REVIEW ARTICLE Transient DNA ⁄ RNA-protein interactions Francisco J. Blanco 1,2 and Guillermo Montoya 3 1 Structural Biology Unit, CIC bioGUNE, Derio, Spain 2 IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain 3 Structural Biology and Biocomputing Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid, Spain Introduction Protein–nucleic acids interactions and structural genomics In their celebrated reports on the double helix, Watson and Crick showed the strong structure–function rela- tionship in the DNA molecule. This relationship is more intricate in the case of RNA, because of its lar- ger structural and functional diversity, and even more so when we consider proteinÆnucleic acid complexes, given the much larger diversity found in proteins. Rapid genome-sequencing methods, large-scale gene expression analysis and high-throughput structural genomics projects have greatly augmented the number of known biomacromolecular structures. Currently, about 72 000 structures are deposited in the Protein Data Bank, but only 3% are nucleic acids and about 4% are proteinÆnucleic acid complexes. It is difficult to know whether these figures mirror the prevalence of proteins and their complexes in the cell, or whether they arise from the greater difficulties in the identifica- tion and experimental determination of proteinÆnucleic acid complexes. Structural genomics initiatives target the low-hanging fruits, small globular proteins that can be easily expressed as soluble material in heterolo- gous systems. An analogous endeavor for RNA mole- cules has not yet been initiated, very probably because of the experimental difficulties [1]. Indeed, preparing large amounts of homogeneous RNA for crystalliza- tion is not trivial. In addition, RNA samples need careful manipulation, are notably difficult to crystal- lize, give poor contrast in cryo-electron microscopy, and suffer from severe signal overlap in NMR spectra. Protein–protein interactions may also be transient and difficult to capture experimentally, but they have been intensively targeted on a large scale by means of com- plementary methods, such as yeast two-hybrid and Keywords DNA; dynamics; endonuclease; interaction; nucleosome; protein; ribosome; RNA; structure; transient Correspondence F. J. Blanco, Structural Biology Unit, CIC bioGUNE, Parque Tecnolo ´ gico de Vizcaya, 48160 Derio, Spain Fax: +34 9465 72502 Tel: +34 9465 72521 E-mail: fblanco@cicbiogune.es (Received 23 November 2010, revised 17 February 2011, accepted 11 March 2011) doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2011.08095.x The great pace of biomolecular structure determination has provided a plethora of protein structures, but not as many structures of nucleic acids or of their complexes with proteins. The recognition of DNA and RNA molecules by proteins may produce large and relatively stable assemblies (such as the ribosome) or transient complexes (such as DNA clamps sliding through the DNA). These transient interactions are most difficult to char- acterize, but even in ‘stable’ complexes captured in crystal structures, the dynamics of the whole or part of the assembly pose great technical difficul- ties in understanding their function. The development and refinement of powerful experimental and computational tools have made it possible to learn a great deal about the relevance of these fleeting events for numerous biological processes. We discuss here the most recent findings and the chal- lenges that lie ahead in the quest for a better understanding of protein– nucleic acid interactions. Abbreviations PCNA, proliferating cell nuclear antigen; RCC1, regulator of chromosome condensation 1. FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 1643–1650 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS 1643 tandem affinity purification followed by MS. Still, in a systematic exploration of protein complexes in the yeast interactome by tandem affinity purification fol- lowed by MS [2], the protein proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) was not detected in any of the 589 purified complexes, despite being a very promiscuous protein and an essential component of the replication machinery [3,4]. Replication and transcription regulation – proteins in search of their sites on the nucleic acids PCNA belongs to the group of DNA sliding clamps, which are multimeric toroidal-shaped structures that encircle the DNA duplex and act as platforms for rep- licative polymerases and other proteins. These proces- sivity factors enable the polymerases to add thousands of