Reactivation of mutant p53: Constraints on mechanism highlighted by principal component analysis of the DNA binding domain
Zahra Ouaray
School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
Bioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, 138671 Singapore
Search for more papers by this authorKarim M. ElSawy
York Centre for Complex Systems Analysis (YCCSA), University of York, York, YO10 5GE United Kingdom
Department of Chemistry, College of Science, Qassim University, Buraydah, 52571 Saudi Arabia
Search for more papers by this authorDavid P. Lane
p53 Laboratory, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, 138648 Singapore
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Jonathan W. Essex
School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
Correspondence to: Jonathan W. Essex, School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom. Chandra Verma, Bioinformatics Institute (A*STAR), Singapore 138671.E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorChandra Verma
Bioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, 138671 Singapore
School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 637551 Singapore
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 117543 Singapore
Search for more papers by this authorZahra Ouaray
School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
Bioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, 138671 Singapore
Search for more papers by this authorKarim M. ElSawy
York Centre for Complex Systems Analysis (YCCSA), University of York, York, YO10 5GE United Kingdom
Department of Chemistry, College of Science, Qassim University, Buraydah, 52571 Saudi Arabia
Search for more papers by this authorDavid P. Lane
p53 Laboratory, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, 138648 Singapore
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Jonathan W. Essex
School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
Correspondence to: Jonathan W. Essex, School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom. Chandra Verma, Bioinformatics Institute (A*STAR), Singapore 138671.E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorChandra Verma
Bioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, 138671 Singapore
School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 637551 Singapore
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 117543 Singapore
Search for more papers by this authorABSTRACT
Most p53 mutations associated with cancer are located in its DNA binding domain (DBD). Many structures (X-ray and NMR) of this domain are available in the protein data bank (PDB) and a vast conformational heterogeneity characterizes the various free and complexed states. The major difference between the apo and the holo-complexed states appears to lie in the L1 loop. In particular, the conformations of this loop appear to depend intimately on the sequence of DNA to which it binds. This conclusion builds upon recent observations that implicate the tetramerization and the C-terminal domains (respectively TD and Cter) in DNA binding specificity. Detailed PCA analysis of the most recent collection of DBD structures from the PDB have been carried out. In contrast to recommendations that small molecules/drugs stabilize the flexible L1 loop to rescue mutant p53, our study highlights a need to retain the flexibility of the p53 DNA binding surface (DBS). It is the adaptability of this region that enables p53 to engage in the diverse interactions responsible for its functionality. Proteins 2016; 84:1443–1461. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| prot25089-sup-0001-suppinfo.pdf2.1 MB | Supporting Information |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Lane DP. p53, Guardian of the genome. Nature 1992; 358:15–16.
- 2Vousden KH, Lane DP. p53 in health and disease. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2007; 8: 275–283.
- 3Joerger AC, Allen MD, Fersht AR. Crystal structure of a superstable mutant of human p53 core domain. Insights into the mechanism of rescuing oncogenic mutations. J Biol Chem 2004; 279: 1291–1296.
- 4Rodier F, Campisi J, Bhaumik D. Two faces of p53: aging and tumor suppression. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35: 7475–7484.
- 5Nikolova PV, Wong KB, DeDecker B, Henckel J, Fersht AR. Mechanism of rescue of common p53 cancer mutations by second-site suppressor mutations. Embo J 2000; 19: 370–378.
- 6Bykov VJN, Issaeva N, Shilov A, Hultcrantz M, Pugacheva E, Chumakov P, Bergman J, Wiman KG, Selivanova G. Restoration of the tumor suppressor function to mutant p53 by a low-molecular-weight compound. Nat Med 2002; 8: 282–288.
- 7Merabet A, Houlleberghs H, Maclagan K, Akanho E, Bui TTT, Pagano B, Drake AF, Fraternali F, Nikolova PV. Mutants of the tumour suppressor p53 L1 loop as second-site suppressors for restoring DNA binding to oncogenic p53 mutations: structural and biochemical insights. Biochem J 2010; 427: 225–236.
- 8Lambert JMR, Gorzov P, Veprintsev DB, Söderqvist M, Segerbäck D, Bergman J, Fersht AR, Hainaut P, Wiman KG, Bykov VJN. PRIMA-1 reactivates mutant p53 by covalent binding to the core domain. Cancer Cell 2009; 15: 376–388.
- 9Pavletich NP, Chambers KA, Pabo CO. The DNA-binding domain of p53 contains the four conserved regions and the major mutation hot spots. Genes Dev 1993; 7: 2556–2564.
- 10Bullock AN, Fersht AR. Rescuing the function of mutant p53. Nat Rev Cancer 2001; 1: 68–76.
- 11Lu Q, Tan Y, Luo R. Molecular dynamics simulations of p53 DNA-binding domain. 2008;1113:11538–11545.
