBER simulation. We analyzed Kd values of wt bZIP complexes with target sites that contain 5H-LR vs. either subsite; we analyzed Kd differences to investigate how the L and R subsites contribute to affinity between the basic region and 5H-LR. The in vitro and in silico results offer the following insights into how the basic region interacts with 5H-LR.

Our results suggest that the basic region does not recognize 5H-LR solely as a single target site, but that it can recognize subsites individually as distinct targets at 5H-LR. The basic region may dissociate from one subsite and reassociate with the other at 5H-LR, and may translocate between the subsites, potentially by sliding and hopping. These results together suggest a highly dynamic DNA-binding model for the basic region to interact with 5H-LR.

Our results also show that when one basic region translocates along 5H-LR, the partner basic region can engage in various DNA binding activities: (i) at C/EBP, the partner basic region also interacts with 5H-LR in the same way; (ii) at C/EBP-1 and XRE1, the partner basic region engages in weak but sequence-selective DNA binding at the noncognate half-site; (iii) at AC, the partner basic region engages in strong and sequence-specific DNA binding at the cognate half- site; and (iv) at single 5H-LR, the partner basic region engages in nonspecific DNA binding. Therefore, the two basic regions of the bZIP dimer may behave as monomers because they can independently engage in different DNA-binding activities, including sliding along 5H-LR. Several in vitro studies have already supported the monomer pathway for dimeric proteins, including GCN4, to complex with DNA. In this pathway, monomers associate with target sites independently,40-43 as bZIP basic regions do, before dimerization at the target site. Our findings are consistent with the monomer pathway in explaining not only how basic regions associate with DNA, but also how they slide along DNA in vivo.

At C/EBP, C/EBP-1, XRE1 and AC, a basic region translocates along 5H-LR as its partner engages in various DNA binding activities. This will require flexibility in bZIP α-helical structure. To compare backbone motion in the DNA-bound vs. free GCN4 bZIP, Columbus and Hubbell placed nitroxide spin labels on the solvent-exposed surface of the GCN4 bZIP α-helix and performed solution EPR studies.9 Their EPR studies demonstrated that even when bound to cognate AP-1, the GCN4 basic region exhibited significant mobility in its backbone, although motion is reduced, compared to the free GCN4 bZIP. The EPR studies also suggested that axial twisting originating from the hinge between the basic region and leucine zipper could constitute a rigid-body axial rocking motion of the basic region. Such rocking may also permit a basic region to translocate between subsites. Therefore, the GCN4 bZIP dimer may use this highly dynamic model to tolerate differences in half-site spacing: e.g. in C/EBP, the two L subsites abut each other, a L subsite and a R subsite from the other copy of 5H-LR overlap by 1 bp, and the two R subsites overlap by 2 bp.

In addition, the EPR results are consistent with solution NMR studies performed on the GCN4 bZIP, which demonstrate that the basic region is highly dynamic.44,45 Interestingly, only the free GCN4 bZIP has been characterized by NMR, whereas high-resolution information about the bZIP–DNA complex has not been achieved by solution methods, but by X-ray crystallography.4-6 In their NMR studies, Palmer and coworkers observed that changes in conformational dynamics of the basic-region backbone occur upon binding to DNA and contribute favourably to the overall thermodynamics of complex formation.45 Likewise, we found that basic region translocation promotes binding affinity in the bZIP–DNA complex.

Aguado-Llera et al. found the structure of the basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) domain of human neurogenin 1 bound to the E-box to be “fuzzy”: the protein–DNA complex displayed flickering protein secondary structures and high protein mobility upon DNA binding. The authors suggested that fuzziness may be common for proteins binding to specific DNA sites.46 Similarly, Struhl and coworkers noted that an α-helical bZIP motif displays more structural flexibility than compact globular motifs do, and this allows a bZIP protein to bind different target sites, as described in their work with C/EBP and GCN4 bZIP derivatives.47 The authors also observed that bZIP proteins contain highly conserved residues responsible for sequence-specific bZIP–DNA complexation, yet bZIP proteins vary widely in their DNA sequence specificities. Johnson examined DNA recognition by GCN4-C/EBP basic-region hybrids, and also found conformational adaptability in DNA recognition by bZIP proteins, for several hybrids showed binding to both the AP-1 and C/EBP sites.48 Thus, the bZIP is a flexible and versatile motif for recognition of specific DNA sequences.

