Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Virology, February 2000, p. 1506-1512, Vol. 74, No. 3
0022-538X/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Two Patches of Amino Acids on the E2 DNA Binding
Domain Define the Surface for Interaction with E1
Grace
Chen1,2 and
Arne
Stenlund1,*
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring
Harbor, New York 11724,1 and Graduate
Program in Genetics, Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology,
State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York
117942
Received 9 August 1999/Accepted 2 November 1999
 |
ABSTRACT |
The E1 and E2 proteins from bovine papillomavirus bind
cooperatively to the viral origin of DNA replication (ori), forming a
complex which is essential for initiation of DNA replication. Cooperative binding has two components, in which (i) the DNA binding domains (DBDs) of the two proteins interact with each other and (ii)
the E2 transactivation domain interacts with the helicase domain of E1.
By generating specific point mutations in the DBD of E2, we have
defined two patches of amino acids that are involved in the interaction
with the E1 DBD. These same mutations, when introduced into the viral
genome, result in severely reduced replication of the viral genome, as
well as failure to transform mouse cells in tissue culture. Thus, the
interaction between the E1 and E2 DBDs is important for the
establishment of the viral genome as an episome and most likely
contributes to the formation of a preinitiation complex on the viral ori.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Cooperative DNA binding plays a
prominent role as a regulatory device for control of gene expression
and DNA replication. One of the functions of cooperative DNA binding is
to achieve increased specificity or affinity for DNA binding
contributed by combinations of DNA binding factors (19). The
ability of a DNA binding domain (DBD) to occupy a given site may thus
be determined not only by its interaction with DNA but also by
protein-protein interactions involving the DBD itself and/or its
associated domains and other DNA binding factors. In consequence, in
the cell, an elaborate network of protein-protein interactions may
influence DNA binding, and DBDs, in addition to being passive tools
with a tethering function, may play other roles, such as making
contacts with other proteins that alter or augment their DNA binding
properties. Interactions between DBDs (for example, homeodomains) have
been studied extensively, and the consequences and mechanisms of
interaction are well established in several cases (5, 12, 25, 33, 35).
Cooperative DNA binding between E1 and E2 performs a specific and
essential function in initiation of papillomavirus DNA replication (22). The initiator E1, on its own, binds with low
specificity to the origin of replication (ori), and specific and
efficient recognition is accomplished by cooperative binding of E1 and
the transcription factor E2 to immediately adjacent sites (15, 18, 22, 24). Once the complex is formed, in an ATP-dependent step, E2
can be displaced and additional E1 molecules can be added to the
complex (20). Several observations indicate that formation of this cooperative complex is more elaborate than simply a tethering protein-protein interaction. Several separate interaction domains appear to exist in both the E1 and E2 proteins (1-4, 7, 11, 14,
16, 18, 21, 26, 34), and the mapped interactions appear to be
different in nature. The interaction between the E1 and E2 DBDs is weak
in the absence of DNA and, in the presence of DNA, shows strong
dependence on the precise distance and positioning of the two binding
sites, indicating that it corresponds to a short-range interaction
(3, 4). In contrast, for example, the interaction between
the E2 activation domain and E1 can readily be detected both in the
absence and in the presence of DNA and shows little dependence on the
relative positions of the respective binding sites (2, 7, 15, 16,
18). Indeed, in vivo replication assays indicate that this
interaction can occur over distances of several kilobase pairs
(27). Furthermore, whereas the interaction between the E2
activation domain and E1 by itself is sufficient for DNA replication,
the interaction between the E2 and E1 DBDs by itself does not allow DNA
replication; indeed, E2 lacking the activation domain has no activity
for replication in vivo (3, 13, 28).
The relationship between these two interactions is interesting.
Previous experiments have indicated that these two interactions are not
independent. In experiments with chimeric proteins, replacement of the
bovine papillomavirus (BPV) E2 DBD with the human papillomavirus type
11 (HPV-11) E2 DBD, which is unable to interact with BPV E1, also
abolished the interaction between the BPV E2 activation domain of the
chimeric protein and E1. However, when the distance between the E1 and
E2 binding sites was increased from 3 bp, as in the wild-type (wt) ori,
to 22 bp, no dependence on the identity of the DBD was observed and
both (i) the interaction between the E2 activation domain and E1 and
(ii) DNA replication could be detected (3, 4).
To determine the function of the interaction between the E1 and E2
DBDs, we have mapped the region within the 85-amino-acid (aa) minimal
E2 DBD required for interaction with E1. We found that mutation of five
residues, in two separate patches, affects the ability of the E2 DBD to
interact with E1. The interaction between the DBDs is required for DNA
replication, as determined by in vivo replication assays, and is also
important for transformation by the viral DNA, demonstrating the
importance of this interaction for the viral life cycle.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Mutagenesis and plasmid constructs. (i) Mutant E2 DBDs.
Single alanine substitutions were generated in the pET11CE2DBD (aa 323 to 410) bacterial expression plasmid (3) by site-directed oligonucleotide mutagenesis. Mutations were confirmed by DNA
sequencing. Mutations were placed into full-length E2 by digesting
mutant pET11CE2DBD with KpnI and BamHI and
isolating the fragment between the two sites and ligated into pET11CE2
cut with KpnI and BamHI. For in vivo transient
replication assays, full-length E2 mutants were transferred to pCG
mammalian expression vectors. The mutations were also placed into the
background of the cloned full-length BPV type 1 genome for viral
transformation assays.
(ii) ori constructs.
All of the ori constructs used in this
study have been described previously (3, 22).
