MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791103809 · doi:10.1074/jbc.ra118.001785

Structural basis for the ability of MBD domains to bind methyl-CG and TG sites in DNA

2018· article· en· W2791103809 on OpenAlexafffund
Ke Liu, Chao Xu, Ming Lei, Ally Yang, P. Loppnau, Timothy R. Hughes, Jinrong Min

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteOntario Genomics InstituteNational Institute of General Medical SciencesWellcome Trust
KeywordsDNAChemistryBiochemistryComputational biologyBiologyMolecular biologyCell biologyGeneticsBiophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cytosine methylation is a well-characterized epigenetic mark and occurs at both CG and non-CG sites in DNA. Both methylated CG (mCG)- and mCH (H = A, C, or T)-containing DNAs, especially mCAC-containing DNAs, are recognized by methyl-CpG–binding protein 2 (MeCP2) to regulate gene expression in neuron development. However, the molecular mechanism involved in the binding of methyl-CpG–binding domain (MBD) of MeCP2 to these different DNA motifs is unclear. Here, we systematically characterized the DNA-binding selectivities of the MBD domains in MeCP2 and MBD1–4 with isothermal titration calorimetry–based binding assays, mutagenesis studies, and X-ray crystallography. We found that the MBD domains of MeCP2 and MBD1–4 bind mCG-containing DNAs independently of the sequence identity outside the mCG dinucleotide. Moreover, some MBD domains bound to both methylated and unmethylated CA dinucleotide–containing DNAs, with a preference for the CAC sequence motif. We also found that the MBD domains bind to mCA or nonmethylated CA DNA by recognizing the complementary TG dinucleotide, which is consistent with an overlooked ligand of MeCP2, i.e. the matrix/scaffold attachment regions (MARs/SARs) with a consensus sequence of 5′-GGTGT-3′ that was identified in early 1990s. Our results also explain why MeCP2 exhibits similar binding affinity to both mCA- and hmCA-containing dsDNAs. In summary, our results suggest that in addition to mCG sites, unmethylated CA or TG sites also serve as DNA-binding sites for MeCP2 and other MBD-containing proteins. This discovery expands the genome-wide activity of MBD-containing proteins in gene regulation. Cytosine methylation is a well-characterized epigenetic mark and occurs at both CG and non-CG sites in DNA. Both methylated CG (mCG)- and mCH (H = A, C, or T)-containing DNAs, especially mCAC-containing DNAs, are recognized by methyl-CpG–binding protein 2 (MeCP2) to regulate gene expression in neuron development. However, the molecular mechanism involved in the binding of methyl-CpG–binding domain (MBD) of MeCP2 to these different DNA motifs is unclear. Here, we systematically characterized the DNA-binding selectivities of the MBD domains in MeCP2 and MBD1–4 with isothermal titration calorimetry–based binding assays, mutagenesis studies, and X-ray crystallography. We found that the MBD domains of MeCP2 and MBD1–4 bind mCG-containing DNAs independently of the sequence identity outside the mCG dinucleotide. Moreover, some MBD domains bound to both methylated and unmethylated CA dinucleotide–containing DNAs, with a preference for the CAC sequence motif. We also found that the MBD domains bind to mCA or nonmethylated CA DNA by recognizing the complementary TG dinucleotide, which is consistent with an overlooked ligand of MeCP2, i.e. the matrix/scaffold attachment regions (MARs/SARs) with a consensus sequence of 5′-GGTGT-3′ that was identified in early 1990s. Our results also explain why MeCP2 exhibits similar binding affinity to both mCA- and hmCA-containing dsDNAs. In summary, our results suggest that in addition to mCG sites, unmethylated CA or TG sites also serve as DNA-binding sites for MeCP2 and other MBD-containing proteins. This discovery expands the genome-wide activity of MBD-containing proteins in gene regulation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207