Our research shows a case of the basic region interacting with a half-site whose length is increased from 4 to 5 bp. This differs from the GCN4 basic region recognizing a 4-bp cognate half-site as a single target. The benefit of the basic region interacting with a longer half-site is the increase in sequence selectivity during its interaction with DNA. Remarkably, although the basic region interacts with a longer half-site, this does not lead to a longer full-site. CRE and cognate AP-1 are 8 and 7 bp in length, respectively, and the cognate half-sites are 4 bp. In contrast, the 5H-LR half-site is 5-bp in length. The basic region interacts with 5H-LR in 7-bp C/EBP-1, and 8-bp AC, C/EBP, and XRE1. The full-sites’ consistent length indicates that although the basic regions may interact with 5H-LR in a highly dynamic manner, the bZIP dimer localizes at the full-site. Therefore, if bZIP transcription factors use this highly dynamic DNA-binding model to interact with their gene regulatory sequence in vivo, bZIP transcription factors still can remain spatially functional at the DNA promoter.

Transcription factors in vivo use their DNA-binding domains to search for and localize to their cognate gene regulatory sequences to govern gene expression. During search, interactions between DNA-binding domains and genomic DNA are dominated by nonspecific interactions, including those between the negatively charged DNA phosphodiester backbone and positively charged protein side chains. As transcription factors reach their gene regulatory sequences, the protein–DNA interactions switch to sequence-specific interactions, which involve base-specific contacts including H-bonds and van der Waals forces. As discussed above, DNA-binding proteins can use a similar structure—and therefore the same protein surface and DNA-binding residues—to search for and bind to target sites.7,33 Therefore, the switch between target-site search and localization must involve transformation of the protein–DNA interface: breaking Coulombic, nonspecific interactions and establishing base-specific H-bonds for sequence- specific interactions. During this process, sequence-selective (sub-specific) interactions must take place; therefore, examination of such interactions can further our understanding of how transcription factors execute transition between the search and localization tasks in vivo. Here, we investigated such interactions between the GCN4 basic region and noncognate target sites.

DNA-binding proteins have been shown to use sliding along flanking DNA segments as a mechanism to find their target-sites, as discussed above (for a review, see ref. 34); these proteins have also been found to dissociate from their target sites by first sliding onto flanking DNA segments.35 These observations point to the possibility that these proteins can slide on and off their target sites in vivo. Similarly the basic region can slide on and off either subsite in our dynamic DNA-binding model. Our analysis above regarding the wt bZIP at C/EBP, C/EBP-1, XRE1, and AC sites suggests that for dimeric DNA-binding proteins, one DNA-binding domain can slide on and off its target site while the partner DNA-binding domain engages in various DNA-binding activities. We speculate that some transcription factors may use this dynamic DNA-binding model during their target-site search and localization tasks in vivo.

Conclusion

This work adds further understanding of how bZIP transcription factors interact with their cognate gene regulatory sequences in vivo. We accomplished this goal through in vitro and in silico studies on noncognate but sequence-selective DNA-binding by the bZIP domain of transcription factor GCN4. Our results show that the bZIP basic region may not always recognize a half-site as a single target: a half-site may comprise shorter subsites that the basic region can recognize individually. Our results suggest a highly dynamic DNA-binding model for bZIP transcription factors to interact with their target sites: in a case where a half-site comprises subsites, the basic region alternately recognizes the subsites as distinct targets by translocating between them via sliding and hopping. The basic region is mobile if using this model; however, the bZIP transcription factor is still localized to the cognate gene regulatory sequences with high specificity and affinity. This model may also be useful during transition from genomic target-site search to interaction between bZIP transcription factors and their cognate gene regulatory sequences. Although translocation between subsites was not directly observed and may be further investigated by NMR or EPR, this work provides evidence to support this DNA-binding model, and adds additional understanding of how bZIP transcription factors search for and localize to their cognate gene regulatory sequences.