bases per second without detaching from the geno- mic template. The crystal structure of the homotrimer- ic yeast PCNA bound to a DNA duplex was recently solved [5], but only a few of the bases were seen, prob- ably because of the transient nature of the interaction in solution (Fig. 1). The recent assignment of the NMR spectrum of the PCNA ring [6,7] provides the basis for solution studies of its interactions with DNA and other proteins [8,9]. The yeast helicase minichro- mosome maintenance complex forms part of the prere- plicative complex, and has been recently reconstituted and loaded onto dsDNA [10]. Electron microscopy shows a barrel of two head-to-head hexamers that encircles a stretch of DNA of approximately 68 bp and passively slides along the DNA duplex. Sliding on the DNA may be common to proteins other than DNA clamps before they bind to their spe- cific target sequences. Both one-dimensional diffusion of proteins on the DNA (sliding) and direct transfer between distinct binding sites (translocation) would accelerate the search process relative to the diffusion- controlled association–dissociation mechanism (Fig. 2) in the presence of a huge background of nonspecific DNA, as occurs in the nucleus of the cell, with an esti- mated DNA concentration of 100 gÆL )1 [11]. Sliding and translocation events involve transient interactions that are difficult to observe and even more difficult to quantify. Crystal structures sometimes provide hints about these events, e.g. by the lack of electron density of DNA or protein regions, or by the observation of different conformations of amino acid side chains asso- ciated with the nucleic acid. Analysis in solution by NMR is a more powerful approach to characterize these systems [12], allowing the study of the kinetics of translocation [13,14], as well as the structures of tran- sient, nonspecific complexes. For instance, the struc- ture of the Lac repressor bound to a nonspecific (low-affinity) DNA sequence suggests that binding is primarily driven by electrostatics, as most of the pro- tein–DNA interactions do not involve the bases, but the phosphates and sugars of the DNA backbone [15]. Most of these interactions are preserved in the com- plex with the specific sequence, but, in addition, numerous interactions with the bases take place. When the overall structures of the two complexes are com- pared, neither the DNA nor the protein undergo large A B C k off,A k on,A k on,B k off,B k on,C k off,C k dt,CB k dt,BC Fig. 2. Proteins find their binding sites in an ocean of DNA sequences. Scheme of a nucleic acid-binding protein (gray ellipses) involved in four dynamic equilibria (double arrows) and one-dimen- sional diffusion on the DNA double helix (single arrows). Binding to sites A, B or C occurs with different affinities (different kinetic k on and k off rates). Exchange between sites A and B (located close together in the DNA sequence) can occur through association–dis- sociation–reassociation or via diffusion on the DNA. Exchange between sites B and C (located far away in the DNA sequence but close enough in space to collide) can occur through association–dis- sociation–reassociation or via direct transfer (k dt ). For the sake of clarity, some of the species participating in the individual equilibria are omitted. Fig. 1. Structure of a PCNAÆDNA complex. Two views of the homotrimeric yeast PCNA ring bound to a short DNA duplex, as deposited in the Protein Data Bank (entry 3K4X). The three poly- peptide chains are shown as ribbons of different colors, and the DNA as an orange rod (backbone) and blue–green sticks (bases). The figure was prepared with PYMOL (http://www.pymol.org). Transient protein–DNA ⁄ RNA interactions F. J. Blanco and G. Montoya 1644 FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 1643–1650 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS conformational changes, but a protein segment that is disordered in solution becomes less flexible in the com- plex with the low-affinity DNA, and structured into an a-helix in the complex with the specific DNA. There- fore, the large local conformational landscape that the protein populates in solution is reduced upon DNA binding, and much more so when it specifically binds to its high-affinity sequence. The protein conforma- tional landscape can be narrowed by small-molecule allosteric effectors favoring efficient DNA binding, as found for the transcriptional activator CAP [16], and the landscape of free DNA includes transient confor- mations whose relevance still needs to be investigated [17]. Many transcription factors bind to thousands of places in the genome, not necessarily located in proxi- mal promoter regions, and dissociate very fast in vivo, which may be relevant for long-range and combinato- rial regulation of transcription [18]. Electrostatics plays a driving role in transient pro- teinÆnucleic acid interactions, as well as in selecting and stabilizing the specific ones. Indeed, it may be the most important factor in the indirect readout as opposed to the direct readout. These terms differenti- ate between the recognition mechanisms based on details of the DNA structure facilitating protein bind- ing (indirect) and specific amino acid–base contacts (direct). A recent examination of proteinÆnucleic acid structures has shown how minor groove narrowing enhances the negative electrostatic potential of DNA and forms an arginine-binding site that is widely used in protein–nucleic acid recognition [19]. Minor groove width is primarily DNA sequence-dependent (A-tracts tend to narrow the groove, whereas GC pairs tend to widen it), although the geometry observed in a given complex is probably the result of both intrinsic and protein-induced conformation effects. Interactions lost in translation The 2009 Nobel prize in chemistry for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome rewarded a long-term effort by several laboratories. The ribosome was probably the first biomacromolecular machine to appear in the early stages of life, and performs its function in essentially the same way in the three king- doms. The ribosome translates the three-base codons of mRNAs into the amino acid sequence of the pro- teins encoded in the corresponding gene (Fig. 3). Because of its size (about 2.5 MDa) and lack of sym- metry, it took a long period of sample preparation refinement and the use of modern diffraction instru- mentation and methodology to obtain the high-resolu- tion structure of the 70S ribosome [20]. In the process, a wealth of information has been obtained about the mechanism by which the ribosome attains its high level of accuracy in translation, its catalytic triad (rRNA, ribosomal protein, and the peptidyl-tRNA substrate), and the mode of action of many antibiotics, enabling the design of novel ones (for a brief review, see the Nobel Foundation Scientific Background published 50S proteins 50S rRNA tRNA, E-site tRNA, P-site tRNA, A-site mRNA 30S proteins 30S rRNA Fig. 3. Structure of the 70S ribosome. The structure of the ribosome of Thermus thermophilus (Protein Data Bank entries 1GIX and 1GIY) is shown, with the rRNA molecules represented by thin coils, the tRNAs by spheres, the mRNA by a thick coil, and the proteins by ribbons. In the two views shown, the 50S subunit is at the top and the 30S subunit is at the bottom. The figure was obtained from Proteopedia [55]. F. J. Blanco and G. Montoya Transient protein–DNA ⁄ RNA interactions FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 1643–1650 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS 1645 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences at http:// nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2009/ cheadv09.pdf). However, translation is a dynamic process, the ribo- some is a highly dynamic machine, and the crystal structures can provide only snapshots of intermediates along the process. It will be very difficult to obtain crystal structures of all representative states of the ribosome in action, but a low-resolution picture has emerged from time-resolved electron microscopy of the Escherichia coli ribosome. By unbiased hierarchical classification of 2 000 000 images, 50 structures of the ribosomal substates during translocation were refined, and the trajectories of the two tRNAs as they move through the ribosome were visualized with a resolution in the 10–20-A ˚ range [21]. Translocation is the final step in polypeptide chain elongation, and involves the concerted movement of the tRNAs, the mRNA, and the 30S subunit relative to the 50S one. The authors used a molecular system in which retrotranslocation was the actual movement observed. After addition of tRNA fMet to ribosomes loaded with fMetVal-tRNA Val , retrotranslocation occurred on a scale of several min- utes, and the samples at different time points were extracted and frozen for cryo-electron microscopy. It was found that, at physiological temperatures, no dis- tinct 30S subunit could be outlined, as it existed in dynamic equilibrium with a large number of conforma- tional substates. The emerging picture of the ribosome during translocation