Molecular Dynamics Study of the Recognition of Dimethylated CpG Sites by MBD1 Protein

The cell is able to regulate which genes to express via chemical marks on the DNA and on the histone proteins. In all vertebrates, the modification on the DNA is methylation at position 5 of the two cytosines present in the dinucleotide sequence CpG. The information encoded by these chemical marks on the DNA is processed by a family of protein factors containing a conserved methyl-CpG binding domain (MBD). Essential to their function, the MBD proteins are able to bind DNA containing dimethylated CpG sites, whereas binding to unmethylated sites is not observed. In this paper, we perform molecular dynamics simulations to investigate the mechanism by which the mCpG binding domain of MBD1 is able to bind specifically dimethylated CpG sites. We find that the binding affinity of MBD1 to a DNA containing dimethylated CpG site is stronger by 26.4 kJ/mol relative to binding the same DNA but with an unmethylated CpG site. The contribution of each of the methyl groups to the change in free energy is very similar and additive. Therefore, this binding affinity (to a dimethylated DNA) is halved when considered relative to binding a hemimethylated DNA, a result that is also supported by experimental observations. Despite their equal contributions, the two methyl groups are recognized differently by MBD1. In one case, demethylation induces conformational changes in which the hydrophobic patch formed by the conserved residues Val20, Arg22, and Tyr34 moves away from the (methyl)cytosine, weakening the DNA-protein interactions. This is accompanied by an intrusion of a bulk water into the binding site at the protein-DNA interface. As a consequence, there is a reduction and rearrangements of the protein-DNA hydrogen bonds including a loss of a crucial hydrogen bond between Tyr34 and the (methyl)cytosine. The methylcytosine on the opposite strand is recognized by conformational changes of the surrounding conserved hydrophobic residues, Arg44 and Ser45, in which Arg44 participate in the 5mC-Arg-G triad. More specifically, the hydrogens of the methyl group form weak hydrogen bonds with the guanidino group and backbone carbonyl of the conserved Arg44, interactions that are absent when the cytosine is unmethylated. The results presented in this paper contribute to our knowledge of the different ways the chemical mark on the DNA is recognized by the epigenetic machinery.

[1]  M. Tang,et al.  Cytosine methylation determines hot spots of DNA damage in the human P53 gene. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  P N Barlow,et al.  The solution structure of the domain from MeCP2 that binds to methylated DNA. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  H. Berendsen,et al.  Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath , 1984 .

[4]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water , 1983 .

[5]  K. Liedl,et al.  C5-methylation of cytosine in B-DNA thermodynamically and kinetically stabilizes BI. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

[7]  M. Monk,et al.  Regulation of X-Chromosome Inactivation in Development in Mice and Humans , 1998, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.

[8]  K. Schulten,et al.  Recognition of methylated DNA through methyl-CpG binding domain proteins , 2011, Nucleic acids research.

[9]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules , 1995 .

[10]  E. Guàrdia,et al.  Statistical Errors in Constrained Molecular Dynamics Calculations of the Mean Force Potential , 1992 .

[11]  A. Bird,et al.  Identification and Characterization of a Family of Mammalian Methyl-CpG Binding Proteins , 1998, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[12]  E. Ballestar,et al.  Mi-2 complex couples DNA methylation to chromatin remodelling and histone deacetylation , 1999, Nature Genetics.

[13]  Carsten Kutzner,et al.  GROMACS 4:  Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular Simulation. , 2008, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[14]  A. Bird,et al.  Reading the DNA methylation signal. , 2004, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[15]  Identification of a mammalian protein that binds specifically to DNA containing methylated CpGs , 1989, Cell.

[16]  M. Parrinello,et al.  Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. , 2007, The Journal of chemical physics.

[17]  P. Kollman,et al.  Settle: An analytical version of the SHAKE and RATTLE algorithm for rigid water models , 1992 .

[18]  J. Kirkwood Statistical Mechanics of Fluid Mixtures , 1935 .

[19]  A. Bird,et al.  Mbd1 Is Recruited to both Methylated and Nonmethylated CpGs via Distinct DNA Binding Domains , 2004, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[20]  Nicholas M. Luscombe,et al.  Amino acid?base interactions: a three-dimensional analysis of protein?DNA interactions at an atomic level , 2001, Nucleic Acids Res..