Supplementary Material

1_si_001

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Ulrich Krull for providing access and funding for molecular modeling; Lakshmi Kotra, William Wei, and the AMBER community, especially Ross Walker and Mark Williamson, for advice on modeling; Alevtina Pavlenco for technical assistance; and Cherie Werhun for helpful discussions about writing the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (RO1GM069041), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation/Ontario Innovation Trust (CFI/OIT), the Premier's Research Excellence Award (PREA), and the University of Toronto.

ABBREVIATIONS

5H-LR
5-bp hybrid of subsites L and R
AC
hybrid of the AP-1 and C/EBP sites
AFM
atomic force microscopy
AMBER
Assisted Model Building with Energy Refinement
Arnt
aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator
bHLH
basic helix-loop-helix
bp
base pair
BRA
basic regions in the left half of the bZIP–DNA complex
BRB
basic regions in the right half of the bZIP–DNA complex
BSA
bovine serum albumin
bZIP
basic region/leucine zipper
CAII
bovine carbonic anhydrase II
CD
circular dichroism
C/EBP
CCAAT/enhancer binding protein
CMDP
Center for Molecular Design and Preformulations
Coot
Crystallographic Object-Oriented Toolkit
CRE
cAMP-response element
DTT
dithiothreitol
E-box
enhancer box
EDTA
ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid
EMSA
electrophoretic mobility shift assay
EPR
electron paramagnetic resonance
ESI-MS
electrospray ionization mass spectrometry
FRET
fluorescence resonance energy transfer
H-bond
hydrogen bond
HPLC
high-performance liquid chromatography
IHF
integration host factor
IUPAC
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
NMR
nuclear magnetic resonance
PAGE
polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
PDB
Protein Data Bank
SDS-PAGE
sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
T-leap
temperature leap
UV/Vis
ultraviolet/visible
VMD
Visual Molecular Dynamics
wt bZIP
wild-type bZIP
e-wt bZIP
bacterially expressed wt bZIP
s-wt bZIP
chemically synthesized wt bZIP
XRE1
xenobiotic response element 1
Kd
apparent dimeric dissociation constant
Δθapp
net bound DNA fraction

Footnotes

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

Supporting Information Available Additional details for molecular modeling, qualitative references of Kd values, target site analyses, analysis of the wt bZIP complex with the AC site, and summary of protocols of in vitro studies (PDF). This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