Protein expression. (i) E2 DBD.
Escherichia coli
BL21(DE3) was transformed with pET11CE2DBD (3). Liquid
cultures were inoculated and grown at 18°C until an optical density
at 600 nm of 0.6 to 0.8 was reached. Cultures were induced with 0.4 mM
isopropyl-
-D-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) and grown for
an additional 6 h at 18°C. Bacterial pellets were resuspended in
lysis buffer (50 mM Tris [pH 7.5], 0.1 M NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 5 mM
dithiothreitol, 20% sucrose, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride) and
treated with lysozyme (100 µg/ml) for 10 min on ice. A 0.1%
concentration of Nonidet P-40 was added, and the lysate was sonicated,
cleared by centrifugation, and frozen in liquid nitrogen. The protein
was quantitated by Western blot analysis.
(ii) Full-length E1 and the E1 DBD.
The expression and
purification of E1 and the E1 DBD have been described previously
(4, 23).
Probes.
Probes for electrophoretic gel mobility shift assays
(EMSAs) and McKay assays were generated by PCR amplification of ori
constructs cloned into pUC19 using the universal primers USP and RSP.
EMSAs.
A probe containing a high-affinity E2 binding site
from the HPV-11 ori (ACCGAAAACGGT) was incubated with crude
E. coli extracts containing the E2 DBD and 20 ng of
nonspecific competitor DNA (pUC119) in 10 µl of binding buffer (20 mM
potassium phosphate [pH 7.4], 0.1 M NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 10% glycerol,
0.1% Nonidet P-40, 3 mM dithiothreitol, 0.7 mg of bovine serum albumin
per ml) for 30 min. For all binding reactions, equivalent amounts of E2
DBD protein were used, as determined by Western blot analysis. Binding reactions were directly subjected to 5% polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis (PAGE) in 0.5× Tris-borate-EDTA buffer.
McKay assays.
Purified full-length E1 with an N-terminal
glutathione S-transferase (GST) fusion was incubated with
crude extracts containing the E2 DBD in binding buffer and 100 ng of
nonspecific competitor DNA [poly(dA-dT)]. After 30 min, a 2.5-µl
volume of glutathione-agarose beads was added to each 10-µl binding
reaction mixture and the total volume was brought to 50 µl by the
addition of binding buffer. After 20 min of rotational mixing at room
temperature, the beads were washed three times with 200 µl of binding
buffer. A 100-µl volume of stop buffer (1% sodium dodecyl sulfate,
50 mM EDTA, 0.1 M NaCl, 25 µg of tRNA per ml, 5 µg of mussel
glycogen) was added; this was followed by phenol extraction and ethanol
precipitation. Samples were analyzed by denaturing 6% PAGE.
Transient replication assays.
Transient replication assays
were performed with C127 cells as previously described (28).
Transformation assay.
C127 cells were transfected with the
wt or mutant BPV genome by electroporation. At 2 to 3 weeks
posttransfection, plates were stained with methylene blue and the
number of transformed foci was recorded.
 |
RESULTS |
Mutations in the E2 DBD.
The X-ray crystal structure of the E2
DBD complexed with DNA has been determined (9). To identify
residues in the E2 DBD which affect the ability of E2 to interact with
E1, we changed individual amino acids on the surface of the E2 DBD to
alanines. Based on our previous observation that the HPV-11 E2 DBD
failed to stimulate E1 binding to the BPV ori (3), we
initially mutated residues in the E2 DBD that were not conserved
between the HPV-11 and BPV type 1 E2 DBDs. Furthermore, based on the
crystal structure of the E2 DBD, only residues located on the surface
of the E2 DBD which are not involved in DNA recognition and
dimerization were mutated. After an initial screen to identify
mutations that disrupted the ability of the E2 DBD to interact with E1
in a DNA binding assay, we identified three mutant proteins that were
defective in stimulating E1 binding to the ori (348, 388, and 401 in
Table 1). We then mutated to alanines an
additional nine residues flanking the three original mutations. These
additional residues were not necessarily on the surface of the protein
or not conserved with the HPV-11 E2 DBD. Of the total of 35 mutations,
4 had side chains that were not accessible. The mutant proteins were
expressed in E. coli, and expression levels were determined
by Western blot analysis with a polyclonal antibody to E2.
Effects of mutations on E2 DNA binding activity.
Of the 35 mutants, 33 were successfully expressed in E. coli (Table
1). The level of expression of the mutant proteins was determined by
Western blot analysis and amounted to approximately 5% of the total
bacterial protein in crude extracts. Most of the mutant proteins were
expressed at similar levels (i.e., within twofold of the wt protein
level), with the exception of mutant proteins 355 and 389, which were
not expressed at detectable levels (Table 1). As a measure of activity
and an assurance of proper protein folding and stability, we performed
DNA binding assays. We assayed equivalent amounts of protein, based on
Western blot analysis, for the ability to bind a probe containing a
high-affinity E2 binding site in EMSAs using twofold dilutions of crude
E. coli extracts. Figure 1
shows the expression levels of five different mutant proteins as
determined by Western blot analysis (bottom panel) and their DNA
binding activities after normalization of the protein concentrations.
Of the five mutant proteins tested as shown in Fig. 1, 366, 373, 381, and 401 showed levels of binding virtually identical to that of the wt
for each titration used (compare lanes 1 to 3 with lanes 11 to 13, 16 to 20, 21 to 23, and 26 to 28). An approximately twofold lower level of
binding was observed for mutant protein 348 (compare lanes 1 to 3 with lanes 6 to 8).

