The N-terminal domain of MuB protein has striking structural similarity to DNA-binding domains and mediates MuB filament-filament interactions

Elucidating the Architectural dynamics of MuB filaments in bacteriophage Mu DNA transposition

MuB is a non-specific DNA-binding protein and AAA+ ATPase that significantly influences the DNA transposition process of bacteriophage Mu, especially in target DNA selection for transposition. While studies have established the ATP-dependent formation of MuB filament as pivotal to this process, the high-resolution structure of a full-length MuB protomer and the underlying molecular mechanisms governing its oligomerization remain elusive. Here, we use cryo-EM to obtain a 3.4-Å resolution structure of the ATP(+)-DNA(+)-MuB helical filament, which encapsulates the DNA substrate within its axial channel. The structure categorizes MuB within the initiator clade of the AAA+ protein family and precisely locates the ATP and DNA binding sites. Further investigation into the oligomeric states of MuB show the existence of various forms of the filament. These findings lead to a mechanistic model where MuB forms opposite helical filaments along the DNA, exposing potential target sites on the bare DNA and then recruiting MuA, which stimulates MuB's ATPase activity and disrupts the previously formed helical structure. When this happens, MuB generates larger ring structures and dissociates from the DNA.

Deep sequencing reveals new roles for MuB in transposition immunity and target-capture, and redefines the insular Ter region of E. coli

Background

The target capture protein MuB is responsible for the high efficiency of phage Mu transposition within the E. coli genome. However, some targets are off-limits, such as regions immediately outside the Mu ends (cis-immunity) as well as the entire ~ 37 kb genome of Mu (Mu genome immunity). Paradoxically, MuB is responsible for cis-immunity and is also implicated in Mu genome immunity, but via different mechanisms. This study was undertaken to dissect the role of MuB in target choice in vivo.

Results

We tracked Mu transposition from six different starting locations on the E. coli genome, in the presence and absence of MuB. The data reveal that Mu’s ability to sample the entire genome during a single hop in a clonal population is independent of MuB, and that MuB is responsible for cis-immunity, plays a minor role in Mu genome immunity, and facilitates insertions into transcriptionally active regions. Unexpectedly, transposition patterns in the absence of MuB have helped extend the boundaries of the insular Ter segment of the E. coli genome.

Conclusions

The results in this study demonstrate unambiguously the operation of two distinct mechanisms of Mu target immunity, only one of which is wholly dependent on MuB. The study also reveals several interesting and hitherto unknown aspects of Mu target choice in vivo, particularly the role of MuB in facilitating the capture of promoter and translation start site targets, likely by displacing macromolecular complexes engaged in gene expression. So also, MuB facilitates transposition into the restricted Ter region of the genome.

Target DNA bending by the Mu transpososome promotes careful transposition and prevents its reversal

The transposition of bacteriophage Mu serves as a model system for understanding DDE transposases and integrases. All available structures of these enzymes at the end of the transposition reaction, including Mu, exhibit significant bends in the transposition target site DNA. Here we use Mu to investigate the ramifications of target DNA bending on the transposition reaction. Enhancing the flexibility of the target DNA or prebending it increases its affinity for transpososomes by over an order of magnitude and increases the overall reaction rate. This and FRET confirm that flexibility is interrogated early during the interaction between the transposase and a potential target site, which may be how other DNA binding proteins can steer selection of advantageous target sites. We also find that the conformation of the target DNA after strand transfer is involved in preventing accidental catalysis of the reverse reaction, as conditions that destabilize this conformation also trigger reversal.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21777.001

Pieces of DNA called transposons can move or copy themselves around the genome. Some viruses – such as HIV and Mu (a virus that infects bacteria) – act as transposons to hide their DNA by inserting it into their host’s genome.

Mu, HIV and many transposons all work in the same, somewhat unusual way. Like many chemical reactions, joining DNAs together needs a source of energy to make it happen, yet these viruses and transposons do not need high energy inputs to work. In addition, they do not look for a specific DNA sequence to insert their DNA into. This gives them the advantage of inserting copies of their DNA anywhere in the host’s genome, but also means that multiple copies might mistakenly insert into each other.

Visualizations of the insertion process show that the DNA that the viruses insert their DNA into is always bent like a U-turn. Why does this bending occur? It may be that the bending helps the virus to choose where in the DNA to insert and acts as a way to power the chemical reaction that joins the DNA. To investigate this possibility, Fuller and Rice performed experiments using purified fragments of DNA and the enzyme from Mu that does the DNA joining chemistry. The results revealed that making the insertion site DNA easier to bend made the insertion much faster. Furthermore, a mutant enzyme that struggled to bend the DNA had trouble keeping the chemistry going, and so the viral DNA would accidentally pop back out after it was joined. Thus the insertion site DNA is like a spring: the enzyme puts a lot of energy into bending it, but once the viral DNA has been inserted that energy is released to power the reaction to completion.

Fuller and Rice conclude that if other proteins were to pre-bend or otherwise make the DNA more flexible, this would tell the DNA-joining enzyme where to insert, which helps explain the roles of known targeting proteins for Mu and HIV. Further work is now needed to investigate whether these other targeting proteins exist for other viruses and transposons, and to identify them.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21777.002