FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2106996266> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2106996266 endingPage "5540" @default.
• W2106996266 startingPage "5532" @default.
• W2106996266 abstract "Article1 October 2001free access T-loop assembly in vitro involves binding of TRF2 near the 3′ telomeric overhang Rachel M. Stansel Rachel M. Stansel Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7295 USA Search for more papers by this author Titia de Lange Titia de Lange The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, 10021 USA Search for more papers by this author Jack D. Griffith Corresponding Author Jack D. Griffith Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7295 USA Search for more papers by this author Rachel M. Stansel Rachel M. Stansel Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7295 USA Search for more papers by this author Titia de Lange Titia de Lange The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, 10021 USA Search for more papers by this author Jack D. Griffith Corresponding Author Jack D. Griffith Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7295 USA Search for more papers by this author Author Information Rachel M. Stansel1, Titia de Lange2 and Jack D. Griffith 1 1Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7295 USA 2The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, 10021 USA *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] The EMBO Journal (2001)20:5532-5540https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/20.19.5532 PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures. ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures & Info Mammalian telomeres contain a duplex TTAGGG-repeat tract terminating in a 3′ single-stranded overhang. TRF2 protein has been implicated in remodeling telomeres into duplex lariats, termed t-loops, in vitro and t-loops have been isolated from cells in vivo. To examine the features of the telomeric DNA essential for TRF2-promoted looping, model templates containing a 500 bp double-stranded TTAGGG tract and ending in different single-stranded overhangs were constructed. As assayed by electron microscopy, looped molecules containing most of the telomeric tract are observed with TRF2 at the loop junction. A TTAGGG-3′ overhang of at least six nucleotides is required for loop formation. Termini with 5′ overhangs, blunt ends or 3′ termini with non-telomeric sequences at the junction are deficient in loop formation. Addition of non-telomeric sequences to the distal portion of a 3′ overhang beginning with TTAGGG repeats only modestly diminishes looping. TRF2 preferentially localizes to the junction between the duplex repeats and the single-stranded overhang. Based on these findings we suggest a model for the mechanism by which TRF2 remodels telomeres into t-loops. Introduction Telomeres are specialized nucleoprotein structures at the ends of linear chromosomes comprised of repeated DNA elements and specific DNA binding proteins. In mammals, the duplex hexameric repeat TTAGGG runs 5′–3′ toward the chromosome end and terminates in a 75–300 nucleotide (nt) single-stranded (ss) 3′ overhang of the G-rich strand (Makarov et al., 1997; McElligott and Wellinger, 1997; Wright et al., 1999). The length of the repeat tract, while variable, is organism specific, with human telomeres ranging from 5 to 30 kb while mouse telomeres can be long as 150 kb (Moyzis et al., 1988; de Lange et al., 1990; Kipling and Cooke, 1990; Lejnine et al., 1995). The machinery that reproduces the genome replicates the bulk of the telomere. During each round of replication, telomeres shorten by ∼70–200 bp, due in part to the ‘end replication problem’ (Watson, 1972; Olovnikov, 1973; Harley et al., 1990). The reverse transcriptase telomerase restores the lost sequences in germ line and transformed cells (Greider and Blackburn, 1985; Lingner et al., 1997; reviewed in Oulton and Harrington, 2000). Two unique mammalian proteins, TRF1 and TRF2, have been discovered, which bind exclusively to double-stranded (ds) telomeric DNA. Both form homo- but not hetero-dimers (Chong et al., 1995; Bilaud et al., 1997; Broccoli et al., 1997) and bind DNA through two Myb domains, one at the C-terminus of each monomer. TRF1 and TRF2 differ in their N-termini, which are rich in either acidic residues (TRF1) or basic residues (TRF2). In vivo, both proteins localize to the telomere throughout the cell cycle (Chong et al., 1995; Luderus et al., 1996; Broccoli et al., 1997). Both TRF1 and TRF2 function to negatively regulate telomere length, as overexpression of either protein leads to the progressive shortening of the telomeric tract over many cellular divisions (van Steensel and de Lange, 1997; Smogorzewska et al., 2000). In addition to TRF1 and TRF2, mammalian telomeric DNA in vivo is complexed by a host of cellular proteins, including the histones (Makarov et al., 1993; Tommerup et al., 1994; Cacchione et al., 1997), DNA repair factors such as Ku (Hsu et al., 1999) and the Mre11–Rad50–NBS1 complex (Zhu et al., 2000). Tin2 (Kim et al., 1999), hRap1 (Li et al., 2000) and tankyrase (Smith et al., 1998) associate indirectly with telomeric DNA via binding to TRF1 or TRF2. Human cells must distinguish their 92 chromosome ends from internal ds breaks, which, if present at this number, would trigger cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. TRF2 plays a central role in concealing telomere ends from ds break recognition and repair factors. Expression of a dominant-negative allele of TRF2 in cultured human cells rapidly triggers changes typical of those induced by ds breaks: induction of apoptosis through the ATM/p53-dependent DNA damage checkpoint pathway (Karlseder et al., 1999), loss of the 3′ ss overhang and induction of end-to-end chromosome fusions (van Steensel et al., 1998). Our recent study of mammalian telomeres provided a possible structural solution to how telomere ends are sequestered from the DNA repair pathways. This study showed that mammalian telomeres are arranged into large duplex loops in vivo (t-loops) (Griffith et al., 1999). It was proposed that the t-loop is formed by strand invasion of the 3′ overhang into the preceding telomeric tract to form a lariat with a D-loop at the loop–tail junction and that this would effectively hide the natural end of the DNA to protect it from the machinery that scans DNA for broken ends. Recently, t-loops were found at the termini of micronuclear chromosomes of Oxytricha nova (Murti and Prescott, 1999) and at the telomeres of Trypanosome brucei minichromosomes (Munoz-Jordan et al., 2001). Furthermore, telomeres in Saccharomyces cerevisiae appear to form fold-back structures (Grunstein, 1997; de Bruin et al., 2000, 2001). Thus, telomere looping may be a common theme in telomere architecture. In our previous study, we generated a model telomere DNA containing ∼2 kb of ds TTAGGG repeats at the end of a linearized plasmid DNA and terminating in a 3′ ss overhang. Incubation of this DNA with TRF2, and inspection of the resulting complexes by electron microscopy (EM), revealed that TRF2 was able to either catalyze t-loop formation or stabilize loops formed by the ss tract folding back to associate with the internal duplex repeats. TRF2 localized exclusively to the loop junction (Griffith et al., 1999). Neither TRF1 nor tankyrase arranged the DNA into loops and a 3′ G-strand overhang was required for loop formation: DNA molecules with 5′ overhangs or blunt ends were inefficient as templates. Cross-linking data supported a model in which the 3′ overhang invades the telomeric duplex to form a D-loop. It was unclear, however, how TRF2 formed these loops since it does not bind ss telomeric DNA (Broccoli et al., 1997; T.de Lange, A.Bianchi, R.M.Stansel and J.D.Griffith, unpublished results). To begin to understand how TRF2 promotes looping, we have generated a model telomere DNA in which the ss overhang can be altered in sequence, length and orientation (Figure 1A). Using these variants we examined the ability of TRF2 to bind and to induce t-loop formation with each variant. The results point to the critical importance of the natural ss/ds junction at the 3′ telomeric overhang in positioning TRF2 on the DNA and inducing t-loop formation. Possible models for how this interaction initiates t-loop formation are discussed. Figure 1.Model telomere templates and the variants of the model telomere500bp termini. The model telomere500bp termini were altered in the orientation of the overhang (1), the length of the overhang (2), the sequence of the 3′-end of the overhang (3) and the sequence of the ss/ds junction (4) (A). A telomere-containing clone was engineered to place a nine repeat telomere tract at the end of the linearized plasmid. Long telomeric duplexes were created from this clone by both unidirectional replication (model telomere±2kb) (B) and expansive cloning (model telomere500bp) (C). Unidirectional replication (B) utilizes a single telomeric repeat containing oligonucleotide to extend the duplex tract off the end of the linearized plasmid. The result is a wide range of tract sizes (average 2 kb). To generate the 3′ overhang, the model telomere±2kb DNA was digested with a 5′–3′ exonuclease. Expansive cloning (C) utilizes continued cycles of cloning a nine repeat insert to generate long tracts of fixed lengths. The longest stable tract achieved is ∼500 bp. The model telomere500bp template, when linearized, contains a 4 nt 5′ overhang to which an oligonucleotide can be ligated to create a variety of model DNAs (A). Download figure Download PowerPoint Results Generation of model telomere DNAs A model mammalian telomere DNA should begin with non-telomeric sequences, be followed by a long tract of ds 5′-TTAGGG-3′/3′-AATCCC-5′ repeats, and terminate in a 3′ ss overhang of the G-rich strand. Previously (Griffith et al., 1999), a model template was generated by unidirectional replication, resulting in an average TTAGGG tract length of 2 kb ± 800 bp with some tracts as long as 5 kb, in the range of human telomere lengths in vivo (termed here model telomere±2kb; see Materials and