Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Harinath Doodhi, Eugene A. Katrukha, Lukas C. Kapitein, Anna Akhmanova 
Advertisements

Volume 100, Issue 8, Pages (April 2011)
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages (April 2016)
Harinath Doodhi, Eugene A. Katrukha, Lukas C. Kapitein, Anna Akhmanova 
Yalei Chen, Melissa M. Rolls, William O. Hancock  Current Biology 
Phage Mu Transposition Immunity: Protein Pattern Formation along DNA by a Diffusion- Ratchet Mechanism  Yong-Woon Han, Kiyoshi Mizuuchi  Molecular Cell 
Telomere Recognition and Assembly Mechanism of Mammalian Shelterin
Clathrin-Mediated Endocytosis Persists during Unperturbed Mitosis
Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages (May 2007)
Volume 115, Issue 4, Pages (November 2003)
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (January 1999)
Volume 93, Issue 9, Pages (November 2007)
Stephen R. Norris, Marcos F. Núñez, Kristen J. Verhey 
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages (December 2013)
Adam M. Corrigan, Jonathan R. Chubb  Current Biology 
Volume 42, Issue 6, Pages (June 2011)
Lara Scharrel, Rui Ma, René Schneider, Frank Jülicher, Stefan Diez 
Joseph M. Johnson, William J. Betz  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages (November 2007)
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages (November 2006)
Volume 100, Issue 8, Pages (April 2011)
Linda Balabanian, Christopher L. Berger, Adam G. Hendricks 
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages (January 2016)
Volume 101, Issue 2, Pages (July 2011)
Jennifer L. Ross, Henry Shuman, Erika L.F. Holzbaur, Yale E. Goldman 
Volume 129, Issue 7, Pages (June 2007)
Optical Pushing: A Tool for Parallelized Biomolecule Manipulation
Single-Stranded DNA Cleavage by Divergent CRISPR-Cas9 Enzymes
Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages (May 2007)
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages (March 2018)
Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages (January 2009)
Mechanical Distortion of Single Actin Filaments Induced by External Force: Detection by Fluorescence Imaging  Togo Shimozawa, Shin'ichi Ishiwata  Biophysical.
She1-Mediated Inhibition of Dynein Motility along Astral Microtubules Promotes Polarized Spindle Movements  Steven M. Markus, Katelyn A. Kalutkiewicz,
Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages (May 2016)
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages (August 2016)
Single-Molecule Analysis Reveals Differential Effect of ssDNA-Binding Proteins on DNA Translocation by XPD Helicase  Masayoshi Honda, Jeehae Park, Robert.
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages (December 2005)
Mechanism of Force Generation of a Viral DNA Packaging Motor
Kinesin Moving through the Spotlight: Single-Motor Fluorescence Microscopy with Submillisecond Time Resolution  Sander Verbrugge, Lukas C. Kapitein, Erwin.
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages (March 2010)
RNA Controls PolyQ Protein Phase Transitions
Volume 104, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
Volume 103, Issue 2, Pages (July 2012)
Volume 18, Issue 21, Pages (November 2008)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages (December 1997)
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages (July 2017)
Telomere Recognition and Assembly Mechanism of Mammalian Shelterin
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages (March 2015)
Giulia Varsano, Yuedi Wang, Min Wu  Cell Reports 
Volume 83, Issue 2, Pages (August 2002)
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages (March 2017)
Volume 99, Issue 8, Pages (October 2010)
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages (November 2006)
Volume 95, Issue 5, Pages (September 2008)
Membrane Shape Modulates Transmembrane Protein Distribution
Volume 2, Issue 6, Pages (December 2012)
Volume 88, Issue 4, Pages (April 2005)
Interaction of Oxazole Yellow Dyes with DNA Studied with Hybrid Optical Tweezers and Fluorescence Microscopy  C.U. Murade, V. Subramaniam, C. Otto, Martin.
Volume 2, Issue 5, Pages (November 2012)
Positive and Negative Control of Enhancer-Promoter Interactions by Other DNA Loops Generates Specificity and Tunability  Nan Hao, Keith E. Shearwin, Ian.
