Training-free atomistic prediction of nucleosome occupancy

Significance Nucleosomes alter gene expression by preventing transcription factors from occupying binding sites along DNA. Conventional methods to predict nucleosome occupancy are trained on observed DNA sequence patterns. The method presented here uses physical principles and all-atom force fields to predict both nucleosome occupancy along genomic sequences as well as binding to known positioning sequences. Our method calculates the energy of both nucleosomal and linear DNA of the given sequence. Based on the DNA deformation energy, we accurately predict the in vitro occupancy profile observed experimentally for a 20,000-bp genomic region. DNA with all C bases methylated at the 5 position shows less variation of nucleosome binding: Strong binding is weakened and weak binding is strengthened compared with normal DNA. Nucleosomes alter gene expression by preventing transcription factors from occupying binding sites along DNA. DNA methylation can affect nucleosome positioning and so alter gene expression epigenetically (without changing DNA sequence). Conventional methods to predict nucleosome occupancy are trained on observed DNA sequence patterns or known DNA oligonucleotide structures. They are statistical and lack the physics needed to predict subtle epigenetic changes due to DNA methylation. The training-free method presented here uses physical principles and state-of-the-art all-atom force fields to predict both nucleosome occupancy along genomic sequences as well as binding to known positioning sequences. Our method calculates the energy of both nucleosomal and linear DNA of the given sequence. Based on the DNA deformation energy, we accurately predict the in vitro occupancy profile observed experimentally for a 20,000-bp genomic region as well as the experimental locations of nucleosomes along 13 well-established positioning sequence elements. DNA with all C bases methylated at the 5 position shows less variation of nucleosome binding: Strong binding is weakened and weak binding is strengthened compared with normal DNA. Methylation also alters the preference of nucleosomes for some positioning sequences but not others.

[1]  B. Cairns,et al.  Chromatin remodeling: insights and intrigue from single-molecule studies , 2007, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[2]  Feng Cui,et al.  Structure-based Analysis of DNA Sequence Patterns Guiding Nucleosome Positioning in vitro , 2010, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[3]  Yu-Dong Cai,et al.  Prediction of Nucleosome Positioning Based on Transcription Factor Binding Sites , 2010, PloS one.

[4]  S. Baylin,et al.  Altered methylation patterns in cancer cell genomes: cause or consequence? , 2002, Cancer cell.

[5]  C. Logie,et al.  Sequence-based prediction of single nucleosome positioning and genome-wide nucleosome occupancy , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Danny Reinberg,et al.  Chromatin higher-order structures and gene regulation. , 2011, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[7]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[8]  W. Olson,et al.  DNA Architecture, Deformability, and Nucleosome Positioning , 2010, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[9]  R A Laskey,et al.  High sequence specificity of micrococcal nuclease. , 1981, Nucleic acids research.

[10]  H. Cedar,et al.  Linking DNA methylation and histone modification: patterns and paradigms , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[11]  Kristin R Brogaard,et al.  A base pair resolution map of nucleosome positions in yeast , 2012, Nature.

[12]  T. Richmond,et al.  Solvent mediated interactions in the structure of the nucleosome core particle at 1.9 a resolution. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  R. H. Ritchie,et al.  Dielectric effects in biopolymers: The theory of ionic saturation revisited , 1985 .

[14]  M. Esteller,et al.  DNA methylation-associated silencing of tumor-suppressor microRNAs in cancer , 2011, Oncogene.

[15]  Peter Minary,et al.  Conformational Optimization with Natural Degrees of Freedom: A Novel Stochastic Chain Closure Algorithm , 2010, J. Comput. Biol..

[16]  Helen Hoffmeister,et al.  Nucleosomes protect DNA from DNA methylation in vivo and in vitro , 2011, Nucleic acids research.

[17]  E. Trifonov,et al.  The pitch of chromatin DNA is reflected in its nucleotide sequence. , 1980, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  J. E. Larson,et al.  Methylation of cytosine in the 5-position alters the structural and energetic properties of the supercoil-induced Z-helix and of B-Z junctions. , 1988, Biochemistry.

[19]  C. Allis,et al.  Epigenetics: A Landscape Takes Shape , 2007, Cell.

[20]  V. Zhurkin,et al.  DNA sequence-dependent deformability deduced from protein-DNA crystal complexes. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  R. Kornberg.  Chromatin structure: a repeating unit of histones and DNA. , 1974, Science.

[22]  Klaus Schulten,et al.  Supplementary Material Cytosine Methylation Alters DNA Mechanical Properties , 2011 .

[23]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Genome-Scale Identification of Nucleosome Positions in S. cerevisiae , 2005, Science.

[24]  Timothy R. Hughes,et al.  G+C content dominates intrinsic nucleosome occupancy , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[25]  Richard Lavery,et al.  Protein-DNA recognition: Breaking the combinatorial barrier , 2008, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[26]  S. Baylin,et al.  DNA methylation and gene silencing in cancer , 2005, Nature Clinical Practice Oncology.

[27]  H. Drew,et al.  Sequence periodicities in chicken nucleosome core DNA. , 1986, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  Christophe Blanchet,et al.  Protein-DNA binding specificity: a grid-enabled computational approach applied to single and multiple protein assemblies. , 2009, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[29]  M. Hestenes,et al.  Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems , 1952 .

[30]  T. Richmond,et al.  Mapping nucleosome position at single base-pair resolution by using site-directed hydroxyl radicals. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  R. Rohs,et al.  Structural and energetic origins of sequence-specific DNA bending: Monte Carlo simulations of papillomavirus E2-DNA binding sites. , 2005, Structure.

[32]  T. Richmond,et al.  The structure of DNA in the nucleosome core , 2003, Nature.

[33]  M Levitt,et al.  How many base-pairs per turn does DNA have in solution and in chromatin? Some theoretical calculations. , 1978, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  J. Šponer,et al.  Refinement of the AMBER Force Field for Nucleic Acids: Improving the Description of α/γ Conformers , 2007 .

[35]  Irene K. Moore,et al.  The DNA-encoded nucleosome organization of a eukaryotic genome , 2009, Nature.

[36]  Peter A. Jones,et al.  Footprinting of mammalian promoters: use of a CpG DNA methyltransferase revealing nucleosome positions at a single molecule level , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[37]  M. Pellegrini,et al.  Relationship between nucleosome positioning and DNA methylation , 2010, Nature.

[38]  David Botstein,et al.  SGD: Saccharomyces Genome Database , 1998, Nucleic Acids Res..