- 12Amadei A, Linssen ABM, Berendsen HJC. Essential dynamics of proteins. Proteins 1993; 17: 412–425.
- 13Gendoo DMA, Harrison PM. The landscape of the prion protein's structural response to mutation revealed by principal component analysis of multiple NMR ensembles. PLoS Comput Biol 2012; 8: e1002646.
- 14Lukman S, Grant BJ, Gorfe AA, Grant GH, McCammon JA. The distinct conformational dynamics of K-Ras and H-Ras A59G. PLoS Comput Biol 2010; 6: e1000922.
- 15Lukman S, Lane DP, Verma CS. Mapping the structural and dynamical features of multiple p53 DNA binding domains: insights into loop 1 intrinsic dynamics. PLoS One 2013; 8: e80221.
- 16Cañadillas JMP, Tidow H, Freund SMV, Rutherford TJ, Ang HC, Fersht AR. Solution structure of p53 core domain: structural basis for its instability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 2109–2114.
- 17Zupnick A, Prives C. Mutational analysis of the p53 core domain L1 loop. J Biol Chem 2006; 281: 20464–20473.
- 18Pan Y, Ma B, Venkataraghavan RB, Levine AJ, Nussinov R. In the quest for stable rescuing mutants of p53: computational mutagenesis of flexible loop L1. Biochemistry 2005; 44: 1423–1432.
- 19Demir Ö, Baronio R, Salehi F, Wassman CD, Hall L, Hatfield GW, Chamberlin R, Kaiser P, Lathrop RH, Amaro RE. Ensemble-based computational approach discriminates functional activity of p53 cancer and rescue mutants. PLoS Comput Biol 2011; 7: e1002238.
- 20Petty TJ, Emamzadah S, Costantino L, Petkova I, Stavridi ES, Saven JG, Vauthey E, Halazonetis TD. An induced fit mechanism regulates p53 DNA binding kinetics to confer sequence specificity. Embo J 2011; 30: 2167–2176.
- 21Emamzadah S, Tropia L, Halazonetis TD. Crystal structure of a multidomain human p53 tetramer bound to the natural CDKN1A (p21) p53-response element. Mol Cancer Res 2011; 9: 1493–1499.
- 22Emamzadah S, Tropia L, Vincenti I, Falquet B, Halazonetis TD. Reversal of the DNA-binding-induced loop L1 conformational switch in an engineered human p53 protein. J Mol Biol 2014; 426: 936–944.
- 23Weinberg RL, Veprintsev DB, Bycroft M, Fersht AR. Comparative binding of p53 to its promoter and DNA recognition elements. J Mol Biol 2005; 348: 589–596.
- 24Laptenko O, Shiff I, Freed-Pastor W, Zupnick A, Mattia M, Freulich E, Shamir I, Kadouri N, Kahan T, Manfredi J, Simon I, Prives C. The p53 C terminus controls site-specific DNA binding and promotes structural changes within the central DNA binding domain. Mol Cell 2015; 57: 1034–1046.
- 25Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: Visual Molecular Dynamics. J Mol Graph 1996; 14: 33–38.
- 26Lu X-J. 3DNA: a software package for the analysis, rebuilding and visualization of three-dimensional nucleic acid structures. Nucleic Acids Res 2003; 31: 5108–5121.
- 27Elsawy KM, Hodgson MK, Caves LSD. The physical determinants of the DNA conformational landscape: an analysis of the potential energy surface of single-strand dinucleotides in the conformational space of duplex DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 2005; 33: 5749–5762.
- 28Grant BJ, Rodrigues APC, ElSawy KM, McCammon JA, Caves LSD. Bio3d: an R package for the comparative analysis of protein structures. Bioinformatics 2006; 22: 2695–2696.
- 29Durrant JD, McCammon JA. HBonanza: A computer algorithm for molecular-dynamics-trajectory hydrogen-bond analysis. J Mol Graph Model 2011; 31: 5–9.
- 30Lilyestrom W, Klein MG, Zhang R, Joachimiak A, Chen XS. Crystal structure of SV40 large T-antigen bound to p53: interplay between a viral oncoprotein and a cellular tumor suppressor. Genes Dev 2006; 20: 2373–2382.
- 31Bista M, Freund SM, Fersht AR. Domain-domain interactions in full-length p53 and a specific DNA complex probed by methyl NMR spectroscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 15752–15756.
- 32Joerger AC, Fersht AR. The tumor suppressor p53: from structures to drug discovery. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2010; 2:a000919.
- 33Ma B, Pan Y, Gunasekaran K, Venkataraghavan RB, Levine AJ, Nussinov R. Comparison of the protein-protein interfaces in the p53-DNA crystal structures: towards elucidation of the biological interface. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102: 3988–3993.