REFERENCES

1. Marcovitz A, Levy Y. Frustration in protein-DNA binding influences conformational switching and target search kinetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:17957–17962. [PubMed]
2. Hurst HC. Transcription factors 1 - bZIP proteins – introduction. Protein Profile. 1994;1:123–168. [PubMed]
3. Agre P, Johnson PF, McKnight SL. Cognate DNA binding specificity retained after leucine zipper exchange between GCN4 and C/EBP. Science. 1989;246:922–926. [PubMed]
4. Ellenberger TE, Brandl CJ, Struhl K, Harrison SC. The GCN4 basic region leucine zipper binds DNA as a dimer of uninterrupted α-helices: crystal structure of the protein–DNA complex. Cell. 1992;71:1223–1237. [PubMed]
5. König P, Richmond TJ. The X-ray structure of the GCN4-bZIP bound to ATF/CREB site DNA shows the complex depends on DNA flexibility. J. Mol. Biol. 1993;233:139–154. [PubMed]
6. Keller W, König P, Richmond TJ. Crystal structure of a bZIP–DNA complex at 2.2 Å: determinants of DNA specific recognition. J. Mol. Biol. 1995;254:657–667. [PubMed]
7. Chan I-S, Fedorova AV, Shin JA. The GCN4 bZIP targets noncognate gene regulatory sequences: quantitative investigation of binding at full and half sites. Biochemistry. 2007;46:1663–1671. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Chan I-S, Shahravan SH, Fedorova AV, Shin JA. The bZIP targets overlapping DNA subsites within a half-site resulting in increased binding affinities. Biochemistry. 2008;47:9646–9652. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Columbus L, Hubbell WL. Mapping backbone dynamics in solution with site-directed spin labeling: GCN4-58 bZIP free and bound to DNA. Biochemistry. 2004;43:7273–7287. [PubMed]
10. von Hippel PH, Berg OG. Facilitated targets location in biological systems. J. Biol. Chem. 1989;264:675–678. [PubMed]
11. Berg OG, Winter RB, von Hippel PH. Diffusion-driven mechanisms of protein translocation on nucleic acids. 1. Models and theory. Biochemistry. 1981;20:6929–6948. [PubMed]
12. Laurence TA, Kwon Y, Johnson A, Hollars CW, O'Donnell M, Camarero JA, Barsky D. Motion of a DNA sliding clamp observed by single molecule fluorescence spectroscopy. J. Biol. Chem. 2008;283:22895–22906. [PubMed]
13. Sanchez H, Suzuki Y, Yokokawa M, Takeyasu K, Wyman C. Protein-DNA interactions in high speed AFM: single molecule diffusion analysis of human RAD54. Integr. Biol. 2011;3:1127–1134. [PubMed]
14. Lajmi AR, Lovrencic ME, Wallace TR, Thomlinson RR, Shin JA. Minimalist, alanine-based, helical protein dimers bind to specific DNA sites. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000;122:5638–5639.
15. Bird GH, Lajmi AR, Shin JA. Sequence-specific recognition of DNA by hydrophobic, alanine-rich mutants of the basic region-leucine zipper motif investigated by fluorescence anisotropy. Biopolymers. 2002;65:10–20. [PubMed]
16. Hornak V, Abel R, Okur A, Strockbine B, Roitberg A, Simmerling C. Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters. Proteins. 2006;65:712–725. [PubMed]
17. Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, Impey RW, Klein ML. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 1983;79:926–935.
18. Emsley P, Cowtan K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D-Biol. Crystallogr. 2004;60:2126–2132. [PubMed]
19. Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: Visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graphics. 1996;14:33–38. [PubMed]
20. Lajmi AR, Wallace TR, Shin JA. Short, hydrophobic, alanine-based proteins based on the basic region/leucine zipper protein motif: overcoming inclusion body formation and protein aggregation during overexpression, purification, and renaturation. Protein Expr. Purif. 2000;18:394–403. [PubMed]
21. Fedorova AV, Chan I-S, Shin JA. The GCN4 bZIP can bind to noncognate gene regulatory sequences. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (Prot. Proteom.) 2006;1764:1252–1259. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Hill DE, Hope IA, Macke JP, Struhl K. Saturation mutagenesis of the yeast his3 regulatory site: requirements for transcriptional induction and for binding by GCN4 activator protein. Science. 1986;234:451–457. [PubMed]
23. Oliphant AR, Brandl CJ, Struhl K. Defining the sequence specificity of DNA-binding proteins by selecting binding sites from random-sequence oligonucleotides: analysis of yeast GCN4 protein. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1989;9:2944–2949. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Pu WT, Struhl K. Highly conserved residues in the bZIP domain of yeast GCN4 are not essential for DNA binding. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1991;11:4918–4926. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Adam G, Delbruck M. Reduction of Dimensionality in Biological Diffusion Processes. In: Rich A, Davidson N, editors. Structural Chemistry and Molecular Biology. W. H. Freeman and Co.; San Francisco: 1968. pp. 198–215.
26. Riggs AD, Bourgeois S, Cohn M. Lac Repressor-operator interaction. 3. Kinetic studies. J. Mol. Biol. 1970;53:401–417. [PubMed]
