Chemical principles additive model aligns low consensus DNA targets of p53 tumor suppressor protein

Computational prediction of the interaction between protein transcription factors and their cognate DNA binding sites in genomic promoters constitutes a formidable challenge in two situations: when the number of discriminatory interactions is small compared to the length of the binding site, and when DNA binding sites possess a poorly conserved consensus binding motif. The transcription factor p53 tumor suppressor protein and its target DNA exhibit both of these issues. From crystal structure analysis, only three discriminatory amino acid side chains contact the DNA for a binding site spanning ten base pairs. Furthermore, our analysis of a dataset of genome wide fragments binding to p53 revealed many sequences lacking the expected consensus. The low information content leads to an overestimation of binding sites, and the lack of conservation equates to a computational alignment problem. Within a fragment of DNA known to bind to p53, computationally locating the position of the site equates to aligning the DNA with the binding interface. From a molecular perspective, that alignment implies a specification of which DNA bases are interacting with which amino acid side chains, and aligning many sequences to the same protein interface concomitantly produces a multiple sequence alignment. From this vantage, we propose to cast prediction of p53 binding sites as an alignment to the protein binding surface with the novel approach of optimizing the alignment of DNA fragments to the p53 binding interface based on chemical principles. A scoring scheme based on this premise was successfully implemented to score a dataset of biological DNA fragments known to contain p53 binding sites. The results illuminate the mechanism of recognition for the protein-DNA system at the forefront of cancer research. These findings implicate that p53 may recognize its target binding sites via several different mechanisms which may include indirect readout.

[1]  M. Frank-Kamenetskii,et al.  Stacked-unstacked equilibrium at the nick site of DNA. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  Kelly M. Thayer,et al.  Molecular dynamics simulations of DNA curvature and flexibility: Helix phasing and premelting , 2004, Biopolymers.

[3]  Rodrigo Lopez,et al.  Analysis Tool Web Services from the EMBL-EBI , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[4]  Yi Tang,et al.  Tip60-dependent acetylation of p53 modulates the decision between cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. , 2006, Molecular cell.

[5]  K. Wiman,et al.  Pharmacological reactivation of mutant p53: from protein structure to the cancer patient , 2010, Oncogene.

[6]  W. Deppert,et al.  Transcriptional activities of mutant p53: When mutations are more than a loss , 2004, Journal of cellular biochemistry.

[7]  P. Shaw,et al.  The role of p53 in cell cycle regulation. , 1996, Pathology, research and practice.

[8]  Bill Moore,et al.  GFS: Evolution on Fast-Forward , 2010 .

[9]  P. Jeffrey,et al.  Crystal structure of a p53 tumor suppressor-DNA complex: understanding tumorigenic mutations. , 1994, Science.

[10]  Dhananjay Bhattacharyya,et al.  Role of indirect readout mechanism in TATA box binding protein–DNA interaction , 2015, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[11]  Suryani Lukman,et al.  Mapping the Structural and Dynamical Features of Multiple p53 DNA Binding Domains: Insights into Loop 1 Intrinsic Dynamics , 2013, PloS one.

[12]  C. Purdie,et al.  Tumour incidence, spectrum and ploidy in mice with a large deletion in the p53 gene. , 1994, Oncogene.

[13]  Richard Ward,et al.  Probing the (H3-H4)2 histone tetramer structure using pulsed EPR spectroscopy combined with site-directed spin labelling , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[14]  Remo Rohs,et al.  Structural studies of p53 inactivation by DNA-contact mutations and its rescue by suppressor mutations via alternative protein–DNA interactions , 2013, Nucleic acids research.

[15]  Heinz Sklenar,et al.  Molecular dynamics simulations of the 136 unique tetranucleotide sequences of DNA oligonucleotides. II: sequence context effects on the dynamical structures of the 10 unique dinucleotide steps. , 2005, Biophysical journal.

[16]  R. Weinberg,et al.  Tumor spectrum analysis in p53-mutant mice , 1994, Current Biology.

[17]  Alan R. Fersht,et al.  Small molecule induced reactivation of mutant p53 in cancer cells , 2013, Nucleic acids research.

[18]  P. Tegtmeyer,et al.  Interaction of p53 with its consensus DNA-binding site , 1995, Molecular and cellular biology.