- 34Derbyshire DJ, Basu BP, Serpell LC, Joo WS, Date T, Iwabuchi K, Doherty AJ. Crystal structure of human 53BP1 BRCT domains bound to p53 tumour suppressor. Embo J 2002; 21: 3863–3872.
- 35Joo WS, Jeffrey PD, Cantor SB, Finnin MS, Livingston DM, Pavletich NP. Structure of the 53BP1 BRCT region bound to p53 and its comparison to the Brca1 BRCT structure. Genes Dev 2002; 16: 583–593.
- 36Gorina S, Pavletich NP. Structure of the p53 tumor suppressor bound to the ankyrin and SH3 domains of 53BP2. Am Assoc Adv Sci 2012; 274: 1001–1005.
- 37Joerger AC, Ang HC, Veprintsev DB, Blair CM, Fersht AR. Structures of p53 cancer mutants and mechanism of rescue by second-site suppressor mutations. J Biol Chem 2005; 280: 16030–16037.
- 38Kwon E, Kim DY, Suh SW, Kim KK. Crystal structure of the mouse p53 core domain in zinc-free state. Proteins 2007; 70: 280–283.
- 39Duan J, Nilsson L. Effect of Zn2+ on DNA recognition and stability of the p53 DNA-binding domain. Biochemistry 2006; 45: 7483–7492.
- 40Butler JS, Loh SN. Structure, function, and aggregation of the zinc-free form of the p53 DNA binding domain. Biochemistry 2003; 42: 2396–2403.
- 41Tu C, Tan YH, Shaw G, Zhou Z, Bai Y, Luo R, Ji X. Impact of low-frequency hotspot mutation R282Q on the structure of p53 DNA-binding domain as revealed by crystallography at 1.54 angstroms resolution. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 2008; 64: 471–477.
- 42Saller E, Tom E, Brunori M, Otter M, Estreicher A, Mack DH, Iggo R. Increased apoptosis induction by 121F mutant p53. Embo J 1999; 18: 4424–4437.
- 43Kitayner M, Rozenberg H, Kessler N, Rabinovich D, Shaulov L, Haran TE, Shakked Z. Structural basis of DNA recognition by p53 tetramers. Mol Cell 2006; 22: 741–753.
- 44Ma B, Levine AJ. Probing potential binding modes of the p53 tetramer to DNA based on the symmetries encoded in p53 response elements. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35: 7733–7747.
- 45Djuranovic D, Lavery R, Hartmann B. a. /g Transitions in the B-DNA backbone. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30: 5398–5406.
- 46Nagaich a. K, Zhurkin VB, Durell SR, Jernigan RL, Appella E, Harrington RE. p53-induced DNA bending and twisting: p53 tetramer binds on the outer side of a DNA loop and increases DNA twisting. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96: 1875–1880.
- 47Pan Y, Nussinov R. Structural basis for p53 binding-induced DNA bending. J Biol Chem 2007; 282: 691–699.
- 48Nussinov YP and R. p53-induced DNA bending: the interplay between p53-DNA and p53-p53 interactions. J Phys Chem B 2009; 112: 6716–6724.
- 49Pan Y, Ma B, Levine AJ, Nussinov R. Comparison of the human and worm p53 structures suggests a way for enhancing stability. Biochemistry 2006; 45: 3925–3933.
- 50Wassman CD, Baronio R, Demir Ö, Wallentine BD, Chen C-K, Hall LV, Salehi F, Lin D-W, Chung BP, Hatfield GW, Richard Chamberlin a, Luecke H, Lathrop RH, Kaiser P, Amaro RE. Computational identification of a transiently open L1/S3 pocket for reactivation of mutant p53. Nat Commun 2013; 4: 1407
- 51Pagano B, Jama A, Martinez P, Akanho E, Bui TTT, Drake AF, Fraternali F, Nikolova PV. Structure and stability insights into tumour suppressor p53 evolutionary related proteins. PLoS One 2013; 8: e76014.
- 52Pan Y, Nussinov R. Preferred drifting along the DNA major groove and cooperative anchoring of the p53 core domain: mechanisms and scenarios. J Mol Recognit 2010; 23: 232–240.
- 53Pan Y, Nussinov R. Lysine120 interactions with p53 response elements can allosterically direct p53 organization. PLoS Comput Biol 2010; 6: e1000878.
- 54Pan Y, Nussinov R. Cooperativity dominates the genomic organization of p53-response elements: a mechanistic view. PLoS Comput Biol 2009; 5: e1000448.
- 55Abramo MD, Be N, Desideri A, Levine AJ, Melino G, Chillemi G. The p53 tetramer shows an induced- fit interaction of the C-terminal domain with the DNA-binding domain. Oncogene 2016; 35: 3272–3281.
Citing Literature