View larger version (67K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
DNA binding activities of E2 DBD point mutant proteins.
Levels of mutant E2 DBDs were determined by Western blot analysis using
a polyclonal antibody to E2 and quantitated by using an IS 1000 Digital
Imaging system. Three different dilutions of crude E. coli
extracts containing the wt E2 DBD (lanes 1 to 3, bottom panel) were
used as standards for levels of expression of five different mutant
proteins (lanes 4 to 8, bottom panel), and equivalent amounts of
protein were used to test for DNA binding activity by EMSA. Twofold
titrations of the wt protein (lanes 1 to 5, top panel) or mutant
proteins (lanes 6 to 30, top panel) were analyzed on a 5%
polyacrylamide gel. Lane 31 contained probe alone.
|
|
As summarized in Table 1, the majority of the other mutant proteins
also showed nearly wt levels of DNA binding activity (within twofold).
Nine mutant proteins exhibited significantly lower-than-wt DNA binding
(<25% of the wt). In three of these, the substitutions, at residues
334, 347, and 349, are located within well-conserved
helix 1 of the
protein, which has been termed the recognition helix because it
contains residues involved in important contacts with DNA. Therefore,
these three residues may have affected the ability of the E2 DBD to
recognize DNA. The remaining six mutations that had severe effects on
DNA binding are located in the four
strands which contribute to
formation of the
barrel. It is possible that these residues
interfered with the formation of half of the
-barrel subunit in one
E2 DBD monomer or with the dimerization interface between two E2
monomers. Since the structural integrity of these nine mutant proteins
was in question, they were not evaluated for cooperative DNA binding with E1.
Residues required for interaction with E1 map to two discrete
patches on the surface of the E2 DBD.
To measure the abilities of
the mutant proteins to stimulate E1 binding to the ori, we used a
quantitative DNA binding assay known as the McKay assay. In the McKay
assay, GST-E1 is incubated together with two probes of different
lengths, one longer probe containing the minimal ori with a
high-affinity E2 binding site (I) and a shorter probe lacking the E2
binding site (II). We chose to use a high-affinity E2 binding site
rather than the naturally occurring low-affinity E2 binding site
because DNA binding by the E2 DBD mutant proteins was measured by using
the high-affinity E2 site and the use of the high-affinity site
increased the sensitivity of the assay. Probes bound by GST-E1 were
recovered with glutathione agarose beads and analyzed by PAGE. The
longer probe, which contains the E2 binding site, allows the formation
of the complex containing both E1 and the E2 DBD and provides a measure
of the level of stimulation of GST-E1 binding by the E2 DBD to the ori.
The shorter probe, which lacks the E2 binding site, serves as an
internal control for binding by GST-E1 in the absence of cooperative
binding with E2. We can determine the stimulation of GST-E1 binding by the E2 DBD by comparing the amounts of the two probes recovered. The 24 mutant proteins that showed DNA binding activity within fourfold of
that of the wt were tested for cooperative binding with E1. For mutant
proteins with a two- to fourfold reduction in DNA binding activity
compared to the wt (i.e., mutant proteins 348, 352, 365, 371, 392, and
400), the titration of crude extract used in the McKay assay was
increased two- to fourfold, respectively, in order to compensate for
their lower DNA binding activity.
Figure 2A shows the results of McKay
assays with seven different mutant proteins. In the presence of the wt
E2 DBD, we observed approximately fivefold stimulation of binding of
GST-E1 to probe I relative to probe II, which lacks the E2 binding site
(top panel, lanes 1 to 4, and bottom panel, lanes 1 to 4). This
stimulation of GST-E1 binding was not observed in the absence of E2
(bottom panel, lane 21). For mutant protein 387, the level of
cooperative binding with GST-E1 was nearly identical to that of the wt
(bottom panel, lanes 9 to 12). However, in the presence of either
mutant protein 401, 348, 385, 390, or 410, virtually no stimulation of binding by GST-E1 was observed (top panel, lanes 5 to 8 and 9 to 12, bottom panel, lanes 5 to 8, 13 to 16, and 17 to 20), with a ratio of
approximately 1 for binding of GST-E1 to probes I and II. Mutant
protein 388 was capable of cooperative binding with GST-E1, but at a
level intermediate between those of the wt and mutant proteins 348 and
401 (I/II ratio, approximately 2). For the remaining 18 mutant
proteins, McKay assays demonstrated wt or nearly wt levels of
cooperative binding between E1 and the mutant E2 DBDs (data not shown).


View larger version (3885K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
(A) Six mutant proteins are defective for cooperative
binding with E1. Two different probes, one containing the BPV minimal
ori with a high-affinity E2 binding site (I) and one containing an E1
binding site alone (II), were incubated with 6 ng of GST-E1 alone (lane
21, bottom) or with either the wt E2 DBD (lanes 1 to 4, top and
bottom), or seven mutant E2 DBDs (lanes 5 to 16, top, and lanes 5 to
20, bottom). Equal quantities of wt and mutant proteins, based on
Western blot analysis, were used in four twofold titrations. Probes
bound by GST-E1 were recovered with glutathione-agarose beads and
analyzed on a 6% urea gel. E2-dependent stimulation of binding was
measured by comparing the amounts of probes II and I recovered. (B)
Five mutations which do not affect DNA binding form two distinct
patches on the E2 DBD. Shown are two different views of a space-filling
model of the E2 DBD bound to its cognate binding site, created by the
BOBSCRIPT program and Raster3D (6, 10, 17). In the images on
the right, all mutations which were made on the surface of the E2 DBD
are in red. The images on the left show the same two views with
mutations that affect the ability of the E2 DBD to interact with E1 in
red.
|
|
Thus, the McKay assays identified six residues that either disrupted or
reduced the ability of the E2 DBD to stimulate E1 binding to the ori.