methods) (Figure 1B). Overhangs (3′) were generated using T4 gene 6 exonuclease. To provide a template in which the overhang and ss/ds junction could be manipulated, a model DNA with a fixed number of TTAGGG repeats (model telomere500bp) was created by expansive cloning (see Materials and methods) (Figure 1C). The DNA was engineered such that long oligonucleotide tails can be added in either the 5′ or 3′ orientations. To monitor the efficiency of adding the overhang, two biotin moieties were incorporated into each oligonucleotide. Following ligation and incubation with streptavidin, examination by EM revealed that ∼80% of the model telomere500bp DNA molecules contained an overhang. This test was carried out for each DNA construct described below. The DNAs were used only if at least 80% of the molecules contained tails. Following optimization, several of the tails were obtained without biotin to test the influence of this moiety on TRF2 binding and t-loop formation (no effect detected). Four features of the telomere end were examined with respect to looping (Figure 1A): (i) the orientation and sequence of the overhang (3′ or 5′ and G strand or C strand); (ii) the length of the 3′ overhang; (iii) the sequence of the distal portion of the 3′ overhang; and (iv) the ss sequence at the junction. T-loops form efficiently with natural 3′ termini The template generated as a standard for these studies contains a 54 nt 3′ overhang, (TTAGGG)9, added to the terminus of the model telomere500bp DNA. This substrate was incubated with TRF2 using conditions optimized by EM (three TRF2 dimers per repeat, 20 mM HEPES pH 8.75, 20 min; see Materials and methods) and mounted directly onto EM supports without fixation. At this ratio of TRF2 dimers to DNA molecules, either the DNA was protein free or showed only one TRF2 complex bound. The DNA was present in a variety of forms. Frequently, one DNA end was observed folded back into a loop of ∼200–500 bp with TRF2 at the loop junction; structures we term t-loops. An example of a molecule containing a t-loop is shown in Figure 2A and enlargements of several loops are presented in Figure 3A–D. In addition, TRF2 was observed bound both internally along the DNA, but within 500 bp of the nearest end and thus presumably along the TTAGGG repeat tract (Figure 2B), and at one end of the DNA (Figure 2C). No DNAs were observed that had TRF2 bound both internally and at the end. Finally, linear DNA molecules with no protein bound were abundant (not shown) and aggregates of two or more DNAs bound by a large mass of TRF2 were present. In the case of aggregates involving only two DNAs, the DNA molecules appeared fused together at their ends (Figure 2D). Aggregates were observed with all of the templates and the level of aggregation increased as the ratios of TRF2 to DNA increased. Since the number of DNA molecules contained within the aggregates could not be determined by EM and the level of aggregation appeared consistent between experiments (when the same level of TRF2 was used), they were not included in the total number of DNAs counted. Thus, the data below are presented as the percentage of the individual (non-aggregated) DNAs. A non-biotin-labeled 54 nt overhang was also prepared and the same results were obtained, showing that the presence of a biotin tag on the tail does not affect the binding of TRF2 or its ability to form t-loops. Figure 2.Visualization of TRF2 binding to a model telomere template in vitro. (A–D) The model telomere500bp DNA with a 54 nt TTAGGG-3′ overhang was incubated with human TRF2 produced in insect cells under conditions described in the text and then directly adsorbed to the EM supports followed by washing, air-drying and rotary shadowcasting with tungsten. Molecules arranged into loops (A), with TRF2 bound internally on the 500 bp TTAGGG tract (B) or at one end of the DNA (C) were observed. In addition, synapsis between the ends of two molecules (D) were present. Following incubation with TRF2, aliquots of the sample were treated with psoralen and UV, followed by deproteinization, surface spreading with cytochrome c and rotary shadowcasting with platinum–palladium. Molecules with small loops at one end as well as two DNAs attached at their ends were present (arrows, E and F). Shown in reverse contrast. Bar is equivalent to the length of a 1.0 kb DNA. Download figure Download PowerPoint Figure 3.Visualization of the ends of the model telomere DNA bound by TRF1 and TRF2. Examples of looped DNA molecules generated on the model telomere500bp DNA with a 54 nt TTAGGG-3′ overhang as described in Figure 2A–C shown at higher magnifications reveal a large oligomeric mass of TRF2 at the loop junction (A–D). Incubation of the same DNA with TRF1 (see text for details) generated DNA molecules with balls or chains of balls at one end (E and F). Shown in reverse contrast. Bar is equivalent to the length of a 500 bp DNA. Download figure Download PowerPoint Using these scoring criteria, when the template with a 54 nt (TTAGGG)9 3′ overhang was incubated with TRF2 as indicated above and 1000 