4.5 Article

Histones and DNA Compete for Binding Polyphosphoinositides in Bilayers

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 1092-1100

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2014.01.023

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Economia [BFU 2012-36241, BFU 2011-28566]
  2. Basque Government [IT 838-13, IT 849-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent discoveries on the presence and location of phosphoinositides in the eukaryotic cell nucleoplasm and nuclear membrane prompted us to study the putative interaction of chromatin components with these lipids in model membranes (liposomes). Turbidimetric studies revealed that a variety of histones and histone combinations (H1, H2AH2B, H3H4, octamers) caused a dose-dependent aggregation of phosphatidylcholine vesicles (large unilamellar vesicle or small unilamellar vesicle) containing negatively charged phospholipids. 5 mol % phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate (PIP) was enough to cause extensive aggregation under our conditions, whereas with phosphatidylinositol (PI) at least 20 mol % was necessary to obtain a similar effect. Histone binding to giant unilamellar vesicle and vesicle aggregation was visualized by confocal microscopy. Histone did not cause vesicle aggregation in the presence of DNA, and the latter was able to disassemble the histone-vesicle aggregates. At DNA/H1 weight ratios 0.1-0.5 DNA- and PIP-bound H1 appear to coexist. Isothermal calorimetry studies revealed that the PIP-Hi association constant was one order of magnitude higher than that of PI-H1, and the corresponding lipid/histone stoichiometries were similar to 0.5 and similar to 1, respectively. The results suggest that, in the nucleoplasm, a complex interplay of histones, DNA, and phosphoinositides may be taking place, particularly at the nucleoplasmic reticula that reach deep within the nucleoplasm, or during somatic and nonsomatic nuclear envelope assembly. The data described here provide a minimal model for analyzing and understanding the mechanism of these interactions.

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

4.5
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