The locations of these residues are illustrated in Fig. 2B. Five of the
six residues form two discrete patches on the surface of the protein.
Residue 348 is located outside of these two defined patches and is,
instead, close to the DNA. Proteins with mutations on either side of
348, that is, at residues 347 and 349, were both severely defective for
DNA binding. Mutation of residue 348 itself resulted in slightly
impaired DNA binding, as shown in Fig. 1. Thus, the phenotype caused by
mutation of residue 348 in the McKay assay may be the result of
decreased DNA binding stability or affinity, and we therefore focused
our subsequent studies on the residues located within the two defined patches.
Combination of mutations in the E2 DBD abolishes cooperative
binding with E1.
We constructed two double mutant proteins,
namely, 390/385 and 390/388, by combining one mutation from each patch.
The double mutant proteins were expressed in E. coli, and
the levels of their expression were determined by Western blot analysis
(Fig. 3A, bottom panel) and their ability
to bind to a high-affinity E2 binding site was determined by EMSA as
shown in Fig. 3A. The quantities of mutant proteins used in the assay
were normalized with respect to the wt E2 DBD. Mutant protein 390/388
exhibited wt levels of DNA binding activity (compare lanes 2 to 5 with
lanes 10 to 13), whereas 390/385 showed a decreased level of DNA
binding activity compared to the wt. The level of binding by 390/385 in
lanes 6 and 7 approximates that of the wt in lanes 3 and 4, respectively. Since each lane represents a twofold titration, mutant
protein 390/385 is approximately fourfold less active in DNA binding
than the wt.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
(A) DNA binding activities of double mutant E2 DBDs. The
double mutant proteins 390/385 (lanes 4 and 5, bottom) and 390/388
(lanes 6 and 7, bottom) were quantitated with wt E2 DBD standards
(lanes 1 to 3, bottom) as described in the legend to Fig. 1. Equal
quantities of mutant and wt E2 DBDs were then tested for DNA binding
activity by EMSA using four twofold dilutions of wt E2 DBD (lanes 2 to
5, top), 390/385 (lanes 6 to 9, top), or 390/388 (lanes 10 to 13, top).
(B) The double mutant proteins 390/385 and 390/388 failed to interact
with E1. To determine the abilities of the mutant proteins to interact
with the E1 DBD, an EMSA was performed with a probe containing the BPV
minimal ori with a high-affinity E2 binding site. A 0.4-ng sample of
the E1 DBD (aa 142 to 308) was incubated with four different twofold
titrations of E. coli extracts containing the wt E2 DBD
(lanes 3 to 6) or the mutant protein 390 (lanes 7 to 10), 401 (lanes 11 to 14), 390/385 (lanes 15 to 18), or 390/388 (lanes 19 to 22). Lane 1 contained 0.4 ng of the E1 DBD (aa 142 to 308) alone, lane 2 contained
the wt E2 DBD alone, and lane 23 contained probe alone.
|
|
To measure the abilities of these double mutant proteins to stimulate
E1 binding to the ori, we used an EMSA rather than the McKay assay. We
have previously demonstrated that the cooperativity between the E1 and
E2 DBDs can be readily observed by EMSA (4). The results are
shown in Fig. 3B. In the absence of the E2 DBD, binding of the E1 DBD
gives rise to a faint band at the low concentration used in this
experiment (lane 1). In the presence of wt E2 DBD, there is an
approximately 70-fold stimulation of E1 binding through the formation
of the E1 DBD-E2 DBD-ori complex (compare lane 3 to lane 1). This assay
is more sensitive than the McKay assay in detecting cooperative
interaction between the E1 and E2 DBDs, since the stimulation of
binding by the E2 DBD observed by EMSA is greater than that measured by
McKay assays. Consequently, mutant proteins that showed no cooperative
interaction with E1 in the McKay assay, such as 390 or 401, stimulated E1 DBD binding slightly in the EMSA (twofold and fivefold,
respectively; compare lanes 7 and 11 to lane 1).
For double mutant protein 390/388, which exhibited wt levels of DNA
binding activity, no stimulation of E1 binding to the ori was observed
(compare lanes 19 to 22 with lanes 3 to 6). Double mutant protein
390/385 showed a slightly reduced level of DNA binding activity
compared to the wt; however, even with an equivalent amount of DNA
binding by 390/385 compared to the wt, there was no cooperative binding
between 390/385 and the E1 DBD (compare lanes 15 and 16 with lanes 5 and 6). The low level of the complex formed likely represents
co-occupation of the probe by the E1 and E2 DBDs and suggests that the
ability of the two proteins to bind to the same probe is not affected
by the mutations. The difference in mobility of some of the complexes
may reflect differences in the overall structure of the protein-DNA
complex in the presence or in the absence of cooperative binding
between the E1 and E2 DBDs. The disruption of cooperative binding by
the double mutant proteins was also observed when a probe with the
low-affinity E2 binding site naturally present in the BPV ori was used
(data not shown).
E2 DBD mutations affect the ability of the BPV genome to replicate
and transform cells.
To determine the effects of the interaction
between the E1 and E2 DBDs on viral DNA replication and transformation,
the mutations in the E2 DBD were also placed into the context of the
entire BPV genome and the mutated genomes were transfected into mouse C127 cells. The results of a transient replication assay for three different time points (36, 60, and 84 h posttransfection) are shown in Fig. 4A. BPV DNA recovered from
cells was digested with DpnI and HindIII.