non-aggregated DNAs scored in 10 different experiments, 19 ± 8% had one end folded back into a loop with TRF2 at the loop junction, 32 ± 19% had a TRF2 particle bound at one end of the DNA (presumably the end with the telomeric repeats), 11 ± 5% had a TRF2 particle bound along the telomeric repeat tract and the remainder (39%) were scored as being protein free (Table I). Only looped forms that contained a protein complex at the loop junction were scored as t-loops. No TRF2 binding was observed with the parent plasmid lacking TTAGGG repeats. When the model telomere template was incubated with equivalent amounts of TRF1 (0.5–4 dimers per repeat) under conditions optimal for TRF1 binding (Griffith et al., 1998), TRF1 was observed bound to the repeat tract as clusters of protein balls (Figure 3E) or separate particles (Figure 3F), but with no looping (0%; n = 100/sample, two experiments). Table 1. Effect of the single-stranded overhang on the number of t-loops and the frequency and location of TRF2 binding The ‘>’ signs in the terminal structures represent the ligation site of the oligonucleotide overhangs. The percentages of the molecules unbound, internally bound, end bound and looped molecules are expressed as a fraction of the total molecules. The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation from one experiment to another (n = 100 per experiment). Using these EM preparative methods, a single 120 kDa TRF2 dimer can be clearly distinguished bound to DNA and hence we are confident of our ability to visually sort the DNA molecules into the different classes described above. The smallest mass of TRF2 observed at the t-loop junction was ∼3 dimers, with the average mass being ∼10 dimers. These estimates are based on experiments in which the complexes are mounted for EM in the presence of similar sized protein molecules of known size (Griffith et al., 1995). The TRF2 particles observed at the telomere end were most likely located at or adjacent to the ss/ds junction since TRF2 has a very low affinity for ss telomeric DNA in the presence of ds telomeric DNA (Broccoli et al., 1997; A.Bianchi, T.de Lange, R.M.Stansel, and J.D.Griffith, unpublished data). In the examples shown in Figures 2C and 3D, the particles are of a size suggestive of TRF2 tetramers, while the particle in Figure 2B is smaller, possibly having a mass of a single TRF2 dimer. The TRF2 masses shown bound to the loops in Figure 3A–C are clearly higher oligomeric forms. The length of the loops formed by TRF2 using the model telomere±2kb DNA measured 1800 ± 700 bp, while those formed on the model telomere500bp DNA measured 338 ± 190 bp; both close to the length of the telomere tracts in the templates (2000 ± 800 and 500 bp, respectively). If DNA flexibility alone had determined the size of the loops, then it would have been expected that both distributions would have been the same, and would have reflected the Shore and Baldwin value for optimal DNA circularization, which is ∼200 bp (Shore et al., 1981). A 3′ overhang with a single TTAGGG repeat is sufficient for t-loop formation Since we previously reported that blunt-ended DNA does not provide a suitable template for t-loop formation (Griffith et al., 1999), we examined the ability of TRF2 to generate t-loops on DNAs with 3′-TTAGGG overhangs varying from 1 to 14 repeats. The DNAs were incubated with TRF2, and the number of t-loops and the location of the protein bound along the DNA were scored by EM (Table I). For templates with tails of 1, 2, 4, 9 and 14 repeats, loops were seen at frequencies of 11 ± 9%, 16 ± 8%, 14 ± 4%, 19 ± 8% and 12 ± 5% (n = 100/sample, four experiments). Thus, while looping required a homologous 3′ tail, it was not significantly enhanced by extending the tail beyond one repeat. Analysis of the binding of TRF2 to these DNAs showed that the level of binding remained highest at the extreme end of the telomeric DNA, regardless of the length of the overhang (Table I). In our previous study employing the model telomere±2kb DNA (Griffith et al., 1999), we showed that the t-loop junctions could be photocross-linked with the psoralen derivative 4′aminomethyl trioxalen (AMT) and UV light. The covalent cross-links fixed the looped structures in place, preserving them so that when the DNA was spread on an air–water interface with a denatured protein film (Kleinschmidt and Zahn, 1959) looped DNA molecules were observed. This was interpreted as evidence that the t-loop junction involves base pairing of the ss overhang with a segment of the ds TTAGGG repeat tract. Psoralen photocross-linking was performed following incubation of TRF2 with the model telomere500bp templates containing 3′ overhangs of 1, 2, 4, 9 and 14 repeats, and with the DNA containing nine repeats but with no TRF2 in the incubation. In the presence of TRF2 (Figure 2E and F), DNA molecules with loops at one end were observed at frequencies of 9 ± 1%, 11.5 ± 1.5%, 11 ± 3%, 13 ± 2% and 12 ± 2% (n = 100/ sample, three experiments) for tails of 1, 2, 4, 9 and 14 repeats, respectively. In the sample with no TRF2, 4 ± 