Translocation of chromatin proteins to nucleoli—The influence of protein dynamics on post‐fixation localization

It is expected that the subnuclear localization of a protein in a fixed cell, detected by microscopy, reflects its position in the living cell. We demonstrate, however, that some dynamic nuclear proteins can change their localization upon fixation by either crosslinking or non‐crosslinking methods. We examined the subnuclear localization of the chromatin architectural protein HMGB1, linker histone H1, and core histone H2B in cells fixed by formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, glyoxal, ethanol, or zinc salts. We demonstrate that some dynamic, weakly binding nuclear proteins, like HMGB1 and H1, may not only be unexpectedly lost from their original binding sites during the fixation process, but they can also diffuse through the nucleus and eventually bind in nucleoli. Such translocation to nucleoli does not occur in the case of core histone H2B, which is more stably bound to DNA and other histones. We suggest that the diminished binding of some dynamic proteins to DNA during fixation, and their subsequent translocation to nucleoli, is induced by changes of DNA structure, arising from interaction with a fixative. Detachment of dynamic proteins from chromatin can also be induced in cells already fixed by non‐crosslinking methods when DNA structure is distorted by intercalating molecules. The proteins translocated during fixation from chromatin to nucleoli bind there to RNA‐containing structures.

[1]  Hanhui Ma,et al.  STRIDE—a fluorescence method for direct, specific in situ detection of individual single- or double-strand DNA breaks in fixed cells , 2019, Nucleic acids research.

[2]  Seung-won Lee,et al.  Regulation of PCNA cycling on replicating DNA by RFC and RFC-like complexes , 2019, Nature Communications.

[3]  B. Koos,et al.  Quantification of protein mobility and associated reshuffling of cytoplasm during chemical fixation , 2018, bioRxiv.

[4]  Edward S Boyden,et al.  Glyoxal as an alternative fixative to formaldehyde in immunostaining and super‐resolution microscopy , 2017, The EMBO journal.

[5]  M. S. Rocha,et al.  DNA interaction with DAPI fluorescent dye: Force spectroscopy decouples two different binding modes , 2017, Biopolymers.

[6]  Kevin W. Eliceiri,et al.  ImageJ2: ImageJ for the next generation of scientific image data , 2017, BMC Bioinformatics.

[7]  G. Lederkremer,et al.  Common fixation-permeabilization methods cause artifactual localization of a type II transmembrane protein. , 2016, Microscopy.

[8]  M. C. Cardoso,et al.  Principles of protein targeting to the nucleolus , 2015, Nucleus.

[9]  Toby D. M. Bell,et al.  Image artifacts in Single Molecule Localization Microscopy: why optimization of sample preparation protocols matters , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[10]  P. Prasad,et al.  Changes in biomolecular profile in a single nucleolus during cell fixation. , 2014, Analytical chemistry.

[11]  M. Zarębski,et al.  Daunomycin, an antitumor DNA intercalator, influences histone–DNA interactions , 2013, Cancer biology & therapy.

[12]  E. Sheval,et al.  A Simple Method for the Immunocytochemical Detection of Proteins Inside Nuclear Structures That Are Inaccessible to Specific Antibodies , 2012, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[13]  S. Diekmann,et al.  Dynamic as well as stable protein interactions contribute to genome function and maintenance , 2010, Chromosome Research.

[14]  J. Dobrucki,et al.  Interaction of a DNA intercalator DRAQ5, and a minor groove binder SYTO17, with chromatin in live cells—Influence on chromatin organization and histone—DNA interactions , 2008, Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology.

[15]  R. Dapson Glyoxal fixation: how it works and why it only occasionally needs antigen retrieval , 2007, Biotechnic & histochemistry : official publication of the Biological Stain Commission.

[16]  V. Caiolfa,et al.  GR and HMGB1 interact only within chromatin and influence each other's residence time. , 2005, Molecular cell.

[17]  Anthony K. L. Leung,et al.  Nucleolar proteome dynamics , 2005, Nature.

[18]  T. Misteli,et al.  Network of Dynamic Interactions between Histone H1 and High-Mobility-Group Proteins in Chromatin , 2004, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[19]  P. Nordmann,et al.  Association of chromatin proteins high mobility group box (HMGB) 1 and HMGB2 with mitotic chromosomes. , 2003, Molecular biology of the cell.

[20]  F. Pontén,et al.  Zinc-Based Fixative Improves Preservation of Genomic DNA and Proteins in Histoprocessing of Human Tissues , 2003, Laboratory Investigation.

[21]  T. Misteli,et al.  Release of chromatin protein HMGB1 by necrotic cells triggers inflammation , 2002, Nature.

[22]  Hiroshi Kimura,et al.  Kinetics of Core Histones in Living Human Cells , 2001, The Journal of cell biology.

[23]  H. O’Hagan,et al.  Accumulation of soluble and nucleolar-associated p53 proteins following cellular stress. , 2001, Journal of cell science.

[24]  Tom Misteli,et al.  Dynamic binding of histone H1 to chromatin in living cells , 2000, Nature.

[25]  T. Kanda,et al.  Histone–GFP fusion protein enables sensitive analysis of chromosome dynamics in living mammalian cells , 1998, Current Biology.

[26]  F. Thoma,et al.  Influence of histone H1 on chromatin structure , 1977, Cell.

[27]  L. Huber,et al.  Mild fixation and permeabilization protocol for preserving structures of endosomes, focal adhesions, and actin filaments during immunofluorescence analysis. , 2014, Methods in enzymology.

[28]  O Merk,et al.  Significance of formaldehyde‐induced DNA–protein crosslinks for mutagenesis , 1998, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.