Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, July 2001, p. 4302-4310, Vol. 21, No. 13
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.13.4302-4310.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
RAG Transposase Can Capture and Commit to Target
DNA before or after Donor Cleavage
Matthew B.
Neiditch,1
Gregory S.
Lee,1
Mark A.
Landree,2 and
David B.
Roth1,2,3,*
Department of
Immunology,1 Interdepartmental Program
in Cell and Molecular Biology,2 and
Howard Hughes Medical Institute,3
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030
Received 16 February 2001/Returned for modification 11 March
2001/Accepted 4 April 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
The discovery that the V(D)J recombinase functions as a transposase
in vitro suggests that transposition by this system might be a potent
source of genomic instability. To gain insight into the mechanisms that
regulate transposition, we investigated a phenomenon termed target
commitment that reflects a functional association between the RAG
transposase and the target DNA. We found that the V(D)J recombinase is
quite promiscuous, forming productive complexes with target DNA both
before and after donor cleavage, and our data indicate that the
rate-limiting step for transposition occurs after target capture.
Formation of stable target capture complexes depends upon the presence
of active-site metal binding residues (the DDE motif), suggesting that
active-site amino acids in RAG-1 are critical for target capture. The
ability of the RAG transposase to commit to target prior to cleavage
may result in a preference for transposition into nearby targets, such
as immunoglobulin and T-cell receptor loci. This could bias transposition toward relatively "safe" regions of the genome. A
preference for localized transposition may also have influenced the
evolution of the antigen receptor loci.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Jawed vertebrates create a
diverse repertoire of antigen receptors through a series of programmed
DNA rearrangements during lymphocyte differentiation. This process,
V(D)J recombination, is catalyzed by a multisubunit recombinase that
contains two lymphoid-cell-specific proteins, RAG1 and RAG2. These
proteins recognize recombination signal sequences (RSS) that flank all
T- and B-cell antigen receptor gene segments (hereafter referred to as
coding segments). Double-stranded DNA breaks are introduced at these
sites via a two-step mechanism. First, a nick is introduced between the
RSS and the adjacent coding segment; second, the newly generated 3'OH
attacks the corresponding phosphodiester bond on the opposite strand,
creating a covalently sealed (hairpin) coding end and a
5'-phosphorylated blunt signal end. The broken ends are repaired with
the participation of several double-stranded break repair proteins,
thus creating a diverse array of rearranged antigen receptor genes
(reviewed in references 10 and 22).
There are many similarities between the mechanism of V(D)J
recombination and the movements of transposable elements (reviewed in
reference 32). In light of these similarities and the
unusual organization of the RAG genes, it has been suggested that the V(D)J recombination system evolved from an ancient cut-and-paste-type transposon (29, 35, 39). This hypothesis is supported by the observation that RAG proteins, together with the nonspecific DNA-bending protein HMG1, can form an active transposase in vitro, capable of efficiently inserting DNA molecules terminating in signal
ends into target DNA molecules without significant target site
specificity (1, 14).
The discovery that the V(D)J recombinase can function as a transposase
in vitro raised the possibility that this system might be a potent
source of genomic instability in developing lymphocytes that are
actively undergoing V(D)J recombination (14). The presence of germ line antigen receptor rearrangements in sharks and skates suggests that RAG-mediated transposition could contribute to genome rearrangements in nonlymphoid cells as well (23, 31). It
is, therefore, of great interest to understand the mechanism of
transposition and its regulation.
Linear DNA molecules terminating in signal ends
the substrates for
transposition
are quite abundant and apparently long-lived in
developing lymphocytes (30, 33). These signal ends are thought to remain bound to the RAG proteins (2, 13). In
view of the observation that such precleaved signal ends complexed to
the RAG proteins efficiently undergo transposition in vitro, it would
seem that V(D)J recombination in vivo is a rather risky enterprise.
However, RAG-mediated transposition has not yet been documented in
vivo, and it is likely that regulatory mechanisms are in place to limit
the frequency of transposition in lymphocytes (1, 10, 14, 26,
32).
Selection of the target DNA molecule seems a reasonable step by which
to regulate transposition specifically without affecting V(D)J
recombination. Some transposons, such as Tn7, show a strong preference for specific target sites (8). In fact,
cleavage at Tn7 ends does not proceed until a proper target
site has been identified (6). Some mobile elements with
much less stringent target sequence requirements, such as the
bacteriophage Mu transposase, can interact with the target DNA both
prior to and after donor cleavage (7, 27). In contrast,
the Tn10 transposase, whose behavior closely parallels that
of the V(D)J recombinase in other respects (17), does not
stably interact with its target until after the transposon ends have
been liberated from the flanking DNA (34). Cleavage may be
required to expose the target DNA binding pocket of the transposase
(34). Recent experiments have established that the RAG
proteins contact the coding flank DNA (9), and it has been
suggested that like Tn10, the RAG proteins may interact with
the target DNA only after cleavage (1).
We investigated interactions between the RAG transposase and target
DNA. In addition to identifying a RAG-donor-target complex (termed a
target capture complex), we examined a phenomenon termed target
commitment, a functional association between the RAG-RSS complex and
target DNA that is resistant to addition of a competitor target. Target
commitment can be distinct from target capture: in the case of
Tn10 only a subset of target capture complexes exhibit
commitment, which is viewed as a more functionally significant interaction (34). We found that the RAG proteins indeed
exhibit target commitment. Furthermore, our data demonstrate that,
contrary to expectation, the V(D)J recombinase is a promiscuous
transposase that can form productive complexes with target DNA both
before and after RSS cleavage. The ability of the RAG transposase to commit to target prior to cleavage may result in a preference for
transposition into nearby targets, such as immunoglobulin and T-cell
receptor loci. Functional and evolutionary implications of this newly
discovered property of the RAG proteins are discussed.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
DNA.
Uncleaved 16-bp coding flank 12- and 23-RSS were
created by annealing the DAR39/40 and DG61/62 (25)
oligonucleotides, respectively. Uncleaved 41-bp coding flank 12- and
23-RSS oligonucleotides were created by annealing SK42
(5'-CTGCAGGTACAGGACGAGTTCTACAGATCTGGCCTGTCTGCCACAGTGCTACAGACTGGAACAAAAACCCTGCAG) to its complement, SK43, and MBN21
(5'-CTGCAGGTACAGGACGAGTTCTACAGATCTGGCCTGTCTGCCACAGTGGTAGTACTCCACTGTCTGGCTGTACAAAAAC CCTGCAG)
to its complement, MBN22. Precleaved 12- and 23-RSS oligonucleotides were created by annealing DG10 and DG4 to their complements
(25). The target used for physical detection of target
capture complexes was the oligonucleotide mm30b
(5'-ATCGAGGACGCAGTTACGTTCCCGGAGATC) annealed to its
complement, mm30t. All oligonucleotides were purchased from GIBCO Life
Technologies and were gel purified before use. pUC19 and pcDNA1/AMP
were used as the short and long plasmid targets, respectively. The
linearized target size standards were created by digesting the
appropriate target plasmids with BamHI and by 5' end
labeling with T4 polynucleotide kinase.
Proteins.
Recombinant truncated (core) RAG proteins (amino
acids 384 to 1008 of RAG1 and 1 to 387 of RAG2) were purified from
baculovirus-infected insect cells as previously described (3, 19,
25, 41). Both proteins contain a carboxy-terminal nine-histidine
tag, three human c-myc epitope tags, and an amino-terminal
maltose-binding protein fusion. The target capture assay and DDE mutant
RAG experiments were performed using RAG-1 and RAG-2 glutathione
S-transferase (GST) fusions copurified from Chinese hamster
ovary (RMP41) cells as previously described (36-38). Both
types of protein preparations were capable of target commitment;
however, the GST epitope-tagged proteins were more active.
Target commitment.
Unless otherwise noted, 10-µl
preincubation mixtures contained 32.7 mM K+-HEPES
(pH 7.5), 2.6 mM dithiothreitol, 19.4 mM potassium glutamate, 5.1 mM
CaCl2, 6% glycerol, 60 µg of bovine serum
albumin/µl, 0.006% NP-40, 150 ng each of MR1 and MR2, 1.5 ng of
HMG1/µl, and donor and target DNA as indicated. Following
preincubation at the indicated time and temperature, reaction mixtures
were spiked with mixtures of MgCl2 or other
Me2+ as indicated (3 mM, final concentration),
polyethylene glycol 8000 (10%, final wt/vol ratio), and the indicated
target or Tris-EDTA (TE) for a final reaction volume of 15 µl and
were incubated at 37°C for 30 min (except in the kinetic analyses).
Fifteen microliters of stop buffer (100 mM Tris [pH 8.0], 10 mM EDTA,
0.2% sodium dodecyl sulfate [SDS], 0.35 mg of proteinase K/ml) was
added, and incubation continued at 37°C for >1.5 h. All reactions
were subjected to electrophoresis through 1% SeaKem GTG agarose (FMC BioProducts) 25-cm gels containing 0.2 µg of ethidium bromide/ml at
180 V for ~200 min in 1× Tris-borate-EDTA. Dried gels were visualized with a PhosphorImager.
Target commitment assays.
Uncleaved donor reactions were
performed as indicated above with 0.02 pmol of 5'
32P-end-labeled 12-RSS donor, 0.02 pmol of 23-RSS
donor, and 0.04 pmol of pcDNA1/AMP and/or pUC19 target. Precleaved
donor reactions were performed as indicated above, using 0.12 pmol of
5' 32P-end-labeled 12-RSS donor, 0.12 pmol of
23-RSS donor, and 0.03 pmol of pcDNA1/AMP and/or pUC19. DDE mutant
experiments were performed as indicated above with 0.02 pmol of 5'
32P-end-labeled 12-RSS donor, 0.02 pmol of 23-RSS
donor, and 0.04 pmol of pcDNA1/AMP and/or pUC19 target.
Target capture assays.
Preincubations (6.5 µl) were
carried out at 37°C for 10 min, in mixtures containing 25 mM
K-morpholinepropanesulfonic acid (MOPS) (pH 7.0), 4 mM dithiothreitol,
75 mM potassium glutamate, 5.4 mM CaCl2, 100 µg
of bovine serum albumin/ml, 150 ng each of GST-R1 and GST-R2, 20 ng of
HMG1, and 0.13 pmol each of uncleaved 12- and 23-RSS donor. The
reaction mixtures were spiked with mixtures of MgCl (5 mM, final
concentration), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (10%, final wt/vol ratio),
and 0.65 pmol of annealed oligonucleotide target for a final reaction
volume of 10 µl and were incubated at 37°C for 15 min. These
reactions were also performed without the addition of DMSO. Target
capture was found to be completely independent of the presence of DMSO.
Two microliters of 50% glycerol was added to all reaction mixtures
except for the stop buffer-treated reaction mixture, which received 10 µl of stop buffer and was incubated for 15 min at 37°C prior to the
addition of 4 µl of 50% glycerol. Entire reaction mixtures were then
loaded directly onto a 4 to 20% gradient nondenaturing polyacrylamide
gel and run at 120 V for 110 min in 1× Tris-borate-EDTA at 4°C.
Dried gels were visualized by PhosphorImager analysis. Electrophoretic mobility shifts of labeled donor were conducted as previously described
(21), except that glutaraldehyde was omitted.
 |
RESULTS |
Target commitment prior to donor cleavage.
The ability of the
Tn10 transposase to interact with its target has been
analyzed using staged reactions in which the transposase (along with
appropriate transposon end sequences) is first incubated with target
DNA in Ca2+, which promotes assembly of
protein-DNA complexes but does not support transposition. This
preincubation is followed by the addition of a second distinguishable
target along with Mg2+, a divalent metal ion that
allows transposition. A functionally significant interaction between
the transposase-end complex and the target (commitment) is inferred if
preferential integration into the first target is observed
(34).
We adopted a similar strategy to study the interactions of the RAG
transposase with target DNA. We performed staged reactions in which
uncleaved 12- and 23-spacer RSS-containing oligonucleotides were
preincubated with the RAG proteins and HMG1 under conditions that
support assembly but not transposition (generally in
Ca2+). Donor molecules containing either 16 or 41 bp of flanking DNA were tested, yielding similar results (Fig.
1B and C, respectively). Target plasmids
of two distinct sizes (2.7 and 4.8 kb) were used (illustrated
schematically in Fig. 1A). Target 1 was added in the preincubation, and
target 2 was added, along with Mg2+, in the
second incubation. If the RAG transposase captures the target prior to
cleavage and remains committed to this target, then target 1 should be
preferred over an equimolar amount of target 2. If, on the other hand,
the RAG proteins do not commit to the first target prior to cleavage,
then there should be no preference for transposition into either
target.

View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
The RAG transposase can commit to target prior to donor
cleavage. (A) Schematic of target commitment assay with uncleaved
donor. The asterisk indicates the location of radiolabel. (B)
Transposition products are either linearized (lin) or nicked circular
(nc) target species resulting from concerted or single integration of
donor molecules, respectively (single events are not pictured in the
schematic). Linear products of concerted transposition events migrate
slightly more slowly than the linearized standards due to the presence
of the integrated donor molecules. indicates that dialysis buffer
was substituted for RAG protein or that TE was substituted for DNA in
indicated reactions. S and L refer to short and long targets,
respectively.
|
|
As shown in Fig.
1B, incubation of the RAG proteins with either target
1 or 2 alone yielded predominantly double-ended transposition
events,
resulting in linearization of the target plasmid (Fig.
1B, lanes 3 and
4; compare with linearized plasmid standards in
lanes 1 and 2), in
agreement with previous studies (
1,
14).
Consistent with
earlier reports (
1,
14), approximately 1%
of the
radiolabeled donor was integrated into the plasmid targets.
As shown in
Fig.
1, the staged reactions reveal a clear preference
for the first
target, regardless of whether the smaller or larger
plasmid served as
target 1 (Fig.
1B, lanes 7 and 8, and C, lane
12). The preference for
target 1 was at the expense of target
2 utilization (compare Fig.
1B,
lanes 7 and 8, with lanes 6 and
5, respectively). As controls, both
plasmids were added together
during the preincubation (data not shown)
or at the time of Mg
2+ addition (Fig.
1B, lane 9, and C, lane 13); as expected, no target
preference was observed. Thus,
the RAG proteins, unlike the Tn
10 transposase, interact with
and commit to the target prior to
cleavage.
Target commitment after donor cleavage.
We next examined the
behavior of precleaved donor DNA molecules. Staged reactions were
performed as described above, except that the preincubation step was
performed at 0°C to prevent transposition during the preincubation
(Fig. 2A), because precleaved donors are
active for transposition in Ca2+
(14). To verify that transposition did not occur at 0°C,
additional reactions with target present during the
Ca2+ preincubation phase were performed in
parallel without a Mg2+ addition step; no
transposition was observed in multiple experiments (for example, see
Fig. 2B, lanes 7 and 8). No preferential use of either target was
observed when both targets were present in the preincubation (Fig. 2B,
lane 6) or in the second, Mg2+-containing
incubation (data not shown). The staged reactions, however, revealed a
preferential use of target 1 (Fig. 2B, lane 5; see also Fig. 6B, lane
6), indicating that precleaved complexes support target commitment.

View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
The RAG transposase can commit to target after donor
cleavage. (A) Schematic of RAG transposase target commitment assay with
precleaved donor end molecules. Asterisks indicate the position of
radiolabel. (B) Agarose gel of transposition products. , no addition
of target; preinc, preincubation; ctrls, controls; lin; linear; nc,
nicked circular; S, short; L, long.
|
|
Preincubation with target does not accelerate the rate of strand
transfer.
Target commitment could simply reflect accelerated
kinetics of transposition, as the formation of a target capture complex could be a rate-limiting step. Indeed, in the case of Tn10,
preincubation of target with transposition complexes containing
precleaved donor DNA molecules substantially accelerates the rate of
strand transfer in staged reactions (34). We therefore
examined the effects of preincubation with uncleaved donor DNA on the
kinetics of strand transfer, following the protocols schematized in
Fig. 3A and B. We added target either
simultaneously with Mg2+ (Fig. 3A) or during the
preincubation (Fig. 3B). The rate of strand transfer was not
significantly accelerated by preincubating with target (Fig. 3C). As
expected, preincubation with target did not affect the rate of donor
cleavage (data not shown). Transposition decreased after approximately
40 to 60 min, perhaps as a result of disintegration (26).

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Preincubation with target DNA does not accelerate the
kinetics of strand transfer of uncleaved donor ends. Panels A and B
show assays utilizing uncleaved donor molecules in which target was
added either with Mg2+ or during preincubation. Asterisks
indicate the position of radiolabel. (C) The amount of transposition is
plotted as a function of the incubation time with Mg2+ at
37°C. Target was added either with Mg2+ or during
preincubation.
|
|
We next studied the kinetic effects of target preincubation on
transposition by precleaved donor molecules, as depicted schematically
in Fig.
4A and B. Target was added at the
time of Mg
2+ addition (Fig.
4A) or during the
preincubation (Fig.
4B). As
with the uncleaved donor, the time course
of transposition of
precleaved donor molecules was not significantly
affected by preincubation
with target (Fig.
4C). These data demonstrate
that preincubation
with target DNA molecules does not significantly
increase the
rate of transposition, suggesting that a reaction step
subsequent
to target capture is rate limiting. In fact, varying the
time
of target 1 preincubation revealed that target commitment occurred
very quickly, in less than 1 min (the earliest time point; data
not
shown).

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
Preincubation with target DNA does not accelerate the
kinetics of strand transfer of precleaved donor ends. Panels A and B
picture assays utilizing precleaved donor molecules in which target was
added either with Mg2+ or during the preincubation.
Asterisks indicate position of radiolabel. (C) The amount of
transposition observed is plotted as a function of the incubation time
with Mg2+ at 37°C. Target was added either with
Mg2+ or during preincubation.
|
|
Transposase-target interactions are reversible in
Ca2+.
The target commitment experiments described
above demonstrate that transposase-target associations formed during
preincubation in Ca2+ are resistant to competitor
target added at the time of Mg2+ addition. Since
Ca2+ supports binding, but not catalysis, we
wondered whether the target-transposase association would also be
resistant to competitor added in Ca2+. To examine
this question, samples preincubated with uncleaved donor and target 1 in Ca2+ were subjected to a second 20-min
preincubation in Ca2+ with various amounts of
target 2 as competitor (illustrated schematically in Fig.
5A). Even an equimolar amount of target 2 abolished the preference for target 1 (Fig. 5B, lane 4); 3- and 10-fold
molar excesses of target 2 progressively diminished the use of target 1 (Fig. 5B, lanes 5 and 6). Note that when high concentrations of
competitor target were added in the Ca2+
preincubation, the efficiency of transposition was somewhat diminished (Fig. 5B, compare lanes 3 and 6). This is because the large amounts of
plasmid DNA act as a nonspecific competitor, inhibiting synaptic complex formation (12; M. B. Neiditch and D. B. Roth, unpublished data).

View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
Transposase-target interactions leading to commitment
are reversible in Ca2+. (A) Schematic of assay utilized to
determine the stability of target commitment under preincubation and
catalytic conditions. The asterisk indicates the position of
radiolabel. (B) Preincubations were performed for 20 min, with 0.02 pmol of 12- and 23-spacer RSS donors and 1× (0.04 pmol) pcDNA1/AMP
(target 1). 1×, 3×, or 10× molar amounts of pUC19 (target 2) were
added as indicated (lanes 4 to 6), and preincubations were continued
for 20 min. Reaction mixtures were supplemented with MgCl2
and polyethylene glycol, bringing the final reaction conditions to 3 mM
MgCl2 and 10% polyethylene glycol 8000 in 15 µl. These
reactions were compared to similar reactions in which 1×, 3×, or 10×
target 2 was added at the time of Mg2+ addition (lanes 7 to
9). nc, nicked circular; lin, linear; S, short; L, long; , no
addition of target 2.
|
|
These data demonstrate that the transposase-target interactions leading
to commitment are reversible in Ca
2+. Identical
results were obtained with precleaved donor molecules
(data not shown),
indicating that the target capture complex is
not stabilized by the
absence of flanking donor DNA. In contrast,
commitment to target 1 was
resistant to even a 10-fold molar excess
of target 2 added during the
Mg
2+ addition step (Fig.
5B, lane 9). This
competitor resistance was
also observed when the 2.7-kb target was used
as target 1 and
when the 4.8-kb target was utilized as target 2 (data
not shown).
The relative inability of target 2 to compete with target 1 in
Mg
2+ implies that the RAG-RSS-target complexes
are fairly stable in
Mg
2+ (see below for further
discussion).
Effects of divalent metal ions on target commitment.
The lack
of stable target commitment in Ca2+ indicates
that the transposase-target interactions responsible for commitment are readily reversible under these conditions. Because target commitment is
observed upon addition of Mg2+, we wondered
whether Mg2+ might increase the stability of
transposase-target interactions, locking the transposase onto the
target. Alternatively, the establishment of conditions that support
catalysis (rather than the presence of Mg2+ per
se) might promote an alteration of the transposase-donor-target interaction that induces target commitment.
To test these hypotheses, we made use of the fact that precleaved donor
DNA molecules are competent for transposition in both
Ca
2+ and Mg
2+. We performed
staged reactions in which the second step was carried
out in
Ca
2+ at 37°C, allowing catalysis to be
initiated in the absence of
Mg
2+ (Fig.
6A). Reactions in which both incubations
were carried out
in Ca
2+ exhibited target
commitment that was indistinguishable from reactions
performed in the
standard fashion, in which Ca
2+ is followed by
Mg
2+ (a representative experiment is shown in
Fig.
6B; compare lanes
4 and 6). Target commitment was also observed
when target 1 was
preincubated in Mg
2+ and target
2 was added with Ca
2+ (Fig.
6B, lane 8) and when
target 1 was preincubated in Mg
2+ and target 2 was added with (Fig.
6B, lanes 11 and 12) or without
(Fig.
6B, lanes 9 and 10) additional Mg
2+. Thus, it is the switch
to catalytic conditions, rather than
the presence of a specific metal
ion, that induces target commitment.

View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
The RAG transposase commits to target in the presence of
both Ca2+ and Mg2+. (A) Schematic of assay
employed to test the contributions of Ca2+ and
Mg2+ to target commitment. Preincubation mixtures contained
5.1 mM concentrations of the indicated divalent metal ion; the
indicated divalent metal ion was added with target 2 or TE to a final
concentration of 3 mM. Asterisks indicate the position of radiolabel.
(B) Truncated RAG proteins (lacking the N-terminal maltose-binding
protein fusion) were used in the experiment shown. Commitment to target
1 was observed in Ca2+/Ca2+,
Ca2+/Mg2+, Mg2+/Ca2+,
and Mg2+/Mg2+ reactions. lin, linear; nc,
nicked circular; S, short; L, long, , no addition of
target.
|
|
Physical analysis of target capture complexes.
The ability of
the RAG transposase to display target commitment implies a stable
association between the RAG-RSS complex and the target. To detect such
target capture complexes directly, we performed electrophoretic
mobility shift assays using a radiolabeled oligonucleotide. No protein
cross-linking reagents (such as glutaraldehyde) were used. We observed
target capture complexes (Fig. 7B, lane 2) that were dependent on the presence of both RAG proteins (Fig. 7B,
lane 1) and donor RSS (Fig. 7B, lane 5). As expected, efficient target
capture complex formation required the presence of both a 12- and a
23-RSS (Fig. 7B, lane 6, and data not shown).
Ca2+ alone supported inefficient but detectable
target capture (Fig. 7B, lanes 4 and 8). Some target capture complex
formation occurred in the absence of HMG1, yielding a complex with
faster electrophoretic mobility (Fig. 7B, lane 7) that was not observed
in standard reactions.

View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 7.
Physical detection of RAG target capture complexes. (A)
Schematic of assay employed to detect noncovalently associated
RAG-donor-target complexes. The asterisk indicates the position of
radiolabel. (B) Lanes marked + RAG contain RAG proteins, HMG1,
12- and 23-donor RSS, target, and Mg2+. TCC denotes the
position of target capture complexes. All reaction mixturess were
loaded directly to gel without extraction. ProtK, proteinase K; wt,
wild type.
|
|
To determine whether the DNA-protein complexes contained transposition
products, reaction mixtures were deproteinized by treatment
with SDS
and proteinase K and loaded directly to the gel without
extraction or
precipitation. The target capture complex band was
completely ablated
upon SDS-proteinase K treatment, and a new
band of altered mobility was
detected, representing products resistant
to SDS-proteinase K
treatment. This indicates a covalent association
between donor and
target DNA, which was further verified by denaturing
gel
electrophoresis (data not shown). In multiple experiments,
however, we
noted that only approximately 50% of the target capture
complexes were
resistant to SDS-proteinase K treatment, indicating
that a substantial
fraction of target capture complexes had not
undergone strand transfer.
This observation is consistent with
the ability of target capture
complexes to form in Ca
2+, a condition that does
not support strand transfer of uncleaved
donor RSS. These data
demonstrate the presence of RAG-donor-target
complexes (some containing
substrates and some containing completed
transposition products) that
are sufficiently stable to withstand
gel
electrophoresis.
Analysis of catalytically deficient RAG mutants.
The
Tn10 transposase active site has been implicated in
transposase-target interactions (16). To gain insight into
the mode of target capture employed by the RAG transposase, we examined catalytically deficient RAG mutants bearing point mutations in acidic
amino acids important for coordination of divalent metal ions
(the so-called DDE motif). DDE mutants are defective for both the
hydrolysis and transesterification steps of RSS cleavage and fail to
carry out transposition of either uncleaved or precleaved donor RSS in
Mg2+ (11, 18, 21).
We used the target capture assay to examine the ability of D600N and
E962Q to capture target in Mg
2+. Both mutants (as
well as wild-type RAG-1) bound RSS in the presence
of wild-type RAG-2,
yielding a RAG-RSS complex that has a somewhat
faster mobility than the
RAG-RSS-target complex (Fig.
7B, lanes
14 to 16). The mutants, however,
failed to form stable target
capture complexes (Fig.
7B, lanes 11 and
12). These data indicate
that target capture involves active-site
residues in RAG-1.
The D600 and E962 mutants are capable of catalyzing inefficient but
detectable transposition of precleaved donor molecules
in the presence
of Mn
2+ (
18; Neiditch and Roth,
unpublished data). We took advantage
of this fact to examine the
effects of the D600N and E962Q mutants
on target commitment using
precleaved donor RSS. Although transposition
was quite inefficient,
both mutants exhibited target commitment
under these conditions (data
not shown). These data suggest that
under these conditions (in the
presence of Mn
2+, which bypasses the effects of
the DDE mutants on the strand
transfer step), the mutant proteins can
bind to target DNA. It
is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the
roles of D600
and E962 in target commitment from these data, however,
because
it is not clear why Mn
2+ rescues the
strand transfer activity of the mutant
proteins.
 |
DISCUSSION |
The interaction between the transposase and target DNA is a
critical step in RAG-mediated transposition. Here we show that the
RAG-RSS complex stably associates with target DNA. To examine the
functional significance of these complexes, we employed staged reactions in which a RAG-RSS complex was preincubated with target DNA
under conditions that allow binding but not strand transfer and was
then incubated under catalytic conditions. Transposition into the first
target was favored even when a large excess of a second target was
added in the second incubation. Target commitment was observed with
both uncleaved and precleaved donor DNA molecules, contrary to
expectation (1). In this respect, the RAG proteins resemble the Mu transposase, which can capture target both before and
after donor cleavage (27), and are quite distinct from
Tn7 and Tn10, which capture target DNA only
before and after cleavage, respectively (5, 6, 34). The
RAG transposase is also different from Tn10 in that it does
not show an increased rate of strand transfer if preincubated with
target. This suggests that the rate-limiting step for RAG-mediated
transposition occurs after target capture.
What is the basis of target commitment?
Preincubation in
Ca2+ presumably favors the formation of productive
RAG-RSS-target complexes. Our data indicate that these complexes are
rapidly exchangeable under the preincubation conditions but rapidly
become committed upon shift to catalytic conditions, resisting even
large molar excesses of a second target. How do catalytic conditions
facilitate target commitment? We considered the possibility that
commitment could simply reflect efficient strand transfer upon shift to
conditions that support catalysis, but two lines of evidence argue
against this model. First, strand transfer is slow relative to the rate
of target capture complex dissociation: whereas formation of
significant amounts of strand transfer products takes at least 10 min
(Fig. 3 and 4), under preincubation conditions target capture complexes
are readily dissociated by addition of a second target within 2 min
(Neiditch and Roth, unpublished observations). Second, target
commitment can be established within 20 min at 0°C in the absence of
detectable strand transfer (Fig. 2). These data demonstrate that target
commitment and strand transfer are distinct steps. Furthermore, the
observation that target commitment precedes strand transfer suggests
that the RAG proteins may not be irreversibly committed to
transposition after capture of the target. In the in vivo situation,
signal joint formation may compete with transposition even after the
transposase has captured (and possibly committed to) a target DNA
molecule. Further experiments are required to examine this possibility.
Others have shown that target capture by Tn
10 requires
removal of IHF, a DNA-bending protein that is important for assembly
of
the paired-end complex (
34). Preincubation with plasmid
DNA
titrates IHF away from the Tn
10-donor complex, causing a
conformational
change in the transposase that facilitates target
capture. We
have observed two distinct forms of the RAG target capture
complex,
with different electrophoretic mobilities, formed with and
without
HMG1. These data suggest that target capture can occur in the
absence of HMG1 (although the presence of low levels of HMG1 in
our RAG
protein preparations has not been rigorously excluded).
These two forms
of the target capture complex may have different
properties with
respect to target binding and target commitment.
Ongoing experiments
are examining this
possibility.
We hypothesize that commitment reflects a change in the mode of target
binding, perhaps resulting from a conformational change
in the active
site of the transposase so that the target is bound
more stably.
Precedents for this model are provided by DNA binding
proteins that
search nonspecifically for target sequences using
a readily reversible
binding mode and then lock on using a different
binding mode upon
identifying specific recognition sequences (for
example, see reference
15). A similar two-step binding model
has been suggested
for target capture by the Tn
10 transposase
(
34).
How do the RAG proteins bind to target DNA?
The regions of the
RAG transposase responsible for binding to target DNA remain unknown.
The observation that the Tn10 transposase exhibits
target commitment only with precleaved donor DNA molecules suggests
that the same binding site that contacts the flanking donor DNA also
binds to the target (34). Our data do not support a
similar model for the RAG transposase: we observed target commitment with both uncleaved and precleaved donor DNA molecules. Nevertheless, the stoichiometry of the RAG-RSS-target complex is not known, and the
possibility remains that RAG monomers not involved in donor cleavage
mediate important interactions with target DNA.
Taking into account studies of Tn
10 that indicate that the
active-site amino acids responsible for coordinating catalytic
metal
ions play a role in target binding (
16), we hypothesized
that the more stable binding mode observed under catalytic conditions
involves the acidic active-site residues recently discovered in
RAG1
(
11,
18,
21). Indeed, our finding that the D600N and
E962Q
mutants are severely defective for target capture in
Mg
2+ suggests that these active-site amino acids
(which may function
to coordinate catalytic divalent metal ions) play
an important
role in target binding. This is consistent with our
finding that
stable target commitment is observed only under catalytic
conditions.
Exactly how metal coordinating residues are involved in
target
capture remains unclear. These amino acids may be directly
involved
in target DNA binding; alternatively, the mutations may affect
target binding indirectly by altering the conformation of the
active
site (
16).
Biological considerations.
Once produced, signal ends have two
possible fates: joining to form a signal joint (the normal pathway) or
transposition. RAG-mediated transposition in vivo is likely to have
deleterious consequences, for both the cell and the organism, including
oncogenic chromosome translocations (14, 32). The fact
that transposition has not yet been detected in vivo suggests that this
reaction may indeed be carefully controlled (10). The
ability of the RAG transposase to select a target DNA molecule prior to
cleavage may have important biological ramifications. Target commitment may represent a critical decision point, and our data suggest that the
decision to transpose actually precedes RSS cleavage.
The ability to commit to a target prior to cleavage may influence the
choice of target sites. Donor cleavage removes a physical
constraint
and may allow the transposon to diffuse freely throughout
the nucleus.
If the target is chosen before the transposon is
excised, transposition
might preferentially occur into targets
that are physically close to
the relevant antigen receptor loci.
Recent evidence demonstrates that
genetic rearrangements preferentially
involve DNA segments that are
spatially juxtaposed (
20,
28).
Thus, RAG-mediated transposition may favor targets that lie close to
the donor sites, such as the antigen receptor loci themselves
(which
are in an accessible chromatin configuration at the time
of
rearrangement). Indeed, both the
Ac plant transposable
element
and
Drosophila P elements demonstrate a proclivity
for transposition
to local target sites (
4,
24,
40),
suggesting that these
transposases also capture target before donor
cleavage. A bias
toward local transposition by the RAG proteins could
serve to
channel transposition events into relatively safe regions of
the
genome. Moreover, localized RAG-mediated transposition may have
influenced the evolution of the antigen receptor loci. Evidence
suggests that these loci have evolved via repeated rounds of local
transposition into the germ line by an ancient transposon
(
39);
this process could have been assisted by the ability
of the RAG
proteins to commit to target prior to
cleavage.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Tania Baker and Ilana Goldhaber-Gordon for many helpful
discussions; Vicky Brandt for editorial assistance; Meni Melek for
providing physical assay conditions; Ilana Goldhaber-Gordon, S. Kale,
J. Qiu, L. E. Huye, and H. Yarnall-Schultz for valuable comments
on the manuscript; and L. E. Huye for HMG1 protein. S. Robertson
and D. Guzman provided secretarial assistance. We also thank anonymous
referees for insightful suggestions.
D.B.R. is an Assistant Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute. M.A.L. was supported by a predoctoral fellowship from the
National Institutes of Health (T32-AI07495). This work was supported by
a grant from the National Institutes of Health (AI-36420).
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030. Phone: (713) 798-8145. Fax: (512) 857-0178. E-mail:
davidbr{at}bcm.tmc.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Agrawal, A.,
Q. M. Eastman, and D. G. Schatz.
1998.
Transposition mediated by RAG1 and RAG2 and its implications for the evolution of the immune system.
Nature
394:744-751[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Agrawal, A., and D. G. Schatz.
1997.
RAG1 and RAG2 form a stable postcleavage synaptic complex with DNA containing signal ends in V(D)J recombination.
Cell
89:43-53[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Akamatsu, Y., and M. A. Oettinger.
1998.
Distinct roles of RAG1 and RAG2 in binding the V(D)J recombination signal sequences.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:4670-4678[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Athma, P.,
E. Grotewold, and T. Peterson.
1992.
Insertional mutagenesis of the maize P gene by intragenic transposition of Ac.
Genetics
131:199-209[Abstract].
|
| 5.
|
Bainton, R.,
P. Gamas, and N. L. Craig.
1991.
Tn7 transposition in vitro proceeds through an excised transposon intermediate generated by staggered breaks in DNA.
Cell
65:805-816[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Bainton, R. J.,
K. M. Kubo,
J. N. Feng, and N. L. Craig.
1993.
Tn7 transposition: target DNA recognition is mediated by multiple Tn7-encoded proteins in a purified in vitro system.
Cell
72:931-943[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Baker, T. A.,
M. Mizuuchi, and K. Mizuuchi.
1991.
MuB protein allosterically activates strand transfer by the transposase of phage Mu.
Cell
65:1003-1013[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Craig, N. L.
1997.
Target site selection in transposition.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
66:437-474[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Eastman, Q. M.,
I. J. Villey, and D. G. Schatz.
1999.
Detection of RAG protein-V(D)J recombination signal interactions near the site of DNA cleavage by UV cross-linking.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19:3788-3797[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 10.
|
Fugmann, S. D.,
A. I. Lee,
P. E. Shockett,
I. J. Villey, and D. G. Schatz.
2000.
The RAG proteins and V(D)J recombination: complexes, ends, and transposition.
Annu. Rev. Immunol.
18:495-527[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Fugmann, S. D.,
I. J. Villey,
L. M. Ptaszek, and D. G. Schatz.
2000.
Identification of two catalytic residues in RAG1 that define a single active site within the RAG1/RAG2 protein complex.
Mol. Cell
5:97-107[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Hiom, K., and M. Gellert.
1997.
A stable RAG1-RAG2-DNA complex that is active in V(D)J cleavage.
Cell
88:65-72[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Hiom, K., and M. Gellert.
1998.
Assembly of a 12/23 paired signal complex: a critical control point in V(D)J recombination.
Mol. Cell
7:1011-1019.
|
| 14.
|
Hiom, K.,
M. Melek, and M. Gellert.
1998.
DNA transposition by the RAG1 and RAG2 proteins: a possible source of oncogenic translocations.
Cell
94:463-470[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 15.
|
Jack, W. E.,
B. J. Terry, and P. Modrich.
1982.
Involvement of outside DNA sequences in the major kinetic path by which EcoRI endonuclease locates and leaves its recognition sequence.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
79:4010-4014[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Junop, M. S., and D. B. Haniford.
1997.
Factors responsible for target site selection in Tn10 transposition: a role for the DDE motif in target DNA capture.
EMBO J.
16:2646-2655[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Kennedy, A. K.,
A. Guhathakurta,
N. Kleckner, and D. B. Haniford.
1998.
Tn10 transposition via a DNA hairpin intermediate.
Cell
95:125-134[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Kim, D. R.,
Y. Dai,
C. L. Mundy,
W. Yang, and M. A. Oettinger.
1999.
Mutations of acidic residues in RAG1 define the active site of the V(D)J recombinase.
Genes Dev.
13:3070-3080[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Kim, D. R., and M. A. Oettinger.
1998.
Functional analysis of coordinated cleavage in V(D)J recombination.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:4679-4688[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 20.
|
Kozubek, S.,
E. Lukasova,
L. Ryznar,
M. Kozubek,
A. Liskova,
R. D. Govorun,
E. A. Krasavin, and G. Horneck.
1997.
Distribution of ABL and BCR genes in cell nuclei of normal and irradiated lymphocytes.
Blood
89:4537-4545[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Landree, M. A.,
J. A. Wibbenmeyer, and D. B. Roth.
1999.
Mutational analysis of RAG-1 and RAG-2 identifies three active site amino acids in RAG-1 critical for both cleavage steps of V(D)J recombination.
Genes Dev.
13:3059-3069[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 22.
|
Lewis, S. M.
1994.
The mechanism of V(D)J joining: lessons from molecular, immunological and comparative analyses.
Adv. Immunol.
56:27-150[Medline].
|
| 23.
|
Lewis, S. M., and G. E. Wu.
2000.
The old and the restless.
J. Exp. Med.
191:1631-1636[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 24.
|
Machida, C.,
H. Onouchi,
J. Koizumi,
S. Hamada,
E. Semiarti,
S. Torikai, and Y. Machida.
1997.
Characterization of the transposition pattern of the Ac element in Arabidopsis thaliana using endonuclease I-SceI.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94:8675-8680[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 25.
|
McBlane, J. F.,
D. C. van Gent,
D. A. Ramsden,
C. Romeo,
C. A. Cuomo,
M. Gellert, and M. A. Oettinger.
1995.
Cleavage at a V(D)J recombination signal requires only RAG1 and RAG2 proteins and occurs in two steps.
Cell
83:387-395[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 26.
|
Melek, M., and M. Gellert.
2000.
RAG1/2-mediated resolution of transposition intermediates: two pathways and possible consequences.
Cell
101:625-633[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 27.
|
Naigamwalla, D. Z., and G. Chaconas.
1997.
A new set of Mu DNA transposition intermediates: alternate pathways of target capture preceding strand transfer.
EMBO J.
16:5227-5234[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 28.
|
Nikiforova, M. N.,
J. R. Stringer,
R. Blough,
M. Medvedovic,
J. A. Fagin, and Y. E. Nikiforov.
2000.
Proximity of chromosomal loci that participate in radiation-induced rearrangements in human cells.
Science
290:138-141[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 29.
|
Oettinger, M. A.,
D. G. Schatz,
C. Gorka, and D. Baltimore.
1990.
RAG-1 and RAG-2, adjacent genes that synergistically activate V(D)J recombination.
Science
248:1517-1523[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 30.
|
Ramsden, D. A., and M. Gellert.
1995.
Formation and resolution of double-strand break intermediates in V(D)J rearrangement.
Genes Dev.
9:2409-2420[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 31.
|
Roth, D. B.
2000.
From lymphocytes to sharks: V(D)J recombinase moves to the germline.
Genome Biol.
1:1014.1-1014.4.
|
| 32.
|
Roth, D. B., and N. L. Craig.
1998.
VDJ recombination: a transposase goes to work.
Cell
94:411-414[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 33.
|
Roth, D. B.,
P. B. Nakajima,
J. P. Menetski,
M. J. Bosma, and M. Gellert.
1992.
V(D)J recombination in mouse thymocytes: double-strand breaks near T cell receptor rearrangement signals.
Cell
69:41-53[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 34.
|
Sakai, J., and N. Kleckner.
1997.
The Tn10 synaptic complex can capture a target DNA only after transposon excision.
Cell
89:205-214[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 35.
|
Sakano, H.,
K. Huppi,
G. Heinrich, and S. Tonegawa.
1979.
Sequences at the somatic recombination sites of immunoglobulin light chain genes.
Nature
280:288-294[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 36.
|
Sawchuk, D. J.,
F. Weis-Garcia,
S. Malik,
E. Besmer,
M. Bustin,
M. C. Nussenzweig, and P. Cortes.
1997.
V(D)J recombination: modulation of RAG1 and RAG2 cleavage activity on 12/23 substrates by whole cell extract and DNA-bending proteins.
J. Exp. Med.
185:2025-2031[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 37.
|
Schultz, H. Y.,
M. A. Landree,
S. B. Kale, and D. B. Roth.
2001.
Joining-deficient RAG-1 mutants block V(D)J recombination in vivo.
Mol. Cell
7:65[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 38.
|
Spanopoulou, E.,
F. Zaitseva,
F.-H. Wang,
S. Santagata,
D. Baltimore, and G. Panayotou.
1996.
The homeodomain region of Rag-1 reveals the parallel mechanisms of bacterial and V(D)J recombination.
Cell
87:263-276[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 39.
|
Thompson, C. B.
1995.
New insights into V(D)J recombination and its role in the evolution of the immune system.
Immunity
3:531-539[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 40.
|
Tower, J.,
G. H. Karpen,
N. Craig, and A. C. Spradling.
1993.
Preferential transposition of Drosophila P elements to nearby chromosomal sites.
Genetics
133:347-359[Abstract].
|
| 41.
|
van Gent, D. C.,
J. F. McBlane,
D. A. Ramsden,
M. J. Sadofsky,
J. E. Hesse, and M. Gellert.
1995.
Initiation of V(D)J recombination in a cell-free system.
Cell
81:925-934[CrossRef][Medline].
|
Molecular and Cellular Biology, July 2001, p. 4302-4310, Vol. 21, No. 13
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.13.4302-4310.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Kriatchko, A. N., Anderson, D. K., Swanson, P. C.
(2006). Identification and Characterization of a Gain-of-Function RAG-1 Mutant. Mol. Cell. Biol.
26: 4712-4728
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Lipkow, K., Buisine, N., Chalmers, R.
(2004). Promiscuous Target Interactions in the mariner Transposon Himar1. J. Biol. Chem.
279: 48569-48575
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Nishihara, T., Nagawa, F., Nishizumi, H., Kodama, M., Hirose, S., Hayashi, R., Sakano, H.
(2004). In Vitro Processing of the 3'-Overhanging DNA in the Postcleavage Complex Involved in V(D)J Joining. Mol. Cell. Biol.
24: 3692-3702
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Swanson, P. C.
(2002). A RAG-1/RAG-2 Tetramer Supports 12/23-Regulated Synapsis, Cleavage, and Transposition of V(D)J Recombination Signals. Mol. Cell. Biol.
22: 7790-7801
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Tsai, C.-L., Drejer, A. H., Schatz, D. G.
(2002). Evidence of a critical architectural function for the RAG proteins in end processing, protection, and joining in V(D)J recombination. Genes Dev.
16: 1934-1949
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Lee, G. S., Neiditch, M. B., Sinden, R. R., Roth, D. B.
(2002). Targeted Transposition by the V(D)J Recombinase. Mol. Cell. Biol.
22: 2068-2077
[Abstract]
[Full Text]