1% of the DNA molecules (n = 100/sample, three experiments) were scored as having a loop at one end, most likely reflecting accidental juxtapositioning. In the incubations with TRF2, synapsis between the ends of two DNA molecules was occasionally observed (Figure 2F), suggesting that the forms shown in Figure 2D had been cross-linked. Since the TRF2 was removed prior to spreading the DNA for EM, we were unable to eliminate molecules in which the end has bent back around near an internal segment but in which there was no protein at the junction. Under the reaction conditions used here, AMT/UV treatment generates cross-links roughly every 100 bp (Griffith et al., 1999). Since the t-loops formed on the DNAs with short (<54 nt) overhangs were stabilized by this treatment, it appears that more than just the nucleotides of the ss tail were inserted into the duplex to form the D-loop. This could result from TRF2-induced unwinding of the duplex DNA at the ss/ds junction, allowing segments of both the G- and C-rich strands to pair in the t-loop junction and assist in t-loop stabilization. T-loop formation and TRF2 end binding are greatly reduced by non-telomeric sequences at the ss/ds junction A series of constructs were generated using the model telomere500bp DNA to examine the dependence of looping and protein binding on the nature of the ss/ds telomere junction. TRF2-dependent looping was not observed at significant frequencies when the DNA terminated in a blunt end (2 ± 2%; n = 100/sample, two experiments) (Table I). Three templates were then engineered in which the overhang was not homologous to the duplex telomeric tract. One contained 54 nt of a (TTGGGG)9 3′ repeat, while the ss 3′ tail for the second was 54 nt of a random sequence with the same ratio of T, A and G residues (2:1:3) as telomeric DNA. As scored by EM, neither template formed t-loops (1 ± 1%; n = 100/sample, two experiments) (Table I), demonstrating that homology between the duplex and tail is essential for t-loop formation. The third variant was one in which the DNA terminated in a 54 nt (AATCCC)9 3′ overhang. Were this overhang to pair with the G-rich strand, there would be two mismatches per repeat. T-loops were not assembled efficiently on this DNA either (3 ± 0%, n = 100/sample, three experiments). A template containing homology to the C strand, consisting of a CCCTAA 5′ overhang, also failed to form a significant number of loops (3 ± 1%; n = 100/sample, two experiments) (Table I). To determine whether this was due to the 5′ orientation or sequence, an oligonucleotide consisting of 54 nt of the C-rich repeat (CCCTAA)9 was ligated to the model template in the 5′–3′ orientation (Table I). This overhang is capable of base pairing within the duplex, but the end would terminate facing the centromeric portion of the telomere, as opposed to the standard t-loop junction, which terminates facing the terminus of the telomere. T-loops were not formed at a significant frequency with this DNA (1.5 ± 1%; n = 100/sample, three experiments) and cross-linking studies verified the lack of t-loop formation by TRF2 on this template (2 ± 2%; n = 100/sample, four experiments). To examine the importance of homology at the ss/ds junction, a template was prepared in which the first 6 nt at the beginning of the tail (nearest to the ss/ds junction) were non-telomeric, followed by eight natural TTAGGG-3′ repeats [N6(TTAGGG)8 3′] (Table I). When this DNA was incubated with TRF2, almost no loops were observed (1 ± 1%; n = 100/sample, three experiments). Examination of the pattern of TRF2 binding to these different DNA molecules showed that the localization of TRF2 to the extreme end of the telomeric tract, while variable, was reduced ∼5-fold relative to the DNA with a 54 nt 3′ natural overhang (Table I). Thus, although TRF2 does not bind to ssDNA directly, alteration of the sequence of the overhang proximal to the ss/ds junction affects the localization of TRF2 to the end of the DNA, suggesting some ability to respond to the ss sequence. In contrast, binding at internal sites was not influenced by the structure of the terminus and there was no significant difference in overall affinity of TRF2 for the DNAs with different terminal structures. Binding to the end demonstrated a stronger correlation with the ability of TRF2 to remodel the DNAs into t-loops (r = 0.67) than was found for binding of TRF2 to internal sites (r = 0.51) (p = 0.0035). These results suggest that the structure and sequence of the end of the DNA are important in positioning TRF2 onto the telomeric DNA, presumably a crucial step in t-loop formation. Alteration of the ss portion of the junction also may reduce the ability of TRF2 to initiate melting of the duplex, which would inhibit strand invasion and result in reduced t-loop formation. Given the higher representation of the internal sites, it is likely that much of the TRF2 would initially bind internally and perhaps translocate to a terminal position. A construct was prepared by linearizing the model telomere500bp to place the duplex repeats in the center of the molecule. A single-stranded (TTAGGG)9 overhang was then ligated to the template to produce an ‘interrupted’ model telomere DNA with 1.5 kb separating the overhang from the TTAGGG repeat tract. In this substrate, the duplex portion of the junction was not telomeric. Inspection of the products following incubation with TRF2 showed no significant loops formed between the end and the internal repeat tracts (1 ± 1%) nor were loops observed following psoralen/UV cross-linking and surface spreading of the DNA. Furthermore, the only TRF2 protein bound was present along the internal 500 bp repeat tract. These results suggest that both the ss and ds portions of the overhang must be telomeric for TRF2 to localize to the ss/ds junction and for t-loops to be assembled. T-loop formation does not require homology at the 3′-end of the telomere tail The experiments described above demonstrate that homology between the overhang and the duplex tract is essential for TRF2-mediated t-loop formation. To determine whether homology is required throughout the overhang, three 3′ tails were synthesized, beginning with different numbers of TTAGGG repeats and terminating in non-telomeric sequences: (TTAGGG)8(N)10, (TTAGGG)2(N)42 and TTAGGG(N)48 (Table I). The model telomere500bp DNA molecules with these tails formed t-loops at frequencies of 8 ± 5% (n = 100/sample, three experiments), 14 ± 6% and 15 ± 8%, Table I) (n = 100/sample, four experiments), respectively. The pattern of TRF2 binding to these templates (Table I) suggested a decrease in the amount of TRF2 bound to the end of the telomeric tract (24 ± 17%, 11 ± 4% and 8 ± 3%, respectively) as the number of non-telomeric repeats increased from 10 to 42 to 48, respectively. The DNA with a single 6 nt TTAGGG 3′ overhang (see above) showed the same level of end binding (8%) as the DNA with a single TTAGGG repeat followed by 48 nt of non-telomeric sequence, further pointing to the importance of the sequences at the junction in loading TRF2. The level of end binding for this DNA is also equivalent to the end binding of N6(TTAGGG)8. Unlike the latter molecule, however, the TTAGGG(N)48 DNA forms t-loops with high efficiency. These results would argue further for the importance of both the ss and ds sequences at the very junction in t-loop formation. The amount of TRF2 bound internally along the 500 bp tract was relatively unchanged (19 ± 15%, 25 ± 11% and 24 ± 3%, respectively; n = 100/sample, three experiments). Discussion A looped back structure termed a t-loop has been proposed to sequester chromosome ends from cellular checkpoint proteins and repair enzymes (Griffith et al., 1999). In this study, model telomere DNAs and purified TRF2 protein were used to examine the features of the telomere end required for loop formation in vitro. We found that at least one ss TTAGGG repeat adjacent to the telomeric duplex is required for efficient t-loop formation. If the ss tail began with TTAGGG repeats but terminated with a non-telomeric sequence at its 3′ end, only a modest reduction in looping was found, suggesting that the terminal 3′ nucleotides need not be complementary as long as they follow a tract of TTAGGG repeats. In contrast, placing non-telomeric sequences on the tail at the ss/ds junction abolished looping even when the remaining tail consisted of TTAGGG repeats. Similarly, loops were not formed with templates containing non-telomeric sequences in the duplex portion of the junction or with blunt-ended telomeric DNA. TRF2 was also unable to form loops when the 3′ overhang was of the C-rich sequence oriented such that it was capable of base pairing with the internal duplex telomeric DNA. There was no significant variation in the ability of TRF2 to bind to the internal portion of these different substrates, and internal binding was not correlated with t-loop formation. Examination of the pattern of TRF2 localization in these experiments revealed that TRF2 most often binds as a large oligomeric form and that there was a strong correlation between the ability of TRF2 to interact with the end of the DNA and the fraction of molecules arranged in t-loops. These results show that TRF2 can behave as a structure-dependent telomere binding prot" @default.
• W2106996266 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2106996266 creator A5002694429 @default.
• W2106996266 creator A5061660001 @default.
• W2106996266 creator A5065113600 @default.
• W2106996266 date "2001-10-01" @default.
