Direct and indirect readout in mutant Met repressor-operator complexes.

BACKGROUND The methionine repressor, MetJ, represses the transcription of genes involved in methionine biosynthesis by binding to arrays of two to five adjacent copies of an eight base-pair 'metbox' sequence. Naturally occurring operators differ from the consensus sequence to a greater extent as the number of metboxes increases. MetJ, while accommodating this sequence variation in natural operators, is very sensitive to particular base changes, even where bases are not directly contacted in the crystal structure of a complex formed between the repressor and consensus operator. RESULTS Here we report the high-resolution structure of a MetJ mutant, Q44K, bound to the consensus operator sequence (Q44Kwt19) and two related sequences containing mutations at sites believed to be important for indirect readout at non-contacted bases. The overall structure of the Q44Kwt19 complex is very similar to the wild-type complex, but there are small variations in sugar-phosphate backbone conformation and direct contacts to the DNA bases. The mutant complexes show a mixture of direct and indirect readout of sequence variations, with differences in direct contacts and DNA conformation. CONCLUSIONS Comparison of the wild-type and mutant repressor-operator complexes shows that the repressor makes sufficiently strong interactions with the sugar-phosphate backbone to accommodate some variation in operator sequence with minor changes in direct bases contacts. The reduction in repressor affinity for the two mutant repressor complexes can be partially attributed to a loss in direct contacts to the DNA. In one case, however, the replacement of a flexible TA base-step leads to an unfavourable DNA conformation that reduces the stability of the repressor-operator complex.

[1]  P. Stockley,et al.  Probing the molecular mechanism of action of co-repressor in the E. coli methionine repressor-operator complex using surface plasmon resonance (SPR). , 1995, Nucleic acids research.

[2]  A Klug,et al.  A hypothesis on a specific sequence-dependent conformation of DNA and its relation to the binding of the lac-repressor protein. , 1979, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  S. Phillips,et al.  Regulation of methionine biosynthesis in the Enterobacteriaceae. , 1991, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[4]  Collaborative Computational,et al.  The CCP4 suite: programs for protein crystallography. , 1994, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[5]  J. Thornton,et al.  PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures , 1993 .

[6]  Edward Angel Interactive Computer Graphics , 2002 .

[7]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  The MIDAS display system , 1988 .

[8]  P. Kraulis A program to produce both detailed and schematic plots of protein structures , 1991 .

[9]  A. Joachimiak,et al.  Determinants of repressor/operator recognition from the structure of the trp operator binding site , 1994, Nature.

[10]  Robert T. Sauer,et al.  DNA recognition by β-sheets in the Arc represser–operator crystal structure , 1994, Nature.

[11]  R. Dickerson,et al.  Structure of a B-DNA decamer with a central T-A step: C-G-A-T-T-A-A-T-C-G. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  S. Phillips,et al.  Three-dimensional crystal structures of Escherichia coli met repressor with and without corepressor , 1989, Nature.

[13]  S. Phillips,et al.  Crystal structure of the met represser–operator complex at 2.8 Å resolution reveals DNA recognition by β-strands , 1992, Nature.

[14]  Wolfram Saenger,et al.  Principles of Nucleic Acid Structure , 1983 .

[15]  G N Cohen,et al.  Evolution in biosynthetic pathways: two enzymes catalyzing consecutive steps in methionine biosynthesis originate from a common ancestor and possess a similar regulatory region. , 1986, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  S. Phillips,et al.  Structure and function of Escherichia coli met repressor: similarities and contrasts with trp repressor. , 1996, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[17]  S. Harrison,et al.  DNA recognition by proteins with the helix-turn-helix motif. , 1990, Annual review of biochemistry.

[18]  S. Phillips,et al.  Effects of systematic variation of the minimal Escherichia coli met consensus operator site: in vivo and in vitro met repressor binding , 1996, Molecular microbiology.

[19]  Axel T. Brunger,et al.  X-PLOR Version 3.1: A System for X-ray Crystallography and NMR , 1992 .

[20]  E A Merritt,et al.  Raster3D Version 2.0. A program for photorealistic molecular graphics. , 1994, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[21]  A. Brunger Free R value: a novel statistical quantity for assessing the accuracy of crystal structures. , 1992 .

[22]  A. Joachimiak,et al.  Crystal structure of trp represser/operator complex at atomic resolution , 1988, Nature.

[23]  Juan A. Subirana,et al.  Structural comparison between the d(CTAG) sequence in oligonucleotides and trp and met represser–operator complexes , 1996, Nature Structural Biology.

[24]  R. Sauer,et al.  DNA recognition by beta-sheets in the Arc repressor-operator crystal structure. , 1994, Nature.

[25]  S. Phillips,et al.  Electrostatic activation of Escherichia coli methionine repressor. , 1994, Structure.

[26]  H. Berendsen,et al.  The α-helix dipole and the properties of proteins , 1978, Nature.

[27]  Jones Ta,et al.  Diffraction methods for biological macromolecules. Interactive computer graphics: FRODO. , 1985, Methods in enzymology.

[28]  Larry Gold,et al.  In VitroEvolution of the DNA Binding Sites ofEscherichia coliMethionine Repressor, MetJ , 1996 .

[29]  B. E. Davidson,et al.  Cooperative tandem binding of met repressor of Escherichia coli , 1989, Nature.