Quantitative analysis of EGR proteins binding to DNA: assessing additivity in both the binding site and the protein

BackgroundRecognition codes for protein-DNA interactions typically assume that the interacting positions contribute additively to the binding energy. While this is known to not be precisely true, an additive model over the DNA positions can be a good approximation, at least for some proteins. Much less information is available about whether the protein positions contribute additively to the interaction.ResultsUsing EGR zinc finger proteins, we measure the binding affinity of six different variants of the protein to each of six different variants of the consensus binding site. Both the protein and binding site variants include single and double mutations that allow us to assess how well additive models can account for the data. For each protein and DNA alone we find that additive models are good approximations, but over the combined set of data there are context effects that limit their accuracy. However, a small modification to the purely additive model, with only three additional parameters, improves the fit significantly.ConclusionThe additive model holds very well for every DNA site and every protein included in this study, but clear context dependence in the interactions was detected. A simple modification to the independent model provides a better fit to the complete data.

[1]  A Klug,et al.  Toward a code for the interactions of zinc fingers with DNA: selection of randomized fingers displayed on phage. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  Guillaume Paillard,et al.  Analyzing protein-DNA recognition mechanisms. , 2004, Structure.

[3]  C. Pabo,et al.  Geometric analysis and comparison of protein-DNA interfaces: why is there no simple code for recognition? , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  C. Pabo,et al.  Rearrangement of side-chains in a Zif268 mutant highlights the complexities of zinc finger-DNA recognition. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  F Borel,et al.  Comparison of the DNA binding characteristics of the related zinc finger proteins WT1 and EGR1. , 1998, Biochemistry.

[6]  C. Pabo,et al.  Beyond the "recognition code": structures of two Cys2His2 zinc finger/TATA box complexes. , 2001, Structure.

[7]  G. Stormo,et al.  Non-independence of Mnt repressor-operator interaction determined by a new quantitative multiple fluorescence relative affinity (QuMFRA) assay. , 2001, Nucleic acids research.

[8]  J R Desjarlais,et al.  Toward rules relating zinc finger protein sequences and DNA binding site preferences. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  C. Pabo,et al.  Zinc finger phage: affinity selection of fingers with new DNA-binding specificities. , 1994, Science.

[10]  G. Church,et al.  Nucleotides of transcription factor binding sites exert interdependent effects on the binding affinities of transcription factors. , 2002, Nucleic acids research.

[11]  Panayiotis V Benos,et al.  Probabilistic code for DNA recognition by proteins of the EGR family. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  G. Stormo,et al.  Specificity of Mnt 'master residue' obtained from in vivo and in vitro selections. , 2002, Nucleic acids research.

[13]  J. Berg,et al.  Redesigning the DNA‐binding specificity of a zinc finger protein: A data base‐guided approach , 1992, Proteins.

[14]  C. Pabo,et al.  Design and selection of novel Cys2His2 zinc finger proteins. , 2001, Annual review of biochemistry.

[15]  M. Isalan,et al.  Rapid, high-throughput engineering of sequence-specific zinc finger DNA-binding proteins. , 2001, Methods in enzymology.

[16]  C. Case,et al.  Validated Zinc Finger Protein Designs for All 16 GNN DNA Triplet Targets* , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[17]  G. Stormo,et al.  Additivity in protein-DNA interactions: how good an approximation is it? , 2002, Nucleic acids research.

[18]  P. Zuber,et al.  The ClpX protein of Bacillus subtilis indirectly influences RNA polymerase holoenzyme composition and directly stimulates σH‐dependent transcription , 2000, Molecular microbiology.

[19]  T. D. Schneider,et al.  Sequence logos: a new way to display consensus sequences. , 1990, Nucleic acids research.

[20]  J R Desjarlais,et al.  Use of a zinc-finger consensus sequence framework and specificity rules to design specific DNA binding proteins. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  A Klug,et al.  Physical basis of a protein-DNA recognition code. , 1997, Current opinion in structural biology.

[22]  C. Pabo,et al.  High-resolution structures of variant Zif268-DNA complexes: implications for understanding zinc finger-DNA recognition. , 1998, Structure.

[23]  H. Margalit,et al.  Quantitative parameters for amino acid-base interaction: implications for prediction of protein-DNA binding sites. , 1998, Nucleic acids research.

[24]  J R Desjarlais,et al.  Length-encoded multiplex binding site determination: application to zinc finger proteins. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Y. Sugiura,et al.  Artificial zinc finger peptides: creation, DNA recognition, and gene regulation. , 2000, Journal of inorganic biochemistry.

[26]  N. Pavletich,et al.  Zinc finger-DNA recognition: crystal structure of a Zif268-DNA complex at 2.1 A , 1991, Science.

[27]  A Sarai,et al.  Evaluation of free energy landscape for base–amino acid interactions using ab initio force field and extensive sampling , 2001, Biopolymers.

[28]  G A Whitmore,et al.  A Statistical Model for Investigating Binding Probabilities of DNA Nucleotide Sequences Using Microarrays , 2002, Biometrics.

[29]  R. Sauer,et al.  Dramatic changes in DNA-binding specificity caused by single residue substitutions in an Arc/Mnt hybrid repressor , 1995, Nature Structural Biology.

[30]  Panayiotis V Benos,et al.  Is there a code for protein-DNA recognition? Probab(ilistical)ly. . . , 2002, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[31]  D. S. Fields,et al.  Specificity, free energy and information content in protein-DNA interactions. , 1998, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[32]  M Gerstein,et al.  Stereochemical basis of DNA recognition by Zn fingers. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[33]  C. Pabo,et al.  Zif268 protein-DNA complex refined at 1.6 A: a model system for understanding zinc finger-DNA interactions. , 1996, Structure.

[34]  Samuel Selvaraj,et al.  Intermolecular and intramolecular readout mechanisms in protein-DNA recognition. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  R. Islam,et al.  Measurement of nucleic acid concentrations using the DyNA Quant and the GeneQuant. , 1997, BioTechniques.

[36]  C. Pabo,et al.  Binding Studies with Mutants of Zif268 , 1999, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[37]  T. D. Schneider,et al.  Quantitative analysis of the relationship between nucleotide sequence and functional activity. , 1986, Nucleic acids research.

[38]  Gary D. Stormo,et al.  Displaying the information contents of structural RNA alignments: the structure logos , 1997, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[39]  H. Kono,et al.  Structure‐based prediction of DNA target sites by regulatory proteins , 1999, Proteins.

[40]  C. Pabo,et al.  Analysis of zinc fingers optimized via phage display: evaluating the utility of a recognition code. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  A Klug,et al.  Selection of DNA binding sites for zinc fingers using rationally randomized DNA reveals coded interactions. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  G. Stormo,et al.  Quantitative modeling of DNA-protein interactions: effects of amino acid substitutions on binding specificity of the Mnt repressor. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[43]  M Gerstein,et al.  DNA recognition code of transcription factors. , 1995, Protein engineering.

[44]  C. Pabo,et al.  DNA recognition by Cys2His2 zinc finger proteins. , 2000, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.