Because mutant 390/388 contains an additional HindIII
site created by the mutation, digestion of this mutant viral DNA with
HindIII and XbaI resulted a shorter DNA
fragment. At the last time point, 390/388 showed at least a 10-fold
decrease in levels of replication of the viral genome compared to the
wt (compare lane 6 with lane 3). Mutants 401 and 390 showed two- and
threefold decreases in DNA replication, respectively. The effects of
these mutations were not as severe in the context of the entire viral
genome as in the context of a plasmid carrying only the minimal ori,
indicating that other E2 binding sites in the viral genome can be
utilized. Nonetheless, disruption of the E1-E2 DBD interaction
significantly affected the ability of the viral genome to replicate in
transient replication assays.

View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
(A) The mutations in the E2 DBD affect replication of
the viral genome. The BPV genome was mutated at position(s) 390, 401, or 390 and 388. Transient replication assays were performed with mouse
C127 cells, and low-molecular-weight DNA was digested with the
restriction enzymes DpnI and HindIII.
Replication of the wt (lanes 1 to 3) or the 390/388 (lanes 4 to 6), 401 (lanes 7 to 9), or 390 (lanes 10 to 12) mutant genome was measured at
24, 48, and 72 h posttransfection. In lanes 4 to 6, the viral DNA
containing mutations at positions 390 and 388 shows increased mobility
due to the presence of an additional HindIII site
generated by the mutation. (B) Mutations which affect the E2 DBD-E1
interaction affect viral transformation. The wt genome and the genome
mutated at position(s) 390, 401, or 390 and 388 were transfected into
C127 cells. After 2 weeks, plates were stained with methylene blue and
transformed foci were counted.
|
|
To determine whether the E2 DBD mutations affect long-term replication
and the ability of BPV to transform cells, the wt viral genome and the
genome containing a mutation(s) at 390, 401, or 390 and 388 were
transfected into C127 cells. After 2 weeks, the cells were stained with
methylene blue to identify foci (Fig. 4B). The wt genome produced a
large number of foci (approximately 100). The viral genomes containing
mutations at 401 and 390 showed approximately two- and fourfold
decreases in the number of foci. Viral DNA containing the 390/388
double mutation in the E2 DBD showed a greater-than-20-fold reduction
in the number of foci compared to the wt. The reduction in
transformation efficiency is similar to the reduction in levels of DNA
replication for the different mutants (Fig. 4A), suggesting that the
defect in transformation reflects a failure of the viral DNA to
replicate efficiently.
Due to the failure of the 390/388 mutant to transform and replicate
efficiently, we were unable to establish stable cell lines. In
transient transfection assays using the viral genome, E2 is expressed
at very low levels. Therefore, to determine whether the wt and mutant
proteins were significantly different in stability, we transiently
expressed wt E2 and the 390/388 mutant protein from pCG expression
vectors in COS cells. At 20 h after transfection, 25 µg of
cycloheximide per ml was added and measurements were made 1 and 2 h after inhibition of protein synthesis. The measurements made at these
time points were analyzed by Western blotting using a polyclonal
antiserum to E2 as shown in Fig. 5.
Comparison of the levels of E2 protein before and after inhibition of
protein synthesis indicated that under these conditions, the half-lives of both the wt and mutant E2 proteins were very similar, i.e., approximately 50 min (compare lanes 3 to 5 and 6 to 8), indicating that
the defect in DNA replication and transformation is not due to a
significant reduction in the half-lives of the mutant E2 proteins.

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
Stability of wt and mutant E2 proteins. COS cells were
transfected with a pCG expression vector encoding wt E2 or the 390/388
mutant protein. At 20 h after transfection, protein synthesis was
blocked by the addition of 25 µg cycloheximide per ml. Cells were
harvested, and the levels of E2 protein after 1 h (lanes 4 and 7)
and 2 h (lanes 5 and 8) in the presence of cycloheximide were
compared to E2 levels in the absence of cycloheximide (lanes 3 and 6)
by Western blotting using a polyclonal antiserum to E2. Lane 1 contained purified E2 protein; lane 2 contained extract from
untransfected cells. The calculated half-life of both the wt and the
390/388 mutant protein, based on quantitation of the Western blot, was
approximately 50 min.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
We undertook these studies to gain an understanding of the nature
of the interaction between E1 and E2. We were interested in the role
played by the E2 DBD in the interaction between the two proteins.
Previous studies have demonstrated that cooperative binding of E1 and
E2 to the BPV minimal ori involves an interaction between the E1 and E2
DBDs, in addition to interactions between the E2 activation domain and
E1 (3, 4). Here we show that mutations that specifically
disrupt the E2 DBD-E1 interaction but have little or no effect on E2
DNA binding, in the context of the viral genome, substantially reduced
viral DNA replication and transformation. This indicates that this
interaction plays a critical role in the viral life cycle. These
results are completely consistent with the in vivo experiments using
chimeric E2 proteins (3).
Nature of the interaction between E1 and E2.
