M Tomschik1, M A Karymov, J Zlatanova, S H Leuba. 1. Physical Molecular Biology, Laboratory of Receptor Biology and Gene Expression, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 41 Library Drive, Room B507, MSC 5055, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The discovery of histone-like proteins in Archaea urged studies into the possible organization of archaeal genomes in chromatin. Despite recent advances, a variety of structural questions remain unanswered. RESULTS: We have used the atomic force microscope (AFM) with traditional nuclease digestion assays to compare the structure of nucleoprotein complexes reconstituted from tandemly repeated eukaryal nucleosome-positioning sequences and histone octamers, H3/H4 tetramers, and the histone-fold archaeal protein HMf. The data unequivocally show that HMf reconstitutes are indeed organized as chromatin fibers, morphologically indistinguishable from their eukaryal counterparts. The nuclease digestion patterns revealed a clear pattern of protection at regular intervals, again similar to the patterns observed with eukaryal chromatin fibers. In addition, we studied HMf reconstitutes on mononucleosome-sized DNA fragments and observed a great degree of similarity in the internal organization of these particles and those organized by H3/H4 tetramers. A difference in stability was observed at the level of mono-, di-, and triparticles between the HMf particles and canonical octamer-containing nucleosomes. CONCLUSIONS: The in vitro reconstituted HMf-nucleoprotein complexes can be considered as bona fide chromatin structures. The differences in stability at the monoparticle level should be due to structural differences between HMf and core histone H3/H4 tetramers, i.e., to the complete absence in HMf of histone tails beyond the histone fold. We speculate that the existence of core histone tails in eukaryotes may provide a greater stability to nucleosomal particles and also provide the additional ability of chromatin structure to regulate DNA function in eukaryotic cells by posttranslational histone tail modifications.
BACKGROUND: The discovery of histone-like proteins in Archaea urged studies into the possible organization of archaeal genomes in chromatin. Despite recent advances, a variety of structural questions remain unanswered. RESULTS: We have used the atomic force microscope (AFM) with traditional nuclease digestion assays to compare the structure of nucleoprotein complexes reconstituted from tandemly repeated eukaryal nucleosome-positioning sequences and histone octamers, H3/H4 tetramers, and the histone-fold archaeal protein HMf. The data unequivocally show that HMf reconstitutes are indeed organized as chromatin fibers, morphologically indistinguishable from their eukaryal counterparts. The nuclease digestion patterns revealed a clear pattern of protection at regular intervals, again similar to the patterns observed with eukaryal chromatin fibers. In addition, we studied HMf reconstitutes on mononucleosome-sized DNA fragments and observed a great degree of similarity in the internal organization of these particles and those organized by H3/H4 tetramers. A difference in stability was observed at the level of mono-, di-, and triparticles between the HMf particles and canonical octamer-containing nucleosomes. CONCLUSIONS: The in vitro reconstituted HMf-nucleoprotein complexes can be considered as bona fide chromatin structures. The differences in stability at the monoparticle level should be due to structural differences between HMf and core histone H3/H4 tetramers, i.e., to the complete absence in HMf of histone tails beyond the histone fold. We speculate that the existence of core histone tails in eukaryotes may provide a greater stability to nucleosomal particles and also provide the additional ability of chromatin structure to regulate DNA function in eukaryotic cells by posttranslational histone tail modifications.
Authors: Sanford H Leuba; Mikhail A Karymov; Miroslav Tomschik; Ravi Ramjit; Paul Smith; Jordanka Zlatanova Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-01-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Mohamed Ouhammouch; Robert E Dewhurst; Winfried Hausner; Michael Thomm; E Peter Geiduschek Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-04-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dessy N Nikova; Lisa H Pope; Martin L Bennink; Kirsten A van Leijenhorst-Groener; Kees van der Werf; Jan Greve Journal: Biophys J Date: 2004-09-17 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Miroslav Tomschik; Haocheng Zheng; Ken van Holde; Jordanka Zlatanova; Sanford H Leuba Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-02-22 Impact factor: 11.205