Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Structural insights into the interaction and activation of histone deacetylase 3 by nuclear receptor corepressors

Anna Codina, James D. Love, Yun Li, Mitchell A. Lazar, David Neuhaus, and John W. R. Schwabe
PNAS April 26, 2005 102 (17) 6009-6014; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500299102
Anna Codina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James D. Love
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yun Li
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mitchell A. Lazar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Neuhaus
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John W. R. Schwabe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Pierre Chambon, Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, Strasbourg, France, and approved March 9, 2005 (received for review January 13, 2005)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

SMRT (silencing mediator of retinoid acid and thyroid hormone receptor) and NCoR (nuclear receptor corepressor) are transcriptional corepressors that play an essential role in the regulation of development and metabolism. This role is achieved, in part, through the recruitment of a key histone deacetylase (HDAC3), which is itself indispensable for cell viability. The assembly of HDAC3 with the deacetylase activation domain (DAD) of SMRT and NCoR is required for activation of the otherwise inert deacetylase. The DAD comprises an N-terminal DAD-specific motif and a C-terminal SANT (SWI3/ADA2/NCoR/TFIIIB)-like domain. We report here the solution structure of the DAD from SMRT, which reveals a four-helical structure. The DAD differs from the SANT (and MYB) domains in that (i) it has an additional N-terminal helix and (ii) there is a notable hydrophobic groove on the surface of the domain. Structure-guided mutagenesis, combined with interaction assays, showed that residues in the vicinity of the hydrophobic groove are required for interaction with (and hence activation of) HDAC3. Importantly, one surface-exposed lysine is required for activation of HDAC3, but not for interaction. This lysine may play a uniquely important role in the mechanism of activating HDAC3.

  • NMR structure
  • repression
  • transcription

The corepressor proteins SMRT (silencing mediator of retinoid acid and thyroid hormone receptor) and NCoR (nuclear receptor corepressor) form the core of a large (>1-2 MDa) protein complex recruited by a variety of repressive transcription factors, including unliganded nuclear receptors, BCL6, MAD, RBP-Jk, and B-Myb (1-7). Transcriptional repression mediated by the SMRT/NCoR complex has been found to be important in the regulation of both development and metabolism (8, 9), with NCoR null mice exhibiting impaired erythrocyte, thymocyte, and CNS development (10). The repression activity of the SMRT/NCoR complex is thought to result from the direct or indirect recruitment of three classes of histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes, including HDAC1, HDAC3, HDAC4, HDAC5, HDAC7, and SIRT1 (4, 6, 9, 11-14). The removal of acetyl groups on the N-terminal tails of histone proteins by these deacetylases is associated with the formation of a repressive chromatin structure in which the accessibility of the DNA template is restricted (15).

Unlike other HDACs, HDAC3 forms a stoichiometric core complex with SMRT/NCoR (13, 16) and is essential for corepressor functions such as repression by nuclear receptors (17). Three regions of the corepressor have been reported to mediate interaction with HDAC3 (Fig. 1 and refs. 11-13, 18, and 19). The most N-terminal of these regions (residues 412-480 in HsSMRT) not only binds HDAC3, but also activates the enzyme, which is otherwise inert. This region has been termed the deacetylase activation domain (DAD), or deacetylase interaction domain, (18, 19). The fact that HDAC3 activity is regulated by the DAD implies it is important that the deacetylase activity is restricted to the corepressor complex. Interesting, the assembly of the HDAC3/DAD complex is itself regulated by the eukaryotic TRiC chaperone complex (20).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Structure of the DAD from SMRT. (A) Schematic view of SMRT and regions involved in HDAC3 recruitment. The minimal DAD comprises residues 412-480 (18, 19). Two other regions in mNCoR are required for interaction but not activation of HDAC3 (11-13). (B) The final ensemble of 28 DAD structures. Helical regions are colored red. (C) Schematic view of the lowest energy structure. The four helices are labeled H0-H3 (H1-H3 correspond to the MYB/SANT homology region).