• W2106996266 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2106996266 title "T-loop assembly in vitro involves binding of TRF2 near the 3' telomeric overhang" @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1495746426 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1497143641 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1593021735 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1852455217 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1970801073 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1971458488 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1971708555 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1975082568 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1981936717 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1983673827 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1986492221 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W1986808310 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2001828972 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2004561527 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2010882280 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2021489383 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2029575111 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2032407757 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2033731825 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2038421379 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2038661569 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2050674095 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2052890907 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2054073715 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2056982584 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2067133629 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2069874360 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2072744580 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2078502421 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2083487776 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2086992094 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2087011288 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2102839588 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2112671059 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2121813899 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2122740168 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2123105653 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2129031151 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2136420353 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2139940280 @default.
• W2106996266 cites W2204174364 @default.
• W2106996266 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/20.19.5532" @default.
• W2106996266 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/125642" @default.
• W2106996266 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11574485" @default.
• W2106996266 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W2106996266 type Work @default.
• W2106996266 sameAs 2106996266 @default.
• W2106996266 citedByCount "488" @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662012 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662013 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662014 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662015 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662016 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662017 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662018 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662019 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662020 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662021 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662022 @default.
• W2106996266 countsByYear W21069962662023 @default.
• W2106996266 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2106996266 hasAuthorship W2106996266A5002694429 @default.
• W2106996266 hasAuthorship W2106996266A5061660001 @default.
• W2106996266 hasAuthorship W2106996266A5065113600 @default.
• W2106996266 hasBestOaLocation W21069962661 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConcept C114614502 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConcept C177336024 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConcept C184670325 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConcept C202751555 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConcept C552990157 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConceptScore W2106996266C114614502 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConceptScore W2106996266C177336024 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConceptScore W2106996266C184670325 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConceptScore W2106996266C202751555 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConceptScore W2106996266C33923547 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConceptScore W2106996266C54355233 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConceptScore W2106996266C552990157 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConceptScore W2106996266C86803240 @default.
• W2106996266 hasConceptScore W2106996266C95444343 @default.
• W2106996266 hasIssue "19" @default.
• W2106996266 hasLocation W21069962661 @default.
• W2106996266 hasLocation W21069962662 @default.
• W2106996266 hasLocation W21069962663 @default.
• W2106996266 hasLocation W21069962664 @default.
• W2106996266 hasOpenAccess W2106996266 @default.
• W2106996266 hasPrimaryLocation W21069962661 @default.

• next