[21]  D. Trono,et al.  In Embryonic Stem Cells, ZFP57/KAP1 Recognize a Methylated Hexanucleotide to Affect Chromatin and DNA Methylation of Imprinting Control Regions , 2011, Molecular cell.

[22]  H. G. Petersen,et al.  Error estimates on averages of correlated data , 1989 .

[23]  V. Hornak,et al.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters , 2006, Proteins.

[24]  M. Nakao,et al.  Solution Structure of the Methyl-CpG Binding Domain of Human MBD1 in Complex with Methylated DNA , 2001, Cell.

[25]  Albert Jeltsch,et al.  Beyond Watson and Crick: DNA Methylation and Molecular Enzymology of DNA Methyltransferases , 2002, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[26]  H. Margalit,et al.  A role for CH...O interactions in protein-DNA recognition. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  D. Sutor 204. Evidence for the existence of C–H⋯O hydrogen bonds in crystals , 1963 .

[28]  A. Bird,et al.  Dissection of the methyl-CpG binding domain from the chromosomal protein MeCP2. , 1993, Nucleic acids research.

[29]  R. Blumenthal,et al.  A common mode of recognition for methylated CpG. , 2013, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[30]  M. Nakao,et al.  Methylation-Mediated Transcriptional Silencing in Euchromatin by Methyl-CpG Binding Protein MBD1 Isoforms , 1999, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[31]  Olga Kennard,et al.  Crystallographic evidence for the existence of CH.cntdot..cntdot..cntdot.O, CH.cntdot..cntdot..cntdot.N and CH.cntdot..cntdot..cntdot.Cl hydrogen bonds , 1982 .

[32]  A. Bird DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. , 2002, Genes & development.

[33]  Krzysztof Szalewicz,et al.  Potential energy surface and second virial coefficient of methane-water from ab initio calculations. , 2005, The Journal of chemical physics.

[34]  M. Szyf,et al.  Targeting DNA methylation in cancer , 2003, Ageing Research Reviews.

[35]  David C. Williams,et al.  Solution structure and dynamic analysis of chicken MBD2 methyl binding domain bound to a target-methylated DNA sequence , 2011, Nucleic acids research.

[36]  Berk Hess,et al.  LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations , 1997 .

[37]  A. Bird,et al.  DNA methylation specifies chromosomal localization of MeCP2 , 1996, Molecular and cellular biology.

[38]  R. Zangi,et al.  UHRF1 discriminates against binding to fully-methylated CpG-Sites by steric repulsion. , 2013, Biophysical chemistry.

[39]  J. Glover,et al.  Recognition of 5'-YpG-3' sequences by coupled stacking/hydrogen bonding interactions with amino acid residues. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[40]  R. Zangi,et al.  How to distinguish methyl-cytosine from cytosine with high fidelity. , 2012, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  T. Darden,et al.  Particle mesh Ewald: An N⋅log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems , 1993 .

[42]  Z. Derewenda,et al.  The occurrence of C-H...O hydrogen bonds in proteins. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[43]  Peter A. Kollman,et al.  Application of the multimolecule and multiconformational RESP methodology to biopolymers: Charge derivation for DNA, RNA, and proteins , 1995, J. Comput. Chem..

[44]  M. Nakao,et al.  Solution structure of the methyl‐CpG‐binding domain of the methylation‐dependent transcriptional repressor MBD1 , 1999, The EMBO journal.

[45]  Wilfred F. van Gunsteren,et al.  Thermodynamic cycle integration by computer simulation as a tool for obtaining free energy differences in molecular chemistry , 1987, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[46]  M. Ehrlich,et al.  DNA methylation in cancer: too much, but also too little , 2002, Oncogene.

[47]  T. Darden,et al.  A smooth particle mesh Ewald method , 1995 .

[48]  H. Dyson,et al.  Molecular basis for recognition of methylated and specific DNA sequences by the zinc finger protein Kaiso , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[49]  A. Bird,et al.  MeCP2 binding to DNA depends upon hydration at methyl-CpG. , 2008, Molecular cell.