In vivo analysis reveals that ATP-hydrolysis couples remodeling to SWI/SNF release from chromatin

  1. Ben Tilly  Is a corresponding author
  2. Gillian Chalkley
  3. Jan van der Knaap
  4. Yuri Moshkin
  5. Tsung Wai Kan
  6. Dick HW Dekkers
  7. Jeroen Demmers
  8. Peter Verrijzer  Is a corresponding author
  1. Erasmus University Medical Center, Netherlands
  2. Erasmus MC, Netherlands
  3. ErasmusMC, Netherlands

Abstract

ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers control the accessibility of genomic DNA through nucleosome mobilization. However, the dynamics of genome exploration by remodelers, and the role of ATP hydrolysis in this process remain unclear. We used live-cell imaging of Drosophila polytene nuclei to monitor Brahma (BRM) remodeler interactions with its chromosomal targets. In parallel, we measured local chromatin condensation and its effect on BRM association. Surprisingly, only a small portion of BRM is bound to chromatin at any given time. BRM binds decondensed chromatin but is excluded from condensed chromatin, limiting its genomic search space. BRM-chromatin interactions are highly dynamic, whereas histone-exchange is limited and much slower. Intriguingly, loss of ATP hydrolysis enhanced chromatin retention and clustering of BRM, which was associated with reduced histone turnover. Thus, ATP hydrolysis couples nucleosome remodeling to remodeler release, driving a continuous transient probing of the genome.

Data availability

The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium (www.proteomexchange.org) via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD025474.All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 1, 2 and Figure 2-figure-supplement1

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ben Tilly

    Biochemistry, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    b.tilly@erasmusmc.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Gillian Chalkley

    Biochemistry, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jan van der Knaap

    Biochemistry, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yuri Moshkin

    Biochemistry, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Tsung Wai Kan

    Biochemistry, Erasmus MC, 3015 CN Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Dick HW Dekkers

    Proteomics Center, ErasmusMC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jeroen Demmers

    Proteomics Center, ErasmusMC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Peter Verrijzer

    Biochemistry, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    c.verrijzer@erasmusmc.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6476-3264

Funding

FOM-AMOLF (DNA at Work)

  • Peter Verrijzer

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2021, Tilly et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,648
    views
  • 268
    downloads
  • 18
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ben Tilly
  2. Gillian Chalkley
  3. Jan van der Knaap
  4. Yuri Moshkin
  5. Tsung Wai Kan
  6. Dick HW Dekkers
  7. Jeroen Demmers
  8. Peter Verrijzer
(2021)
In vivo analysis reveals that ATP-hydrolysis couples remodeling to SWI/SNF release from chromatin
eLife 10:e69424.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69424

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69424

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Parnian Arafi, Sujan Devkota ... Michael S Wolfe
    Research Article

    Missense mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin-1 (PSEN1) cause early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) and alter proteolytic production of secreted 38-to-43-residue amyloid β-peptides (Aβ) by the PSEN1-containing γ-secretase complex, ostensibly supporting the amyloid hypothesis of pathogenesis. However, proteolysis of APP substrate by γ-secretase is processive, involving initial endoproteolysis to produce long Aβ peptides of 48 or 49 residues followed by carboxypeptidase trimming in mostly tripeptide increments. We recently reported evidence that FAD mutations in APP and PSEN1 cause deficiencies in early steps in processive proteolysis of APP substrate C99 and that this results from stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes. These stalled complexes triggered synaptic degeneration in a Caenorhabditis elegans model of FAD independently of Aβ production. Here, we conducted full quantitative analysis of all proteolytic events on APP substrate by γ-secretase with six additional PSEN1 FAD mutations and found that all six are deficient in multiple processing steps. However, only one of these (F386S) was deficient in certain trimming steps but not in endoproteolysis. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy in intact cells revealed that all six PSEN1 FAD mutations lead to stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate/intermediate complexes. The F386S mutation, however, does so only in Aβ-rich regions of the cells, not in C99-rich regions, consistent with the deficiencies of this mutant enzyme only in trimming of Aβ intermediates. These findings provide further evidence that FAD mutations lead to stalled and stabilized γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes and are consistent with the stalled process rather than the products of γ-secretase proteolysis as the pathogenic trigger.