Dataset Information

Experimental maps of DNA structure at nucleotide resolution distinguish intrinsic from protein-induced DNA deformations.

ABSTRACT: Recognition of DNA by proteins depends on DNA sequence and structure. Often unanswered is whether the structure of naked DNA persists in a protein-DNA complex, or whether protein binding changes DNA shape. While X-ray structures of protein-DNA complexes are numerous, the structure of naked cognate DNA is seldom available experimentally. We present here an experimental and computational analysis pipeline that uses hydroxyl radical cleavage to map, at single-nucleotide resolution, DNA minor groove width, a recognition feature widely exploited by proteins. For 11 protein-DNA complexes, we compared experimental maps of naked DNA minor groove width with minor groove width measured from X-ray co-crystal structures. Seven sites had similar minor groove widths as naked DNA and when bound to protein. For four sites, part of the DNA in the complex had the same structure as naked DNA, and part changed structure upon protein binding. We compared the experimental map with minor groove patterns of DNA predicted by two computational approaches, DNAshape and ORChID2, and found good but not perfect concordance with both. This experimental approach will be useful in mapping structures of DNA sequences for which high-resolution structural data are unavailable. This approach allows probing of protein family-dependent readout mechanisms.

SUBMITTER: Azad RN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5946862 | biostudies-other | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) are potentially deleterious events in a cell. The end structures (blunt, 3'- and 5'-overhangs) at DSB sites contribute to the fate of their repair and provide critical information concerning the consequences of the damage. Therefore, there has been a recent eruption of DNA break mapping and sequencing methods that aim to map at single-nucleotide resolution where breaks are generated genome-wide. These methods provide high resolution data for the location of DSBs, which can encode the type of end-structure present at these breaks. However, genome-wide analysis of the resulting end structures has not been investigated following these sequencing methods. RESULTS:To address this analysis gap, we develop the use of a coverage-normalized cross correlation analysis (CNCC) to process the high-precision genome-wide break mapping data, and determine genome-wide break end structure distributions at single-nucleotide resolution. We take advantage of the single-nucleotide position and the knowledge of strandness from every mapped break to analyze the relative shifts between positive and negative strand encoded break nucleotides. By applying CNCC we can identify the most abundant end structures captured by a break mapping technique, and further can make comparisons between different samples and treatments. We validate our analysis with restriction enzyme digestions of genomic DNA and establish the sensitivity of the analysis using end structures that only exist as a minor fraction of total breaks. Finally, we demonstrate the versatility of our analysis by applying CNCC to the breaks resulting after treatment with etoposide and study the variety of resulting end structures. CONCLUSION:For the first time, on a genome-wide scale, our analysis revealed the increase in the 5' to 3' end resection following etoposide treatment, and the global progression of the resection. Furthermore, our method distinguished the change in the pattern of DSB end structure with increasing doses of the drug. The ability of this method to determine DNA break end structures without a priori knowledge of break sequences or genomic position should have broad applications in understanding genome instability.

Dataset Information

Experimental maps of DNA structure at nucleotide resolution distinguish intrinsic from protein-induced DNA deformations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets