Advertisement

Identifying Functional Domains in Subunits of Structural Maintenance of Chromosomes (SMC) Complexes by Transposon Mutagenesis Screen in Yeast

  • Avi Matityahu
  • Michal Shwartz
  • Itay OnnEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2004)

Abstract

Structural maintenance of chromosomes (SMC) complexes mediate higher order chromosome structures. Eukaryotic cells contain three distinct SMC complexes called cohesin, condensin, and SMC5/6, which share the same basic architecture. The core of SMC complexes contains a heterodimer of SMC proteins, a kleisin subunit, and a set of regulatory proteins that contain HEAT and Armadillo (ARM) repeat protein–protein interaction motifs. A major challenge in studying SMC proteins and their auxiliary factors is identifying their functional domains. Bioinformatics is not an efficient way to achieve this goal because of the absence of defined sequence and structural motifs. Functional domains can be identified experimentally by performing a genetic screen and isolating functional mutants. While there are several strategies to conduct a screen, the quaternary structure of SMCs makes them excellent candidates to transposon-based random insertion mutagenesis, followed by selection of dominant negative mutants. In this chapter we list the advantages of this approach in the context of SMC complexes. We provide a detailed protocol for performing the screen in S. cerevisiae and use data from our recently reported screen on the ARM repeat protein, Scc4, to demonstrate the key steps in the protocol.

Key words

SMC complexes Cohesin Condensin SMC5/6 Genetic screen Transposon mutagenesis Dominant-negative Yeast S. cerevisiae 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Doug Koshland and Vinny Guaaci for their advices, and the members of the Onn lab for their valuable comments and discussion. This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation Grant 1099/16 (IO).

References

  1. 1.
    Belmont AS (2014) Large-scale chromatin organization: the good, the surprising, and the still perplexing. Curr Opin Cell Biol 26:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis L, Onn I, Elliott E (2018) The emerging roles for the chromatin structure regulators CTCF and cohesin in neurodevelopment and behavior. Cell Mol Life Sci 75:1205–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Serizay J, Ahringer J (2018) Genome organization at different scales: nature, formation and function. Curr Opin Cell Biol 52:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nasmyth K, Haering CH (2009) Cohesin: its roles and mechanisms. Annu Rev Genet 43:525–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Onn I, Heidinger-Pauli JM, Guacci V, Unal E, Koshland DE (2008) Sister chromatid cohesion: a simple concept with a complex reality. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 24:105–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nasmyth K, Haering CH (2005) The structure and function of SMC and kleisin complexes. Annu Rev Biochem 74:595–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Uhlmann F (2016) SMC complexes: from DNA to chromosomes. Nat Rev 17:399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matityahu A, Onn I (2018) A new twist in the coil: functions of the coiled-coil domain of structural maintenance of chromosome (SMC) proteins. Curr Genet 64:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duan X, Yang Y, Chen YH, Arenz J, Rangi GK, Zhao X, Ye H (2009) Architecture of the Smc5/6 complex of saccharomyces cerevisiae reveals a unique interaction between the Nse5-6 subcomplex and the hinge regions of Smc5 and Smc6. J Biol Chem 284:8507–8515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marston AL (2014) Chromosome segregation in budding yeast: sister chromatid cohesion and related mechanisms. Genetics 196:31–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orgil O, Mor H, Matityahu A, Onn I (2016) Identification of a region in the coiled-coil domain of Smc3 that is essential for cohesin activity. Nucleic Acids Res 44:6309–6317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duan X, Holmes WB, Ye H (2011) Interaction mapping between Saccharomyces cerevisiae Smc5 and SUMO E3 ligase Mms21. Biochemistry 50:10182–10188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lehmann AR, Walicka M, Griffiths DJ, Murray JM, Watts FZ, McCready S, Carr AM (1995) The rad18 gene of Schizosaccharomyces pombe defines a new subgroup of the SMC superfamily involved in DNA repair. Mol Cell Biol 15:7067–7080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neuwald AF, Hirano T (2000) HEAT repeats associated with condensins, cohesins, and other complexes involved in chromosome-related functions. Genome Res 10:1445–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoshimura SH, Hirano T (2016) HEAT repeats - versatile arrays of amphiphilic helices working in crowded environments? J Cell Sci 129:3963–3970PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eng T, Guacci V, Koshland D (2014) ROCC, a conserved region in cohesin’s Mcd1 subunit, is essential for the proper regulation of the maintenance of cohesion and establishment of condensation. Mol Biol Cell 25:2351–2364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milutinovich M, Unal E, Ward C, Skibbens RV, Koshland D (2007) A multi-step pathway for the establishment of sister chromatid cohesion. PLoS Genet 3:e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orgil O, Matityahu A, Eng T, Guacci V, Koshland D, Onn I (2015) A conserved domain in the scc3 subunit of cohesin mediates the interaction with both mcd1 and the cohesin loader complex. PLoS Genet 11:e1005036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shwartz M, Matityahu A, Onn I (2016) Identification of functional domains in the cohesin loader subunit scc4 by a random insertion/dominant negative screen. G3 6:2655–2663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ashkenazy H, Abadi S, Martz E, Chay O, Mayrose I, Pupko T, Ben-Tal N (2016) ConSurf 2016: an improved methodology to estimate and visualize evolutionary conservation in macromolecules. Nucleic Acids Res 44:W344–W350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ashkenazy H, Erez E, Martz E, Pupko T, Ben-Tal N (2010) ConSurf 2010: calculating evolutionary conservation in sequence and structure of proteins and nucleic acids. Nucleic Acids Res 38:W529–W533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glaser F, Pupko T, Paz I, Bell RE, Bechor-Shental D, Martz E, Ben-Tal N (2003) ConSurf: identification of functional regions in proteins by surface-mapping of phylogenetic information. Bioinformatics 19:163–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Landau M, Mayrose I, Rosenberg Y, Glaser F, Martz E, Pupko T, Ben-Tal N (2005) ConSurf 2005: the projection of evolutionary conservation scores of residues on protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res 33:W299–W302CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Azrieli Faculty of MedicineBar-Ilan UniversitySafedIsrael

Personalised recommendations