The DAD comprises an N-terminal, 16-aa DAD-specific motif and a C-terminal SANT (SWI3/ADA2/NCoR/TFIIIB)-like domain. The SANT-like domain is itself insufficient for HDAC3 activation or interaction (18, 19). Indeed, truncation of the first 8 aa of the DAD-specific motif is sufficient to abolish both interaction and activation of HDAC3 (19).

SANT domains are found in many proteins that play a role in chromatin remodeling and transcriptional regulation (21). They are related in both sequence and structure to the DNA-binding MYB domain, but they lack conserved basic residues that interact with the DNA-phosphate backbone and do not appear to direct interaction with DNA. Interestingly, there is a second conserved SANT-like domain, C terminal to the DAD, in SMRT/NCoR (22). This domain lacks the DAD-specific motif and has been shown to mediate interaction with histone tails (23). It has recently been proposed that the SANT domains within Ada2 and Gcn5p may act as histone tail presentation modules and that this may be a general role for SANT domains (24).

Clearly, the DAD in SMRT has a more specialized function requiring an additional DAD-specific motif. Here, we report the solution structure of the DAD from SMRT. There are several features of the structure unique to the DAD compared with the SANT and MYB domains. These features include an additional N-terminal helix and a significant difference in the angle of helix 3 that results in the formation of a nonpolar cleft on the surface of the domain. Mutations in, and adjacent to this cleft, which are unlikely to perturb the structure of the domain, abolish the ability of the DAD to activate HDAC3. All but one of these mutations also prevents interaction of the DAD with HDAC3. A mutant with a surface lysine residue changed to alanine retains interaction with HDAC3, but abolishes activation, suggesting that these two aspects are separable. Interestingly, residues on this interaction/activation surface are conserved in all known DADs as well as in potentially novel DADs in plants, fungae, and fission yeast, consistent with a general role in activating class I deacetylases.

Methods

Sample Preparation. The DAD of HsSMRT (amino acids 412-480) was expressed in Escherichia coli BL21(DE3) by using the vector pGEX-4T-1 (Amersham Pharmacia). Unlabeled protein was prepared from cultures grown in Overnight Express Auto-induction System 1 media (Novagen). 15N-labeled protein was prepared from bacteria cultured at 15°C in M9-based media (25). The protein was purified by using glutathione Sepharose affinity chromatography followed by thrombin cleavage (Sigma) and gel filtration (Superdex S75) in buffer containing 50 mM sodium phosphate (pH 6.9), 50 mM NaCl, and 0.04% NaN3. The sample was concentrated to 1 mM with 7% D2O and degassed.

NMR Spectroscopy and Structure Determination. NMR spectra were recorded on Bruker Avance 800, DMX 600, and DRX 500 spectrometers, equipped with 5-mm triple-resonance (1H/15N/13C) single-axis gradient probes, and a cryoprobe for the DRX 500. Data were processed with xwin-nmr (Bruker) and analyzed with sparky (26).

A near-complete chemical shift assignment was obtained by using standard homonuclear and heteronuclear experiments. For Lys-449 only the Hα proton could be assigned and no assignment could be obtained for Pro-448. A time-dependent deamidation of N413 results in additional resonances appearing for residues 412-422 (27). However, because this region does not adopt a stable structure, this phenomenon did not present a problem with the structure determination.

Fifty structures of the DAD were calculated by using restraints derived from nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE) intensities measured in 2D NOESY spectra, starting from an extended polypeptide chain by using the standard simulated annealing protocol in cns. clusterpose (28) was used to calculate the mean rms deviation (rmsd) of these NMR ensembles from the mean structure as a function of ensemble size.

Further details of the NMR methodology and structure calculations are provided in Supporting Text, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site. Resonance assignments and atomic coordinates have been deposited with the BioMagResBank and Protein Data Bank.