The five residues
that are important for the interaction between the E2 DBD and E1 are
not contiguous residues in the protein sequence but map to two distinct
patches. Residues 385 and 388 define one patch, while 390, 401, and 410 define another patch on the E2 DBD. Both patches are on a surface that
would face E1 bound to an adjacent site. Residues 385 and 388 reside on
the surface of the protein in
helix 2 (9). Curiously,
the three residues defining the second patch, 390 (leucine), 401 (isoleucine), and 410 (phenylalanine), have side chains that are not
surface accessible and, instead, form a hydrophobic pocket. It is
possible that this hydrophobic pocket is engaged in a direct
protein-protein interaction with a similar hydrophobic surface in E1
that becomes exposed upon cooperative binding of both proteins to the
ori. However, an interesting possibility is that the residues forming the hydrophobic core interact with the DNA upon cooperative binding with E1. Some well-characterized DNA binding factors, such as the TATA
binding protein and the Ets-1, have hydrophobic residues that interact
specifically with the minor groove of the DNA (30-32). This
interaction generates a substantial bend in the DNA through the
intercalation of the hydrophobic residues (31). OH-radical and DNase footprinting with the wt E1 and E2 DBDs gave rise to protections virtually identical to those observed with the full-length proteins, including protection of sequences between the E1 and E2
binding sites (22, 23). More importantly, interference studies indicate that sequences between the E1 and E2 binding sites are
involved in formation of the combined complex (4, 20, 23).
These results are consistent with involvement of the DNA in the
interaction; indeed, strong interaction between the E1 and E2 DBDs can
only be observed in the presence of DNA. The alteration in complex
mobility that we observed when comparing the wt and mutant E2 DBDs
(Fig. 3B) is also interesting, since this indicates that the structure
of the DNA is altered as a consequence of interaction between the E1
and E2 DBDs. An interesting question is whether the identity of the
residues involved in the interaction between E1 and E2 is in any way
dependent on the identity of the E2 binding site. Our screen was
performed with a high-affinity E2 binding site, and it is possible that
use of a different E2 binding site would have resulted in subtle
differences. However, the mutations that we have identified, for
example, 390/388, disrupt cooperative binding using several high- and
low-affinity E2 binding sites, indicating that the effects of these
mutations are not dependent on the identity of the E2 binding site
(data not shown).
Why is the interaction between the E1 and E2 DBDs important for
viral DNA replication and transformation?
Our previous studies
have demonstrated that the identity of the E2 DBD is important for DNA
replication and for cooperative DNA binding when the binding sites for
the E1 and E2 proteins are positioned immediately adjacent to each
other (3). When the binding sites for E1 and E2 are placed
at a distance from one another, both DNA replication and cooperative
DNA binding can be detected with a heterologous DNA binding domain
fused to E2, demonstrating that the interaction between the E2
activation domain and E1 is sufficient for cooperative interaction and
initiation of DNA replication. In light of our current results, this
indicates that the interaction between the two DBDs may be primarily to facilitate the interaction between the E2 activation domain and the E1
helicase domain (Fig. 6). As mentioned
above, an interesting possibility is that the interaction between the
E1 and E2 DBDs causes alterations in the DNA structure that, in turn,
facilitate the interaction between the E2 activation domain and the E1
helicase domain. Although it is generally believed that transcriptional activation domains are intrinsically very flexible, the E2 activation domain may not be typical in this respect, as indicated by the recently
reported X-ray crystal structure of the E2 activation domain from
HPV-18 (8). Also, the very close juxtaposition of the
binding sites is likely to impose constraints due to the inherent
stiffness of short sequences of DNA (29). The lack of
dependence on the DBD when the E1 and E2 sites are placed at a distance
from one another is consistent with this idea. A structural change in
DNA, such as a bend or kink produced by the interaction between the E1
and E2 DBDs, could also play a more direct role in initiation of DNA
replication.

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
Model of cooperative binding of E1 and E2 to the BPV
minimal ori. (A) Cooperative binding between E1 and E2 involves two
separate interactions: interaction 1 between the E1 and E2 DBDs and
interaction 2 between the E1 helicase domain and the E2 activation
domain (AD). As the first required step in the cooperative binding of
E1 and E2 on the BPV minimal ori, the E2 DBD interacts with the E1 DBD
(interaction 1). This interaction results in bending or kinking of the
DNA. As a consequence of the induced DNA bend, the E2 activation domain
is placed in a position where it can effectively interact with the E1
helicase domain. The productive interaction between the E2 activation
domain and E1 completes the second step in the cooperative binding of
E1 and E2 on the ori. (B) Mutations in the E2 DBD which result in
failure to interact with the E1 DBD result in loss of the interaction
between E1 and E2 despite a wt and functional E2 activation domain.
|
|
An interesting question is whether the interaction between the BPV E1
and E2 DBDs that we have analyzed here also occurs between other
papillomavirus E1 and E2 proteins. So far, no direct experiments have
been carried out to determine whether this is the case. However, if
such an interaction exists, it is not sufficiently conserved to allow
interaction between heterologous proteins, in contrast to the
interaction between E1 and the E2 activation domain (3). Our
previous results indicate that the interaction between the DBDs only
plays a role when the E1 and E2 binding sites are adjacent. In contrast
to the ori from BPV and some other animal papillomaviruses, HPVs all
have an E2 binding site in a more distal position, making it unlikely
that a DBD interaction is important for binding of E1 and E2 to the ori
in these viruses. However, since recognition sequences for E1 are
poorly defined, the presence of E1 binding sites adjacent to E2 binding
sites outside the ori is a distinct possibility. Indeed, the effects of
the 390/388 mutant protein that we observed in BPV could very well be
caused by effects on viral gene expression. One of the dramatic
consequences of cooperative binding between E1 and E2 to proximal sites
is that binding can be achieved even with very low-affinity E2 binding
sites, as exemplified by ori-proximal E2 BS12. The BPV genome contains
a significant number of very low-affinity E2 binding sites in positions
consistent with a role in viral gene expression. Stimulation of binding
of E2 to these sites by cooperative binding with E1 could be a means to
link control of DNA replication and viral gene expression.