is that of a machine that couples spontaneous, thermally driven conformational changes to directed movement. Transient interactions also occur in tRNA loading. Whereas each Xxx-tRNA Xxx is loaded with the Xxx amino acid corresponding to its anticodon by a specific synthase, most bacteria and all archaeons lack glutami- nyl-tRNA Gln synthase. They produce Gln-tRNA Gln in a two-step pathway: glutamylation of the tRNA Gln (by the same low-specificity enzyme that glutamylates the tRNA Glu ), and amidation by the corresponding amido- transferase. The crystal structure of the ‘glutamine transamidosome’ of Thermotoga maritima [22] shows that the anticodon-binding domains of the synthase recognizes the common features of tRNA Gln and tRNA Glu (the second and third bases), whereas the so- called tail domain of the amidotransferase recognizes the outer corner of the tRNA Gln (specifically for the tRNA Gln ). The two enzymes bound to the tRNA Gln assume alternative conformations for the two consecu- tive reactions. The catalytic centers of the two enzymes compete for the acceptor form of tRNA Gln , and there- fore cannot adopt their productive forms simulta- neously. Hinge polypeptide regions between the catalytic and anticodon-binding domains of the syn- thase, and between the catalytic and tail domains of the amidotransferase, allow both enzymes to adopt the productive or the nonproductive forms cooperating in Gln-tRNA Gln synthesis, with a low probability of releasing the intermediate Glu-tRNA Gln species. This ‘alternative conformation’ mechanism may be more common than expected in consecutive enzymatic reactions. The transient positioning of the nucleosome along the genome The compaction of DNA molecules inside the cells occurs by supercoiling and binding to specific proteins. A supercoiled DNA duplex can form a toroid (the nucleosome, as in eukaryotes) or a plectoneme (inter- wound, as in bacteria). This distinction is relevant not only for DNA packing, but also for transcription, rep- lication, and repair. The reason for this distinction is not only how accessible the DNA is, but also the twist- ing degree (overtwisted in the nucleosome and under- twisted in the plectoneme). However, it has been argued that a common topology for bacterial and eukaryotic DNA-based processes might exist, as the ejection of a histone octamer would convert the nucle- osome into a plectoneme [23]. The crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle [24] shows a compact assembly of 147 bp wrapped around a disk formed by an octamer of histone proteins (two copies of each one of the four core histones). How- ever, this picture is deceptively static, because, in the chromatin, the nucleosome rotational and translational positioning is not fixed. Nucleosome rotational posi- tioning (or register) defines the orientation of the DNA helix on the histone surface, and a 10-bp periodicity is observed, reflecting a preference for sequences that face inwards or outwards with respect to the histones and optimize DNA bending. Analysis of the minor groove width along the double helix in 35 high-resolution crys- tal structures of nucleosomes identified a pattern of 14 minima corresponding to regions where the DNA bends and has close contacts with histone arginine side chains [19]. The analysis of DNA sequences bound in vivo by yeast nucleosomes reveals a periodicity for A-tracts three bases long, with an average of 10 A-tracts per nucleosomal DNA. Thus, even though long A-tracts tend to be excluded from the nucleosome [25], A-tracts exist and facilitate the bending of the DNA around the histone core. Translational positioning [25] is strongly influenced by the spacing between nucleosomes, but this spacing is variable, with linker DNA regions in the range of Transient protein–DNA ⁄ RNA interactions F. J. Blanco and G. Montoya 1646 FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 1643–1650 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS 10–90 bp, and a given nucleosome can invade its neighbor’s territory [26]. Recent reports [27,28] indicate that sequence-dependent histone–DNA interactions have a predominant influence on the measured nucleo- some occupancy (average number of histone octamer levels on a given DNA region in a population of cells) but not on nucleosome positioning (the extent to which each of the octamers of the population found in that DNA region deviates from its consensus location) [29–31]. Thus, the nucleosomal pattern in DNA coding regions observed in vivo is not determined by DNA sequence preferences for