HDAC Activity and SMRT-DAD:HDAC3 Interaction Assays. HDAC3-Flag, Gal-DAD, and the DAD mutants were in vitro-translated with the TNT T7 Quick-Coupled transcription-translation kit (Promega). Fifteen microliters of HDAC3-flag was mixed with 30 μl of Gal4-DAD or DAD mutants in 500 μl of buffer D-150 (150 mM KCL/20 mM Hepes, pH 7.9/0.25 mM EDTA/10% glycerol/0.1% Tween 20). Complexes were purified by incubation with anti-Flag M2 agarose beads (Sigma) in the presence of protease inhibitor mixture tablets (Roche Diagnostics) for 16-18 h at 4°C. Immunoprecipitates were washed four times in buffer D-150 and once in HD buffer (20 mM Tris·HCl, pH 8.0/150 mM NaCl/10% glycerol). The beads were incubated with 3H-labeled acetylated HeLa histones in a total volume of 200 μl of HD buffer at 30°C for 30 min. Reactions were stopped by adding 50 μl of Stop solution (1 M HCl/0.16 M HAc). The released 3H-acetic acid was extracted with 600 μl of ethyl acetate and measured by scintillation counting. The proteins bound to the Flag beads were eluted by boiling in SDS loading buffer and subjected to SDS/PAGE and Western blot. The HDAC3-Flag and the Gal-DAD mutants were detected by anti-flag M2 horseradish peroxidase (HRP) antibody (Sigma) and anti-Gal4 HRP mouse mAb (Santa Cruz Biotechnology).

Results

The Structure of the DAD. The region of HsSMRT encompassing the DAD (amino acids 412-480) was expressed in bacteria as a GST fusion protein, purified, and cleaved, leaving the DAD preceded by a nonnative glycine-serine dipeptide. NMR spectra of a longer protein (amino acids 389-480) were essentially identical to those of the shorter protein (additional signals were observed only in the random coil region of the spectra), suggesting that the additional residues do not adopt a stable structure. Interestingly, some preparations of the longer construct were proteolyzed during sample preparation such that the resulting fragment began with residue V422, suggesting that it is the N-terminal boundary of a structured domain. This finding was consistent with the observation that residues 412-419 have no long- or medium-range close contacts between protons as indicated by the absence of corresponding NOE interactions in NOESY spectra.

The NMR data clearly revealed four helices within the DAD, as indicated by the pattern NOE connectivities spanning helical turns, by predictions using the program talos (29), and by characteristic chemical shift differences (30, 31); details appear in Supporting Text. Structures were calculated by using 852 NOE-based restraints, and ensembles were calculated both with and without additional restraints for predicted hydrogen bonds within the helices; the latter calculations gave a larger proportion of converged structures but with somewhat higher energies. Because the only other effect of including the hydrogen bond restraints was a slight regularization of the helices, we chose to deposit only the ensemble calculated without their use, based wholly on experimentally derived restraints. A summary of the restraints and structural statistics is provided in Tables 1 and 2, and Supporting Text includes energy-ordered rmsd profiles and total energies for the calculated structures.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Structural restraints
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2. Statistics for accepted structures

A superposition of the final ensemble of 28 convergent structures (calculated without using hydrogen bond restraints) is shown in Fig. 1, with a schematic diagram of the lowest energy structure. As expected, the eight amino-terminal residues show no ordered structure. The structured domain comprises four α-helices (H0-H3) packed around a largely hydrophobic central core. Because the C terminus of helix H3 protrudes somewhat from the structure it participates in relatively few long-range NOEs interactions, which in turn causes this part of the structure to be somewhat less well ordered; the backbone rmsd of residues 420-480 is 0.76 Å, but this figure improves to 0.40 Å if only residues 420-470 are considered. It may also be that there is mobility within the C terminus of helix 3 (see the rmsd plot in Fig. 6, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site); interestingly the loop between helices H1 and H2 is close to the C terminus of helix H3 and also shows some disorder.

Comparison of the DAD with the MYB and SANT Domains. As was predicted from sequence comparisons, the three C-terminal helices (H1, H2, and H3) pack together so as to form the characteristic architecture typical of the DNA-binding domain from MYB and related DNA-binding proteins (32). This domain architecture is also shared by the non-DNA-binding SANT domain found in components of various chromatin remodeling complexes (21, 22).