The interaction between the E1 and E2 proteins is a composite
interaction of surprising complexity. The contact between the E1 and E2
DBDs may play a role by altering the structure of the DNA component of
the complex and thus may have a largely architectural function. The
contact between the activation domain of E2 and the E1 helicase domain
is clearly the productive interaction that results in initiation of DNA
replication, but the exact consequence of this contact remains to be determined.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Nouria Hernandez for critical reading of the manuscript
and Leemor Joshua-Tor for assistance with molecular graphics.
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant CA13106
to A.S.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory, P.O. Box 100, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724. Phone:
(516) 367-8407. Fax: (516) 367-8454. E-mail:
stenlund{at}cshl.org.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Abroi, A.,
R. Kurt, and M. Ustav.
1996.
Transcriptional and replicational activation functions in the bovine papillomavirus type 1 E2 protein are encoded by different structural determinants.
J. Virol.
70:6169-6179[Abstract].
|
| 2.
|
Benson, J. D., and P. M. Howley.
1995.
Amino-terminal domains of the bovine papillomavirus type 1 E1 and E2 proteins participate in complex formation.
J. Virol.
69:4364-4372[Abstract].
|
| 3.
|
Berg, M., and A. Stenlund.
1997.
Functional interactions between papillomavirus E1 and E2 proteins.
J. Virol.
71:3853-3863[Abstract].
|
| 4.
|
Chen, G., and A. Stenlund.
1998.
Characterization of the DNA-binding domain of the bovine papillomavirus replication initiator E1.
J. Virol.
72:2567-2576[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Chen, L.,
J. N. M. Glover,
P. G. Hogan,
A. Rao, and S. C. Harrison.
1998.
Structure of the DNA-binding domains from NFAT, Fos and Jun bound specifically to DNA.
Nature
392:42-48[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Esnouf, R. M.
1997.
An extensively modified version of MolScript that includes greatly enhanced coloring capabilities.
J. Mol. Graphics
15:132-134[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Ferguson, M. K., and M. R. Botchan.
1996.
Genetic analysis of the activation domain of bovine papillomavirus protein E2: its role in transcription and replication.
J. Virol.
70:4193-4199[Abstract].
|
| 8.
|
Harris, S. F., and M. R. Botchan.
1999.
Crystal structure of the human papillomavirus type 18 E2 activation domain.
Science
284:1673-1677[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Hegde, R. S.,
S. R. Grossman,
L. A. Laimins, and P. B. Sigler.
1992.
Crystal structure at 1.7A of the bovine papillomavirus-1 E2 DNA-binding domain bound to its DNA target.
Nature
359:505-512[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Kraulis, P. J.
1991.
MOLSCRIPT: a program to produce both detailed and schematic plots of protein structures.
J. Appl. Crystallogr.
24:946-950[CrossRef].
|
| 11.
|
Leng, X.,
J. H. Ludes-Meyers, and V. G. Wilson.
1997.
Isolation of an amino-terminal region of bovine papillomavirus type 1 E1 protein that retains origin binding and E2 interaction capacity.
J. Virol.
71:848-852[Abstract].
|
| 12.
|
Li, T.,
M. R. Stark,
A. D. Johnson, and C. Wolberger.
1995.
Crystal structure of the MATa1/MATa2 homeodomain heterodimer bound to DNA.
Science
270:262-269[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 13.
|
Lim, D. A.,
M. Gossen,
C. W. Lehman, and M. R. Botchan.
1998.
Competition for DNA binding sites between the short and long forms of E2 dimers underlies repression in bovine papillomavirus type 1 DNA replication control.
J. Virol.
72:1931-1940[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 14.
|
Lusky, M., and E. Fontane.
1991.
Formation of the complex of bovine papillomavirus E1 and E2 proteins is modulated by E2 phosphorylation and depends upon sequences within the carboxyl terminus of E1.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
88:6363-6367[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 15.
|
Lusky, M.,
J. Hurwitz, and Y. S. Seo.
1993.
Cooperative assembly of the bovine papilloma virus E1 and E2 proteins on the replication origin requires an intact E2 binding site.
J. Biol. Chem.
268:15795-15803[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Masterson, P. J.,
M. A. Stanley,
A. P. Lewis, and M. A. Romanos.
1998.
A C-terminal helicase domain of the human papillomavirus E1 protein binds E2 and the DNA polymerase alpha-primase p68 subunit.
J. Virol.
72:7407-7419[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 17.
|
Merritt, E. A., and M. E. P. Murphy.
1994.
Raster3D version 2.0 a program for photorealistic molecular graphics.
Acta Crystallogr.
D50:869-873[CrossRef].
|
| 18.
|
Mohr, I. J.,
R. Clark,
S. Sun,
E. J. Androphy,
P. MacPherson, and M. R. Botchan.
1990.
Targeting the E1 replication protein to the papillomavirus origin of replication by complex formation with the E2 transactivator.
Science
250:1694-1699[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Ptashne, M.
1992.
A genetic switch.
Cell Press, Cambridge, Mass.
|
| 20.
|
Sanders, C. M., and A. Stenlund.
1998.
Recruitment and loading of the E1 initiator protein: an ATP-dependent process catalysed by a transcription factor.
EMBO J.
17:7044-7055[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 21.
|
Sarafi, T. R., and A. A. McBride.
1995.
Domains of the BPV-1 E1 replication protein required for origin-specific DNA binding and interaction with the E2 transactivator.
Virology
211:385-396[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Sedman, J., and A. Stenlund.