octamer binding, but primar- ily arises by statistical positioning from a barrier near the promoter, and this barrier involves an unknown aspect of transcriptional initiation by RNA polymer- ase II [28]. Nucleosomal assembly in vitro, however, is sequence-dependent. Obtaining well-diffracting crystals of nucleosomes was a difficult task, and was strongly dependent on the DNA sequence. All structures corresponded to nucleo- somes assembled from purified histones and human a-satellite DNA sequences, until very recently, when two new crystal structures of nucleosomes containing the strongest known histone octamer-binding sequence have been reported [32,33]. This sequence is the Widom 601 DNA, the de facto standard for in vitro nucleosome reconstitution in chromatin biology research because of its tight binding, but it is a syn- thetic repetitive sequence that may not be the best rep- resentative of real genomic sequences assembled into nucleosomes. The two structures are very similar to the former ones, but with increased DNA twisting and a 145-bp core particle instead of the canonical 147-bp one. The increased twist occurs at two superhelical regions, which are the same regions where some of the histone–DNA contacts differ from those in the a-satel- lite nucleosomes. Therefore, the structure of the nucleo- some can adapt to small variations in DNA length. One of these two structures also contains the protein regulator of chromosome condensation 1 (RCC1, also known as RanGEF or Ran guanine exchange factor), with implications for nuclear transport and mitosis. This structure is the first to show how a nonhistone protein recognizes and binds to the nucleosome (Fig. 4). It was found that arginines of the switchback loop of RCC1 interact with an acidic patch on the histone H2A–H2B dimer, whereas the DNA-binding loop interacts with phosphates of the nucleosomal DNA. These results are consistent with RCC1 being a non-DNA-sequence specific chromatin factor. Interest- ingly, the acidic patch on the nucleosome is the same as that occupied by the histone H4 tail of a neighbor nucleosome in the crystal lattice of the nucleosome [34]. In prokaryotes, the DNA is condensed with polyam- ines and proteins. In enterobacteria, the histone-like nucleoid structuring proteins perform this role and reg- ulate gene expression in response to environmental changes. The crystals of the oligomerization domain of histone-like nucleoid structuring proteins reveal an assembly of symmetry-related dimers into a superhelix, establishing a mechanism for the self-association [35]. Although there is no structure for the DNA-binding domain, the superhelical assembly suggests the forma- tion of a complex with plectonemic DNA. Engineering and design of protein-nucleic acid interactions – lessons from endonucleases Restriction endonucleases are the DNA protein bind- ers with the widest application in biotechnology and biomedicine [36,37], and large efforts are being invested in the identification of new nucleases or the modification of extant ones to give novel or improved DNA sequence specificities [38,39]. Recent successful examples of redesigned protein–DNA interfaces illus- trate our increased ability to achieve these goals by the manipulation of the direct readout interactions [40]. By use of the crystal structures of the complexes, these methods aim at optimizing the amino acids for affinity Fig. 4. Structure of the nucleosome with bound RCC1 proteins. Ribbon diagram of the structure of the RCC1Ænucleosome core par- ticle complex assembled from Drosophila melanogaster RCC1, Xenopus laevis histones, and the Widom 601 DNA (Protein Data Bank entry 3MVD). In this view, the DNA superhelix axis lies hori- zontally and parallel to the plane of the page. The two RCC1 mole- cules are shown in pale yellow and in magenta. The DNA is represented by an orange rod (backbone) and blue–green sticks (bases), and histone H3, H4, H2A and H2B are shown in different colors. The two RCC1 molecules undergo equivalent interactions on each side of the nucleosome core particle. Prepared with PYMOL (http://www.pymol.com). F. J. Blanco and G. Montoya Transient protein–DNA ⁄ RNA interactions FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 1643–1650 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS 1647 at the DNA interface, but they are not efficient for complexes in which indirect readout is dominant in DNA sequence recognition [41]. An increase in the number of the crystal structures of proteinÆDNA com- plexes should help to overcome this limitation [42,43]. Challenges and the way ahead Most structural studies are carried out not with full- length proteins, but with fragments. The most frequent reasons for this are the difficulty in producing large amounts of homogeneous material of large proteins, and the simplification of the system to facilitate crys- tallization and ⁄ or analysis by other techniques. How- ever, investing time and effort in preparing and analyzing the full-length protein can be extremely rewarding, as shown by the information obtained with the tumor suppressor protein BRCA2 and its interac- tion with DNA [44,45]. As compared with protein Æ protein complexes, there is still little structural infor- mation on proteinÆnucleic acid complexes, especially for chromatin enzymes and factors. The transient nat- ure of many of the interactions is probably one of the major difficulties in their identification, isolation, and structural characterization. MS is emerging as a potent tool for the study of dynamic or heterogeneous pro- teinÆnucleic acid complexes [46]. Although not a high- resolution structural technique, it has the bonus of requiring very little material. Small amounts are also used in single-molecule techniques, which are becoming a fruitful approach to answer specific questions, besides providing spectacular demonstrations of our prowess in manipulating and observing protein.nucleic acid complexes. Recent studies have addressed RNA folding by a helicase [47], DNA transport [48], and DNA polymerization [49]. Crystallography will continue to be the main tech- nique for high-resolution studies. Tomographic electron microscopy can provide structures of proteinÆ nucleic acid complexes inside the cell [50], and NMR has the potential to do so [51]. NMR is uniquely suited to characterize folding–unfolding events that occur at disordered regions of proteins that become structured upon recognition of their target nucleic acids, and can be usefully complemented by small-angle X-ray scatter- ing [52,53]. Intrinsically disordered proteins or protein regions will increasingly be the focus of structural stud- ies as regulators of molecular recognition processes [54]. Acknowledgements The work in the authors’ laboratories is supported by grants from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacio ´ n (CTQ2008-03115 ⁄ BQU to F. J. Blanco, and BFU2008- 01344 to G. Montoya). References 1 Doudna JA (2000) Structural genomics of RNA. Nat Struct Biol 7(Suppl), 954–956. 2 Gavin AC, Bosche M, Krause R, Grandi P, Marzioch M, Bauer A, Schultz J, Rick JM, Michon AM, Cruciat CM et al. (2002) Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 415, 141–147. 3 Maga G & Hubscher U (2003) Proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA): a dancer with many partners. J Cell Sci 116, 3051–3060. 4 Fridman Y, Palgi N, Dovrat D, Ben-Aroya S, Hieter P & Aharoni A (2010) Subtle alterations in PCNA–part- ner interactions severely impair DNA replication and repair. PLoS Biol 8, e1000507. 5 McNally R, Bowman GD, Goedken ER, O’Donnell M & Kuriyan J (2010) Analysis of the role of PCNA– DNA contacts during clamp loading. BMC Struct Biol 10, 3, doi:10.1186/1472-6807-10-3. 6 Sanchez R, Torres D, Prieto J, Blanco FJ & Campos- Olivas R (2007) Backbone assignment of human prolif- erating cell nuclear antigen. Biomol NMR Assign 1, 245–247. 7 Campos-Olivas R, Sanchez R, Torres D & Blanco FJ (2007) Backbone assignment of the 98 kDa homotrimer- ic yeast PCNA ring. J Biomol NMR 38, 167. 8 Sanchez R, Pantoja-Uceda D, Prieto J, Diercks T, Marcaida MJ, Montoya G, Campos-Olivas R & Blanco FJ (2010) Solution structure of human growth arrest and DNA damage 45alpha (Gadd45alpha) and its interactions with proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and Aurora A kinase. J Biol Chem 285, 22196–22201. 9 De Biasio A, Sanchez R, Prieto J, Villate M, Campos- Olivas R & Blanco FJ (2011) Reduced stability and increased dynamics in the human proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) relative to the yeast homolog. PLoS ONE 6, e16600. 10 Remus D, Beuron F, Tolun G, Griffith JD, Morris EP & Diffley JF (2009) Concerted loading of Mcm2-7 dou- ble hexamers around DNA during DNA replication origin licensing. Cell 139, 719–730. 11 Bohrmann B, Haider M & Kellenberger E (1993) Con- centration evaluation of chromatin in unstained resin- embedded sections by means of low-dose ratio-contrast imaging in STEM. Ultramicroscopy 49, 235–251. 