Dissecting DNA-Histone Interactions in the Nucleosome by Molecular Dynamics Simulations of DNA Unwrapping

Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ) and BioQuant, Research Group Genome Organization & Function, Heidelberg, Germany.
Biophysical Journal (Impact Factor: 3.97). 10/2011; 101(8):1999-2008. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.07.057
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The nucleosome complex of DNA wrapped around a histone protein octamer organizes the genome of eukaryotes and regulates the access of protein factors to the DNA. We performed molecular dynamics simulations of the nucleosome in explicit water to study the dynamics of its histone-DNA interactions. A high-resolution histone-DNA interaction map was derived that revealed a five-nucleotide periodicity, in which the two DNA strands of the double helix made alternating contacts. On the 100-ns timescale, the histone tails mostly maintained their initial positions relative to the DNA, and the spontaneous unwrapping of DNA was limited to 1-2 basepairs. In steered molecular dynamics simulations, external forces were applied to the linker DNA to investigate the unwrapping pathway of the nucleosomal DNA. In comparison with a nucleosome without the unstructured N-terminal histone tails, the following findings were obtained: 1), Two main barriers during unwrapping were identified at DNA position ±70 and ±45 basepairs relative to the central DNA basepair at the dyad axis. 2), DNA interactions of the histone H3 N-terminus and the histone H2A C-terminus opposed the initiation of unwrapping. 3), The N-terminal tails of H2A, H2B, and H4 counteracted the unwrapping process at later stages and were essential determinants of nucleosome dynamics. Our detailed analysis of DNA-histone interactions revealed molecular mechanisms for modulating access to nucleosomal DNA via conformational rearrangements of its structure.

Download full-text


Available from: Gero Wedemann, May 26, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The packaging of genomic DNA into chromatin in the eukaryotic cell nucleus demands extensive compaction. This requires attractive nucleosome-nucleosome interactions to overcome repulsion between the negatively charged DNA segments as well as other constraints. At the same time, DNA must be dynamically accessible to the cellular machinery that operates on it. Recent progress in the experimental characterisation of the higher order structure and dynamics of well-defined chromatin fibres has stimulated the attempts at theoretical description of chromatin and the nucleosome. Here we review the present status of chromatin modelling, with particular emphasis on coarse-grained computer simulation models, the role of electrostatic interactions, and discuss future perspectives in the field.
    Current Opinion in Structural Biology 02/2012; 22(2):151-9. DOI:10.1016/ · 8.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Double helical DNA is a negatively charged polyelectrolyte and exists in the nucleus of living cells as chromatin, a highly compacted but dynamic complex with histone proteins. The first level of DNA compaction is the linear array of the nucleosome core particles (NCP), which is a well-defined structure of 145–147 bp DNA with the histone octamer, connected by linker DNA. Higher levels of chromatin compaction include two routes which may overlap: intramolecular folding of the nucleosome array resulting in formation of the 30 nm fibre and intermolecular aggregation (self-association) between different arrays (or distant fibres of the same chromosome). This review describes how the polyelectrolyte properties of chromatin are illustrated by experimental results of folding and self-association of well-defined model chromatin, in the form of recombinant nucleosome arrays, and how these properties can be understood from computer modelling. Chromatin compaction shows considerable similarities to DNA condensation. However, the structure of condensed chromatin is sensitive to the detailed molecular features of the nucleosome–nucleosome interactions which include the influence of the histone tails and their modifications.
    Soft Matter 08/2012; 8(36):9322-9333. DOI:10.1039/C2SM25662B · 4.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A coarse-grained model of the nucleosome is introduced to investigate the dynamics of force-induced unwrapping of DNA from histone octamers. In this model, the DNA is treated as a charged, discrete worm-like chain, and the octamer is treated as a rigid cylinder carrying a positively charged superhelical groove that accommodates 1.7 turns of DNA. The groove charges are parameterized to reproduce the nonuniform histone/DNA interaction free energy profile and the loading rate-dependent unwrapping forces, both obtained from single-molecule experiments. Brownian dynamics simulations of the model under constant loading conditions reveal that nucleosome unraveling occurs in three distinct stages. At small extensions, the flanking DNA exhibits rapid unwrapping-rewrapping (breathing) dynamics and the octamer flips ∼180° and moves toward the pulling axis. At intermediate extensions, the outer turn of DNA unwraps gradually and the octamer swivels about the taut linkers and flips a further ∼90° to orient its superhelical axis almost parallel to the pulling axis. At large extensions, a portion of the inner turn unwraps abruptly with a notable rip in the force-extension plot and a >90° flip of the octamer. The remaining inner turn unwraps reversibly to leave a small portion of DNA attached to the octamer despite extended pulling. Our simulations further reveal that the nonuniform histone/DNA interactions in canonical nucleosomes serve to: stabilize the inner turn against unraveling while enhancing the breathing dynamics of the nucleosome and prevent dissociation of the octamer from the DNA while facilitating its mobility along the DNA. Thus, the modulation of the histone/DNA interactions could constitute one possible mechanism for regulating the accessibility of the nucleosome-wound DNA sequences.
    Biophysical Journal 09/2012; 103(5):989-98. DOI:10.1016/j.bpj.2012.07.043 · 3.97 Impact Factor
Show more