1995.
Co-operative interaction between the initiator E1 and the transcriptional activator E2 is required for replicator specific DNA replication of bovine papillomavirus in vivo and in vitro.
EMBO J.
14:6218-6228[Medline].
|
| 23.
|
Sedman, T.,
J. Sedman, and A. Stenlund.
1997.
Binding of the E1 and E2 proteins to the origin of replication of bovine papillomavirus.
J. Virol.
71:2887-2896[Abstract].
|
| 24.
|
Seo, Y. S.,
F. Muller,
M. Lusky, and J. Hurwitz.
1993.
Bovine papilloma virus (BPV)-encoded E1 protein contains multiple activities required for BPV DNA replication.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
90:702-706[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 25.
|
Tan, S., and T. J. Richmond.
1998.
Crystal structure of the yeast MATalpha2/MCM1/DNA ternary complex.
Nature
391:660-666[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 26.
|
Thorner, L. K.,
D. A. Lim, and M. R. Botchan.
1993.
DNA-binding domain of bovine papillomavirus type 1 E1 helicase: structural and functional aspects.
J. Virol.
67:6000-6014[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 27.
|
Ustav, E.,
M. Ustav,
P. Szymanski, and A. Stenlund.
1993.
The bovine papillomavirus origin of replication requires a binding site for the E2 transcriptional activator.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
90:898-902[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 28.
|
Ustav, M., and A. Stenlund.
1991.
Transient replication of BPV-1 requires two viral polypeptides encoded by the E1 and E2 open reading frames.
EMBO J.
10:449-457[Medline].
|
| 29.
|
Wang, J. C., and G. N. Giaever.
1988.
Action at a distance along a DNA.
Science
240:300-304[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 30.
|
Werner, M. H., and S. K. Burley.
1997.
Architectural transcription factors: proteins that remodel DNA.
Cell
88:733-736[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 31.
|
Werner, M. H.,
A. M. Gronenborn, and G. M. Clore.
1996.
Intercalation, DNA kinking, and the control of transcription.
Science
271:778-784[Abstract].
|
| 32.
|
Werner, M. H.,
M. Clore,
C. L. Fisher,
R. J. Fisher,
L. Trinh,
J. Shiloach, and A. M. Gronenborn.
1995.
The solution structure of the human ETS1-DNA complex reveals a novel mode of binding and true side chain intercalation.
Cell
83:761-771[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 33.
|
Wilson, D. S., and C. Desplan.
1995.
Homeodomain proteins. Cooperating to be different.
Curr. Biol.
5:32-34[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 34.
|
Winokur, P. L., and A. A. McBride.
1996.
The transactivation and DNA binding domains of the BPV-1 E2 protein have different roles in cooperative origin binding with the E1 protein.
Virology
221:44-53[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 35.
|
Wolberger, C.
1996.
Homeodomain interactions.
Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.
6:62-68[CrossRef][Medline].
|
Journal of Virology, February 2000, p. 1506-1512, Vol. 74, No. 3
0022-538X/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Schuck, S., Stenlund, A.
(2006). Surface mutagenesis of the bovine papillomavirus e1 DNA binding domain reveals residues required for multiple functions related to DNA replication.. J. Virol.
80: 7491-7499
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Sclafani, Robert. A., Fletcher, R. J., Chen, X. S.
(2004). Two heads are better than one: regulation of DNA replication by hexameric helicases. Genes Dev.
18: 2039-2045
[Full Text]
-
Longworth, M. S., Laimins, L. A.
(2004). Pathogenesis of Human Papillomaviruses in Differentiating Epithelia. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
68: 362-372
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Titolo, S., Brault, K., Majewski, J., White, P. W., Archambault, J.
(2003). Characterization of the Minimal DNA Binding Domain of the Human Papillomavirus E1 Helicase: Fluorescence Anisotropy Studies and Characterization of a Dimerization-Defective Mutant Protein. J. Virol.
77: 5178-5191
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Sheikh, S., Van Horn, G., Naqvi, A., Sheahan, L., Khan, S. A.
(2003). Purification and biochemical characterization of the E1 replication initiation protein of the cutaneous human papillomavirus type 1. J. Gen. Virol.
84: 277-285
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Voitenleitner, C., Botchan, M.
(2002). E1 Protein of Bovine Papillomavirus Type 1 Interferes with E2 Protein-Mediated Tethering of the Viral DNA to Mitotic Chromosomes. J. Virol.
76: 3440-3451
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
West, M., Flanery, D., Woytek, K., Rangasamy, D., Wilson, V. G.
(2001). Functional Mapping of the DNA Binding Domain of Bovine Papillomavirus E1 Protein. J. Virol.
75: 11948-11960
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Woytek, K. J., Rangasamy, D., Bazaldua-Hernandez, C., West, M., Wilson, V. G.
(2001). Effects of mutations within two hydrophilic regions of the bovine papillomavirus type 1 E1 DNA-binding domain on E1-E2 interaction. J. Gen. Virol.
82: 2341-2351
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Kim, S.-S., Tam, J. K., Wang, A.-F., Hegde, R. S.
(2000). The Structural Basis of DNA Target Discrimination by Papillomavirus E2 Proteins. J. Biol. Chem.
275: 31245-31254
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Sanders, C. M., Stenlund, A.
(2001). Mechanism and Requirements for Bovine Papillomavirus, Type 1, E1 Initiator Complex Assembly Promoted by the E2 Transcription Factor Bound to Distal Sites. J. Biol. Chem.
276: 23689-23699
[Abstract]
[Full Text]