12 Clore GM & Iwahara J (2009) Theory, practice, and applications of paramagnetic relaxation enhancement for the characterization of transient low-population states of biological macromolecules and their complexes. Chem Rev 109 , 4108–4139. Transient protein–DNA ⁄ RNA interactions F. J. Blanco and G. Montoya 1648 FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 1643–1650 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS 13 Doucleff M & Clore GM (2008) Global jumping and domain-specific intersegment transfer between DNA cognate sites of the multidomain transcription factor Oct-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105, 13871–13876. 14 Takayama Y, Sahu D & Iwahara J (2010) NMR studies of translocation of the Zif268 protein between its target DNA Sites. Biochemistry 49, 7998–8005. 15 Kalodimos CG, Biris N, Bonvin AM, Levandoski MM, Guennuegues M, Boelens R & Kaptein R (2004) Struc- ture and flexibility adaptation in nonspecific and specific protein–DNA complexes. Science 305, 386–389. 16 Popovych N, Tzeng SR, Tonelli M, Ebright RH & Kalodimos CG (2009) Structural basis for cAMP- mediated allosteric control of the catabolite activator protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106, 6927–6932. 17 Nikolova EN, Kim E, Wise AA, O’Brien PJ, Andri- cioaei I & Al-Hashimi HM (2011) Transient Hoogsteen base pairs in canonical duplex DNA. Nature 470, 498– 502. 18 Farnham PJ (2009) Insights from genomic profiling of transcription factors. Nat Rev Genet 10, 605–616. 19 Rohs R, Jin X, West SM, Joshi R, Honig B & Mann RS (2010) Origins of specificity in protein–DNA recog- nition. Annu Rev Biochem 79, 233–269. 20 Schuwirth BS, Borovinskaya MA, Hau CW, Zhang W, Vila-Sanjurjo A, Holton JM & Cate JH (2005) Struc- tures of the bacterial ribosome at 3.5 A resolution. Sci- ence 310, 827–834. 21 Fischer N, Konevega AL, Wintermeyer W, Rodnina MV & Stark H (2010) Ribosome dynamics and tRNA movement by time-resolved electron cryomicroscopy. Nature 466, 329–333. 22 Ito T & Yokoyama S (2010) Two enzymes bound to one transfer RNA assume alternative conformations for consecutive reactions. Nature 467, 612–616. 23 Travers A & Muskhelishvili G (2007) A common topology for bacterial and eukaryotic transcription initiation? EMBO Rep 8, 147–151. 24 Luger K, Mader AW, Richmond RK, Sargent DF & Richmond TJ (1997) Crystal structure of the nucleo- some core particle at 2.8 A resolution. Nature 389, 251–260. 25 Segal E & Widom J (2009) Poly(dA:dT) tracts: major determinants of nucleosome organization. Curr Opin Struct Biol 19, 65–71. 26 Engeholm M, de Jager M, Flaus A, Brenk R, van Noo- rt J & Owen-Hughes T (2009) Nucleosomes can invade DNA territories occupied by their neighbors. Nat Struct Mol Biol 16, 151–158. 27 Kaplan N, Moore IK, Fondufe-Mittendorf Y, Gossett AJ, Tillo D, Field Y, LeProust EM, Hughes TR, Lieb JD, Widom J et al. (2009) The DNA-encoded nucleo- some organization of a eukaryotic genome. Nature 458, 362–366. 28 Zhang Y, Moqtaderi Z, Rattner BP, Euskirchen G, Snyder M, Kadonaga JT, Liu XS & Struhl K (2009) Intrinsic histone–DNA interactions are not the major determinant of nucleosome positions in vivo. Nat Struct Mol Biol 16, 847–852. 29 Kaplan N, Moore I, Fondufe-Mittendorf Y, Gossett AJ, Tillo D, Field Y, Hughes TR, Lieb JD, Widom J & Segal E (2010) Nucleosome sequence preferences influ- ence in vivo nucleosome organization. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17, 918–920; author reply 920-912. 30 Zhang Y, Moqtaderi Z, Rattner BP, Euskirchen G, Snyder M, Kadonaga JT, Liu XS & Struhl K (2010) Evidence against a genomic code for nucleosome posi- tioning. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17 , 920–923. 31 Pugh BF (2010) A preoccupied position on nucleo- somes. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17, 923. 32 Makde RD, England JR, Yennawar HP & Tan S (2010) Structure of RCC1 chromatin factor bound to the nucleosome core particle. Nature 467, 562–566. 33 Vasudevan D, Chua EY & Davey CA (2010) Crystal structures of nucleosome core particles containing the ‘601’ strong positioning sequence. J Mol Biol 403,1– 10. 34 Davey CA, Sargent DF, Luger K, Maeder AW & Rich- mond TJ (2002) Solvent mediated interactions in the structure of the nucleosome core particle at 1.9 a resolu- tion. J Mol Biol 319, 1097–1113. 35 Arold ST, Leonard PG, Parkinson GN & Ladbury JE (2010) H-NS forms a superhelical protein scaffold for DNA condensation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107, 15728–15732. 36 Cathomen T & Schambach A (2010) Zinc-finger nuc- leases meet iPS cells: zinc positive: tailored genome engineering meets reprogramming. Gene Ther 17, 1–3. 