4.6 Article

Binding Analysis of Methyl-CpG Binding Domain of MeCP2 and Rett Syndrome Mutations

期刊

ACS CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 2706-2715

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acschembio.6b00450

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS of the National Institutes of Health [5P20GM103444]
  2. Clemson University
  3. NIH [GM090141, R01GM093937]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methyl-CpG binding protein 2 (MeCP2) binds to methylated cytosine in CpG island through its methyl-CpG binding domain (MBD). Here, the effects of the Rett syndrome-causing missense mutations on binding affinity of MBD to cytosine (C), methylcytosine (mC), hydroxymethylcytosine (hmC), formylcytosine (fC), and carboxylcytosine (caC) in CpG dinucleotide are investigated. MeCP2-MBD binds to mC-containing variants of double stranded CpG stronger than any other cytosine modified CpG with the strongest affinity to mC/mC. Thirteen MBD missense mutations show reduced binding affinity for mC/mC ranging with a 2-fold decrease for T158M to 88-fold for R111G. The binding affinities of these mutants to C/C are also reduced to various degrees except for T158M. Consistent with free energy perturbation analysis, correlation of binding affinity with protein unfolding allows for grouping mutations into three clusters. Correlation of the first cluster includes mutations that have a higher tendency to unfold and have lesser affinity to mC/mC and C/C. Mutations in the second cluster have similar structural stability but various affinities to mC/mC and C/C. R111G and A140V belong to the third cluster in which the loss of protein flexibility may underlie their reduction in binding affinity to mC/mC and C/C. Most notably, R111 emerges as the key structural element that modulates the specific contacts with mCpG. Implications of the results for the mCpG binding mechanism of MeCP2-MBD are discussed. These analyses provide new insights on the structure and function relationships in MeCP2-MBD and offer new clues to their roles in the pathology of Rett syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据