27. Winter RB, Berg OG, von Hippel PH. Diffusion-driven mechanisms of protein translocation on nucleic acids. 3. The Escherichia coli lac repressor-operator interaction: kinetic measurements and conclusions. Biochemistry. 1981;20:6961–6977. [PubMed]
28. Halford SE, Marko JF. How do site-specific DNA-binding proteins find their targets? Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:3040–3052. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Gorman J, Chowdhury A, Surtees JA, Shimada J, Reichman DR, Alani E, Greene EC. Dynamic basis for one-dimensional DNA scanning by the mismatch repair complex Msh2-Msh6. Mol. Cell. 2007;28:359–370. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Zakrzewska K, Lavery R. Towards a molecular view of transcriptional control. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2012;22:160–167. [PubMed]
31. Barsky D, Laurence TA, Venclovas C. How Proteins Slide on DNA. In: Williams MC, Maher LJ, editors. Biophysics of DNA-Protein Interactions: from Single Molecules to Biological Systems. Springer; New York: 2011. pp. 39–68.
32. Paillard S, Strauss F. Analysis of the mechanism of interaction of simian Ku protein with DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1991;19:5619–5624. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Iwahara J, Zweckstetter M, Clore GM. NMR structural and kinetic characterization of a homeodomain diffusing and hopping on nonspecific DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:15062–15067. [PubMed]
34. Shimamoto N. One-dimensional diffusion of proteins along DNA - its biological and chemical significance revealed by single-molecule measurements. J. Biol. Chem. 1999;274:15293–15296. [PubMed]
35. Kabata H, Kurosawa O, Arai I, Washizu M, Margarson SA, Glass RE, Shimamoto N. Visualization of single molecules of RNA polymerase sliding along DNA. Science. 1993;262:1561–1563. [PubMed]
36. Surby MA, Reich NO. Facilitated diffusion of the EcoRI DNA methyltransferase is described by a novel mechanism. Biochemistry. 1996;35:2209–2217. [PubMed]
37. Surby MA, Reich NO. Contribution of facilitated diffusion and processive catalysis to enzyme efficiency: Implications for the EcoRI restriction-modification system. Biochemistry. 1996;35:2201–2208. [PubMed]
38. Khoury AM, Lee HJ, Lillis M, Lu P. Lac repressor-operator interaction: DNA length dependence. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1990;1087:55–60. [PubMed]
39. Wunderlich Z, Mirny LA. Spatial effects on the speed and reliability of protein-DNA search. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:3570–3578. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. Cranz S, Berger C, Baici A, Jelesarov I, Bosshard HR. Monomeric and dimeric bZIP transcription factor GCN4 bind at the same rate to their target DNA site. Biochemistry. 2004;43:718–727. [PubMed]
41. Berger C, Piubelli L, Haditsch U, Bosshard HR. Diffusion-controlled DNA recognition by an unfolded, monomeric bZIP transcription factor. FEBS Letters. 1998;425:14–18. [PubMed]
42. Kohler JJ, Metallo SJ, Schneider TL, Schepartz A. DNA specificity enhanced by sequential binding of protein monomers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1999;96:11735–11739. [PubMed]
43. Kohler JJ, Schepartz A. Kinetic studies of Fos-Jun-DNA complex formation: DNA binding prior to dimerization. Biochemistry. 2001;40:130–142. [PubMed]
44. Saudek V, Pasley HS, Gibson T, Gausepohl H, Frank R, Pastore A. Solution structure of the DNA-binding domain of the yeast transcriptional activator protein GCN4. Biochemistry. 1991;30:1310–1317. [PubMed]
45. Bracken C, Carr PA, Cavanagh J, Palmer AG., III Temperature dependence of intramolecular dynamics of the basic leucine zipper of GCN4: implications for the entropy of association with DNA. J. Mol. Biol. 1999;285:2133–2146. [PubMed]
46. Aguado-Llera D, Goormaghtigh E, de Geest N, Quan X-J, Prieto A, Hassan BA, Gómez J, Neira JL. The basic helix-loop-helix region of human neurogenin 1 is a monomeric natively unfolded protein which forms a “fuzzy” complex upon DNA binding. Biochemistry. 2010;49:1577–1589. [PubMed]
47. Kim J, Tzamarias D, Ellenberger T, Harrison SC, Struhl K. Adaptability at the protein-DNA interface is an important aspect of sequence recognition by bZIP proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1993;90:4513–4517. [PubMed]
48. Johnson PF. Identification of C/EBP basic region residues involved in DNA sequence recognition and half-site spacing preference. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1993;13:6919–6930. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
49. Hope IA, Struhl K. GCN4 protein, synthesized in vitro, binds HIS3 regulatory sequences: implications for general control of amino acid biosynthetic genes in yeast. Cell. 1985;43:177–188. [PubMed]
50. Bird GH, Shin JA. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry characterization of recombinant hydrophobic mutants containing the GCN4 basic region-leucine zipper motif. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (Protein Struct. Molec. Enzym.) 2002;1597:252–259. [PubMed]