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages (October 2013)
Jennifer Y. Hsiao, Lauren M. Goins, Natalie A. Petek, R. Dyche Mullins 
Yufang Wang, Ling Guo, Ido Golding, Edward C. Cox, N.P. Ong 
Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages (February 2012)
Joshua S. Weinger, Minhua Qiu, Ge Yang, Tarun M. Kapoor 
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (January 1999)
Volume 83, Issue 2, Pages (August 2002)
XMAP215 Is a Processive Microtubule Polymerase
Jennifer L. Ross, Henry Shuman, Erika L.F. Holzbaur, Yale E. Goldman 
Presentation transcript:

Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 66-74 (July 2014) In Vitro-Reconstituted Nucleoids Can Block Mitochondrial DNA Replication and Transcription  Géraldine Farge, Majda Mehmedovic, Marian Baclayon, Siet M.J.L. van den Wildenberg, Wouter H. Roos, Claes M. Gustafsson, Gijs J.L. Wuite, Maria Falkenberg  Cell Reports  Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 66-74 (July 2014) DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.05.046 Copyright © 2014 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Cell Reports 2014 8, 66-74DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2014.05.046) Copyright © 2014 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 TFAM Is Pushed on DNA during Peeling (A) The force-induced DNA-peeling strategy. Optically trapped beads are represented in gray, and biotin-streptavidin linkages between the DNA molecule and the trapped beads are depicted in red. (B) Schematic depiction of DNA covered with TFAM (in blue) undergoing peeling. Kymograph generated from the successive frames of a movie (Movie S1) showing TFAM molecules being pushed on dsDNA. Time (s) and distance (μm) are indicated at the left and bottom, respectively. (C) Selected frames (time interval 3 s) from a movie showing the behavior of fluorescent TFAM on a DNA molecule that is undergoing peeling while kept at a constant tension (65 pN; relative DNA extension L/Lc = 1.6). (D) Intensity plot (fluorescence intensity as a function of time) of the frames shown in (C). The blue arrows show the increase of intensity of the moving fluorescent spot. Both the kymograph represented in (B) and the selected frames depicted in (C) were obtained from Movie S1. Cell Reports 2014 8, 66-74DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2014.05.046) Copyright © 2014 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 TFAM Localizes on the dsDNA at the Melting Front and Can Prevent Peeling (A) Fluorescence images of eGFP-RPA and Alexa555-TFAM and composite fluorescence images displaying the binding of eGFP-RPA (in red) and Alexa555-TFAM (in green). (B) Selection of fluorescence images (time interval 10 s) showing the binding of eGFP-RPA (in red) and Alexa555-TFAM (in green). The arrows indicate the peeling events. For both panels, the dsDNA molecules were incubated with Alexa555-TFAM (20 nM), overstretched, and incubated with eGFP-RPA (2 nM). The relative DNA extension (L/Lc) is indicated in the figure. (C) Kymograph showing a TFAM patch (fluorescence intensity corresponds to four TFAM molecules) moving on a DNA molecule undergoing peeling. (D) The position of the moving patch showed in (C) was tracked and the mean square displacement (MSD) was determined. The MSD plot was fitted (MSD = v2t2 + 2Dt) to determine the velocity (v) of the molecule and the diffusion coefficient (D) (t is time). (E) The obtained velocities for the observed TFAM molecules (n = 221) were binned into five equal-sized bins according to the fraction of TFAM coverage on the DNA. The percentage coverage was calculated using the DNA persistence length (obtained by fitting the DNA force extension curves with the worm like chain model) as described in Farge et al. (2012). Inset: histogram of the distribution of the observed velocities at high TFAM coverage (≥50%, light green bars) and low TFAM coverage (<50%, crossed bars). (F) The velocities at low TFAM coverage (<10%) (n = 53) were binned into five equal-sized bins according to the number of TFAM in a spot and plotted as a function of number of TFAM. The number of TFAMs in each fluorescent spot was determined by single photobleaching steps. See also Figure S1. Cell Reports 2014 8, 66-74DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2014.05.046) Copyright © 2014 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 TFAM Packaging Inhibits mtDNA Replication and Transcription (A) Rolling-circle DNA replication performed in the presence of radioactive [α-32P] dCTP. Increasing TFAM:DNA ratios leads to an inhibition of replication. (B) Electrophoresis mobility shift assay (EMSA) using a radioactively labeled ([γ-ATP]32P) rolling-circle template in the presence of increasing TFAM concentrations. The TFAM:DNA ratios are indicated. (C) Rolling-circle DNA replication using the same TFAM:DNA ratios as in (B). (D) DNA replication as a function of time in the presence of: no TFAM, 1 TFAM/60 bp, or 1 TFAM/12 bp. The bar is present on the same level in all three experiments. (E) In vitro transcription reactions were performed in the presence of POLRMT (640 fmol), TFB2M (1.2 pmol), and increasing ratios of TFAM to DNA, as indicated. An mtDNA fragment containing the divergent HSP1 and LSP promoters was used as template. (F) In vitro transcription reactions were performed as in (A). The linearized template contained two HSP1 promoters, generating products of 180 and 353 nt, respectively. (G) Phosphoimaging was used to quantify the relative effects of increasing TFAM:DNA ratios on the long and short transcript generated in the experiment depicted in (F). (H) Promoter-independent transcription was monitored using a DNA template with a free 3′ tail. The reactions were performed in the presence of POLRMT (2.5 pmol) and increasing ratios of TFAM to DNA, as indicated. Cell Reports 2014 8, 66-74DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2014.05.046) Copyright © 2014 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Distribution of DNA Compaction at Different TFAM Concentrations (A–D) Atomic force microscopy images of TFAM-DNA complexes at increasing TFAM concentrations: (A) naked DNA, (B) 40 bp per TFAM molecule, (C) 20 bp per TFAM molecule, and (D) 10 bp per TFAM molecule. (E) Histogram of the measured DNA contour length at different TFAM concentrations: naked DNA (black), 40 bp per TFAM molecule (blue), 20 bp per TFAM molecule (green), and 10 bp per TFAM molecule (red). The visible contour length, reflecting the level of compaction, was determined as described in Experimental Procedures. DNA length = 4,348 bp (∼1.4 μm). (F) Variations in TFAM concentrations influence the fraction of active nucleoids in vitro. TFAM is depicted in blue, and the transcription and DNA replication machineries are in gray. Please see Campbell et al. (2012) for comparison. See also Figure S2. Cell Reports 2014 8, 66-74DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2014.05.046) Copyright © 2014 The Authors Terms and Conditions