37 Marcaida MJ, Munoz IG, Blanco FJ, Prieto J & Montoya G (2010) Homing endonucleases: from basics to therapeutic applications. Cell Mol Life Sci 67, 727–748. 38 Redondo P, Prieto J, Munoz IG, Alibes A, Stricher F, Serrano L, Cabaniols JP, Daboussi F, Arnould S, Perez C et al. (2008) Molecular basis of xeroderma pigmento- sum group C DNA recognition by engineered meganuc- leases. Nature 456, 107–111. 39 Li T, Huang S, Jiang WZ, Wright D, Spalding MH, Weeks DP & Yang B (2011) TAL nucleases (TALNs): hybrid proteins composed of TAL effectors and FokI DNA-cleavage domain. Nucleic Acids Res 39, 359–372. 40 Thyme SB, Jarjour J, Takeuchi R, Havranek JJ, Ash- worth J, Scharenberg AM, Stoddard BL & Baker D (2009) Exploitation of binding energy for catalysis and design. Nature 461, 1300–1304. 41 Ashworth J & Baker D (2009) Assessment of the opti- mization of affinity and specificity at protein–DNA interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res 37, e73. F. J. Blanco and G. Montoya Transient protein–DNA ⁄ RNA interactions FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 1643–1650 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS 1649 42 Marcaida MJ, Prieto J, Redondo P, Nadra AD, Alibes A, Serrano L, Grizot S, Duchateau P, Paques F, Blanco FJ et al. (2008) Crystal structure of I-DmoI in complex with its target DNA provides new insights into meganuclease engineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105, 16888–16893. 43 Munoz IG, Prieto J, Subramanian S, Coloma J, Redondo P, Villate M, Merino N, Marenchino M, D’Abramo M, Gervasio FL et al. (2011) Molecular basis of engineered meganuclease targeting of the endogenous human RAG1 locus. Nucleic Acids Res 39, 729–743. 44 Jensen RB, Carreira A & Kowalczykowski SC (2010) Purified human BRCA2 stimulates RAD51-mediated recombination. Nature 467, 678–683. 45 Thorslund T, McIlwraith MJ, Compton SA, Lekomtsev S, Petronczki M, Griffith JD & West SC (2010) The breast cancer tumor suppressor BRCA2 promotes the specific targeting of RAD51 to single-stranded DNA. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17, 1263–1265. 46 Gordiyenko Y & Robinson CV (2008) The emerging role of MS in structure elucidation of protein–nucleic acid complexes. Biochem Soc Trans 36, 723–731. 47 Karunatilaka KS, Solem A, Pyle AM & Rueda D (2010) Single-molecule analysis of Mss116-mediated group II intron folding. Nature 467, 935–939. 48 Ptacin JL, Nollmann M, Becker EC, Cozzarelli NR, Pogliano K & Bustamante C (2008) Sequence-directed DNA export guides chromosome translocation during sporulation in Bacillus subtilis. Nat Struct Mol Biol 15, 485–493. 49 Olasagasti F, Lieberman KR, Benner S, Cherf GM, Dahl JM, Deamer DW & Akeson M (2010) Replication of individual DNA molecules under electronic control using a protein nanopore. Nat Nanotechnol 5, 798–806. 50 Brandt F, Carlson LA, Hartl FU, Baumeister W & Grunewald K (2010) The three-dimensional organiza- tion of polyribosomes in intact human cells. Mol Cell 39, 560–569. 51 Sakakibara D, Sasaki A, Ikeya T, Hamatsu J, Hanashi- ma T, Mishima M, Yoshimasu M, Hayashi N, Mikawa T, Walchli M et al. (2009) Protein structure determina- tion in living cells by in-cell NMR spectroscopy. Nature 458, 102–105. 52 Mertens HD & Svergun DI (2010) Structural character- ization of proteins and complexes using small-angle X-ray solution scattering. J Struct Biol 172, 128–141. 53 Jimenez-Menendez N, Fernandez-Millan P, Rubio-Cosi- als A, Arnan C, Montoya J, Jacobs HT, Bernado P, Coll M, Uson I & Sola M (2010) Human mitochondrial mTERF wraps around DNA through a left-handed superhelical tandem repeat. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17, 891–893. 54 Garcia-Pino A, Balasubramanian S, Wyns L, Gazit E, De Greve H, Magnuson RD, Charlier D, van Nuland NA & Loris R (2010) Allostery and intrinsic disorder mediate transcription regulation by conditional cooper- ativity. Cell 142, 101–111. 55 Hodis E, Prilusky J, Martz E, Silman I, Moult J & Sussman JL (2008) Proteopedia – a scientific ‘wiki’ bridging the rift between three-dimensional structure and function of biomacromolecules. Genome Biol 9, R121. Transient protein–DNA ⁄ RNA interactions F. J. Blanco and G. Montoya 1650 FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 1643–1650 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS . REVIEW ARTICLE Transient DNA ⁄ RNA-protein interactions Francisco J. Blanco 1,2 and Guillermo Montoya 3 1. the DNA as an orange rod (backbone) and blue–green sticks (bases). The figure was prepared with PYMOL (http://www.pymol.org). Transient protein DNA ⁄ RNA interactions