[19]  L. Donehower,et al.  Mice deficient for p53 are developmentally normal but susceptible to spontaneous tumours , 1992, Nature.

[20]  Rodrigo Lopez,et al.  A new bioinformatics analysis tools framework at EMBL–EBI , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[21]  E. Orlova,et al.  The structure of p53 tumour suppressor protein reveals the basis for its functional plasticity , 2006, The EMBO journal.

[22]  Y. Xu,et al.  A common gain of function of p53 cancer mutants in inducing genetic instability , 2010, Oncogene.

[23]  R. Sinden.  DNA Structure and Function , 1994 .

[24]  M. Kitayner,et al.  Structural basis of DNA recognition by p53 tetramers. , 2006, Molecular cell.

[25]  Chi Man Tsang,et al.  Efficient Immortalization of Primary Nasopharyngeal Epithelial Cells for EBV Infection Study , 2013, PloS one.

[26]  A. Fersht,et al.  The tumor suppressor p53: from structures to drug discovery. , 2010, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology.

[27]  Thierry Soussi,et al.  Data-driven unbiased curation of the TP53 tumor suppressor gene mutation database and validation by ultradeep sequencing of human tumors , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  E. Orlova,et al.  Structural biology of the p53 tumour suppressor. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[29]  Thierry Soussi,et al.  TP53 mutations in human cancer: database reassessment and prospects for the next decade. , 2011, Advances in cancer research.

[30]  Hendrik G. Stunnenberg,et al.  Role of p53 Serine 46 in p53 Target Gene Regulation , 2011, PloS one.

[31]  A. Fersht,et al.  Algorithm for prediction of tumour suppressor p53 affinity for binding sites in DNA , 2008, Nucleic acids research.

[32]  Yang Xu,et al.  Induction of genetic instability by gain-of-function p53 cancer mutants , 2008, Oncogene.

[33]  R. Mann,et al.  The role of DNA shape in protein-DNA recognition , 2009, Nature.

[34]  G. Crooks,et al.  WebLogo: a sequence logo generator. , 2004, Genome research.

[35]  Jon D. Wright,et al.  Mechanism of DNA-binding loss upon single-point mutation in p53 , 2007, Journal of Biosciences.

[36]  Eugene Loh.  The ideal HPC programming language , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[37]  V. Rotter,et al.  Structural basis of restoring sequence-specific DNA binding and transactivation to mutant p53 by suppressor mutations. , 2009, Journal of molecular biology.

[38]  M. Mezei,et al.  Studies of base pair sequence effects on DNA solvation based on all-atom molecular dynamics simulations , 2012, Journal of Biosciences.

[39]  William N. Scherer,et al.  Implementation and Performance Evaluation of the HPC Challenge Benchmarks in Coarray Fortran 2.0 , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium.

[40]  D. Lane,et al.  p53, guardian of the genome , 1992, Nature.

[41]  D. Menendez,et al.  Transactivation specificity is conserved among p53 family proteins and depends on a response element sequence code , 2013, Nucleic acids research.

[42]  A. Fersht,et al.  Structural biology of the tumor suppressor p53. , 2008, Annual review of biochemistry.

[43]  The role of DNA damage responses in p53 biology , 2015, Archives of Toxicology.

[44]  A. Blanden,et al.  Synthetic Metallochaperone ZMC1 Rescues Mutant p53 Conformation by Transporting Zinc into Cells as an Ionophore , 2015, Molecular Pharmacology.

[45]  J. W. Backus,et al.  The FORTRAN automatic coding system , 1899, IRE-AIEE-ACM '57 (Western).

[46]  P. Sapienza,et al.  Thermodynamic and structural basis for relaxation of specificity in protein-DNA recognition. , 2014, Journal of molecular biology.

[47]  K. Kinzler,et al.  Definition of a consensus binding site for p53 , 1992, Nature Genetics.

[48]  Thierry Soussi,et al.  The UMD‐p53 database: New mutations and analysis tools , 2003, Human mutation.

[49]  A. Levine,et al.  Surfing the p53 network , 2000, Nature.

[50]  R. Joseph,et al.  T-cell signaling regulated by the Tec family kinase, Itk. , 2010, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology.