Effect of supercoiling on formation of protein-mediated DNA loops

Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics

Volumn 74, Issue 6, 2006, Pages

  Purohit, P K ^a   Nelson, P C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FREE ENERGY; GENES; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MICROORGANISMS; PROTEINS; STRESS ANALYSIS;

ELASTIC ROD MODEL; REPRESSOR PROTEIN; SUPERCOILING; SUPERHELICAL STRESS;

DNA;

EID: 33845793417     PISSN: 15393755     EISSN: 15502376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.061907     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. T. Dunn, S. Hahn, S. Ogden, and R. Schleif, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. PNASA6 0027-8424 81, 5017 (1984).
2. S. Adhya, Annu. Rev. Genet. ARVGB7 0066-1497 10.1146/annurev.ge.23. 120189.001303 23, 227 (1989).
3. R. Schleif, Annu. Rev. Biochem. ARBOAW 0066-4154 10.1146/annurev.bi.61. 070192.001215 61, 199 (1992).
4. S. E. Halford, A. J. Welsh, and M. D. Szczelkun, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. ABBSE4 1056-8700 10.1146/annurev.biophys.33.110502.132711 33, 1 (2004).
5. A. Hochschild and M. Ptashne, Cell CELLB5 0092-8674 44, 925 (1986).
6. H. Krämer, EMBO J. EMJODG 0261-4189 6, 1481 (1987).
7. G. R. Bellomy, M. C. Mossing, and M. T. Record, Biochemistry BICHAW 0006-2960 10.1021/bi00411a002 27, 3900 (1988).
8. J. Müller, S. Oehler, and B. Müller-Hill, J. Mol. Biol. JMOBAK 0022-2836 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0143 257, 21 (1996).
9. N. A. Becker, J. D. Kahn, and L. J. Maher, J. Mol. Biol. JMOBAK 0022-2836 349, 716 (2005);
10. N. A. Becker, J. D. Kahn, and L. J. Maher, J. Mol. Biol. JMOBAK 0022-2836 353, 924 (E) (2005).
11. L. Saiz, J. M. Rubi, and J. M. G. Vilar, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. PNASA6 0027-8424 10.1073/pnas.0505693102 102, 17642 (2005).
12. H. G. Garcia, L. Bintu, P. A. Wiggins, J. Kondev, and R. Phillips (unpublished).
13. Although the canonical value of DNA pitch Lhelix is quoted as 10.5 bp, this value in fact depends on the temperature, solution conditions, superhelical stress and so on. In this paper we will use the value 11 bp as an approximation to the actual period.
14. M. C. Mossing and M. T. Record, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 233, 889 (1986).
15. M. Lewis, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 271, 1247 (1996).
16. A. Balaeff, L. Mahadevan, and K. Schulten, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4900 83, 4900 (1999).
17. L. Finzi and J. Gelles, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 68, 378 (1995).
18. G. Lia, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. PNASA6 0027-8424 10.1073/pnas.2034851100 100, 11373 (2003).
19. C. E. Bell, J. Barry, K. S. Matthews, and M. Lewis, J. Mol. Biol. JMOBAK 0022-2836 313, 99 (2001).
20. C. E. Bell and M. Lewis, J. Laser Appl. JLAPEN 1042-346X 312, 921 (2001).
21. L. Bintu, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. COGDET 0959-437X 10.1016/j.gde.2005.02. 007 15, 116 (2005).
22. L. L. Saiz and J. M. G. Vilar, q-bio.BM/0602012 (unpublished).
23. K. V. Klenin, M. D. Frank-Kamenetskii, and J. Langowski, Biophys. J. BIOJAU 0006-3495 68, 81 (1995).
24. A. Vologodskii and N. R. Cozzarelli, Biophys. J. BIOJAU 0006-3495 70, 2548 (1996).
25. A. V. Vologodskii, Topology and Physics of Circular DNA (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1992).
26. M. Geanacopoulos, G. Vasmatzis, V. B. Zhurkin, and S. Adhya, Nat. Struct. Biol. NSBIEW 1072-8368 10.1038/87595 8, 432 (2001).
27. C. E. Bell, P. Frescura, A. Hochschild, and M. Lewis, Cell CELLB5 0092-8674 101, 801 (2000).
28. I. Tobias, D. Swigon, and B. D. Coleman, Phys. Rev. E PLEEE8 1063-651X 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.747 61, 747 (2000).
29. O. V. Tsodikov, J. Mol. Biol. JMOBAK 0022-2836 10.1006/jmbi.1999.3283 294, 639 (1999).
30. A. Balaeff, C. R. Koudella, L. Mahadevan, and K. Schulten, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A PRLAAZ 1364-5021 362, 1355 (2004).
31. A. Balaeff, L. Mahadevan, and K. Schulten, Structure (London) STRUE6 0969-2126 10.1016/j.str.2003.12.004 12, 123 (2004).
32. N. Douarche and S. Cocco, Phys. Rev. E PLEEE8 1063-651X 10.1103/PhysRevE.72.061902 72, 061902 (2005).
33. A. Balaeff, L. Mahadevan, and K. Schulten, Phys. Rev. E PLEEE8 1063-651X 10.1103/PhysRevE.73.031919 73, 031919 (2006).
34. I. Tobias, B. D. Coleman, and W. K. Olson, J. Chem. Phys. JCPSA6 0021-9606 10.1063/1.467849 101, 10990 (1994).
35. B. D. Coleman, I. Tobias, and D. Swigon, J. Chem. Phys. JCPSA6 0021-9606 10.1063/1.470021 103, 9101 (1995).
36. D. Swigon, B. D. Coleman, and W. K. Olson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. PNASA6 0027-8424 103, 9879 (2006).
37. J. Shimada and H. Yamakawa, Macromolecules MAMOBX 0024-9297 10.1021/ma00134a028 17, 689 (1984).
38. Y. L. Zhang and D. M. Crothers, Biophys. J. BIOJAU 0006-3495 84, 136 (2003).
39. A. J. Spakowitz, Europhys. Lett. EULEEJ 0295-5075 10.1209/epl/i2005- 10447-9 73, 684 (2006).
40. Y. Zhang, A. E. McEwen, D. M. Crothers, and S. D. Levene, Biophys. J. BIOJAU 0006-3495 90, 1903 (2006).
41. Y. Zhang, A. E. McEwen, D. M. Crothers, and S. D. Levene, PLoS One (to be published).
42. E. Villa, A. Balaeff, L. Mahadevan, and K. Schulten, Multiscale Model. Simul. MMSUBT 1540-3459 10.1137/040604789 2, 527 (2004).
43. E. Villa, A. Balaeff, and K. Schulten, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. PNASA6 0027-8424 10.1073/pnas.0409387102 102, 6783 (2005).
44. J. B. Bliska and N. R. Cozzarelli, J. Mol. Biol. JMOBAK 0022-2836 194, 205 (1987).
45. K. Drlica, Mol. Microbiol. MOMIEE 0950-382X 6, 425 (1992).
46. J. F. Marko and E. D. Siggia, Phys. Rev. E PLEEE8 1063-651X 10.1103/PhysRevE.52.2912 52, 2912 (1995).
47. A. V. Vologodskii, J. Mol. Biol. JMOBAK 0022-2836 10.1016/0022-2836(92) 90533-P 227, 1224 (1992).
48. P. A. Wiggins and P. C. Nelson, Phys. Rev. E PLEEE8 1063-651X 10.1103/PhysRevE.73.031906 73, 031906 (2006).
49. P. A. Wiggins, Nature Nanotech. 1, 137 (2006).
50. This simplifying assumption may be more realistic for other complexes, such as the lambda cI repressor, which are thought to be more rigid than LacI.
51. Again, this idealization may be more literally appropriate for other repressors, such as lambda cI.
52. T. A. Steitz, T. J. Richmond, D. Wise, and D. Engelman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. PNASA6 0027-8424 71, 593 (1974).
53. P. Nelson, Biological Physics: Energy, Information, Life (W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 2004), Sec. 6.6.4.
54. Recall that we are assuming that the DNA is permanently bound to the protein. More generally we need to account for the fact that protein-DNA binding generally unwinds the DNA; for example in lac the unwinding is nearly one radian. The work done by external torsional stress against this rotation effectively modifies the binding constant relative to the value appropriate for isolated operator fragments.
55. M. Nizette and A. Goriely, J. Math. Phys. JMAPAQ 0022-2488 10.1063/1.532731 40, 2830 (1999).
56. Note that the external torque Mext need not equal M3 at the points si, sf, because the coupler can exert torque on the DNA.
57. R. D. Kamien, Rev. Mod. Phys. RMPHAT 0034-6861 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.953 74, 953 (2002).
58. T. E. Cloutier and J. Widom, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. PNASA6 0027-8424 10.1073/pnas.0409059102 102, 3634 (2005).
59. The twist stiffness given here is smaller than the value found in single-molecule studies. Widom and Cloutier found that this small value was needed to fit their data on cyclization of short DNA, and proposed that it was an effective value reflecting a nonlinear breakdown of elasticity under high strain. Previous authors also found that a significant, though less dramatic, reduction of the value of twist stiffess was needed to fit cyclization of longer DNA. In the present work we found that a reduced effective twist stiffness was needed to get the required magnitude of the peak-to-valley energy change in Fig. 1; however, Saiz and Vilar have argued that the existence of multiple looping geometries can also reduce this modulation.