The DAD differs from both the MYB (33) and SANT (34) domains in that it has an additional helix (H0) that packs into the groove between the N terminus of helix H1 and the loop between helices H2 and H3 (Fig. 2). The helix H0 is defined by short- and medium-range NOEs (and its helical character fits well with the proton alpha chemical shift and talos secondary structure predictions). The positioning of this helix with respect to the rest of the domain is defined by long-range NOE interactions linking M420, K421, and V422 to residues at the C terminus of helix H2.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Comparison of the DAD (red) with Myb (green) (33) and SANT (blue) domains (34). The DAD has an additional amino-terminal helix (H0) that packs between the amino terminus of helix H1 and the loop between helices H2 and H3. Note that although helices H1-H3 have a similar arrangement to the MYB and SANT domains, the orientation of helix H3 in the DAD differs significantly. The alignment shown indicates the Cα atoms matched in the superposition (indicated by a boxed outline) and the rmsd between those matched Cα atoms.

Superposition of the DAD with MYB and SANT domains shows that there is a variation in the relative orientations of the three core helices (H1, H2, and H3). In particular, the orientation of helix H3 in the DAD differs from the other two domains such that there is a significantly wider angle between the amino terminus of helix H1 and the carboxyl terminus of helix H3 (these helices are almost perpendicular in the MYB and SANT domains). Given the low sequence homology, it is not straightforward to assign the cause of this difference. However, the consequence of this widening is that it produces a very noticeable groove or cleft between the C-terminal half of helix H3 and the loop between helices H1 and H2. Because both of these regions exhibit some disorder, the width of the resulting groove is somewhat ill defined, but is ≈7 Å. Such a feature is not observed in either the MYB or SANT structures.

Although the DAD shares common aspects of protein architecture with both the MYB and SANT domains, a more detailed analysis of the protein shows that the domains have a very different surface character. Fig. 3 shows a comparison of the surfaces of the MYB, DAD, and SANT domains. When viewed toward the DNA-binding surface, the MYB domain is notably very basic. The equivalent view of the SANT domain reveals a rather acidic surface. The DAD is more mixed in character, with both basic and acidic regions on its surface. Interestingly, the groove between helix H3 and the H1/H2 loop does not itself have any polar side chains, but acquires a basic character caused by surrounding lysine residues.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Comparison of the architecture (Top), electrostatic (Middle), and hydrophobic (Bottom) potential surfaces of the MYB, DAD, and SANT domains. Note the basic character of the DNA-binding surface of the MYB domain and the rather acidic nature of the corresponding surface of the SANT domain. The DAD is also rather basic. Importantly, the wider angle of helix H3 in the DAD results in a groove between the amino terminus of helix H3 and the loop between helices H1 and H2. This groove does not itself have any polar side chains, but acquires a basic charge caused by surrounding lysine residues. The hydrophobic potential of the surface [calculated by using grid (35)] shows that whereas both the MYB and SANT domains have mostly polar surfaces, the groove in the DAD has a strikingly high hydrophobic potential, suggesting that it might mediate interactions with a nonpolar partner (36).

To compare further the character of the DAD, MYB, and SANT domains, we examined the domain surfaces for regions of favorable hydrophobic contact by using the program grid (35). This approach has been useful in predicting nonpolar interaction surfaces on proteins and has been termed mapping “hydrophobic potential” (36). The surfaces of both the SANT and MYB domains are both largely polar with no notable regions of high hydrophobic potential. In contrast, the DAD has a region with very high hydrophobic potential. In particular, the groove discussed above is strikingly nonpolar in character. The floor of the groove is formed from F451 and Y469, the walls are formed from F444 on one side and V467, Y470 on the other, and the back of the groove is formed from R441, M445, and Y479. The side chain of Y471 also creates a hydrophobic patch on the surface of the domain adjacent to the groove.

Interaction and Activation of HDAC3. Because the biological role of the DAD is to interact with and activate HDAC3, we wanted to explore what insight the DAD structure might provide into these functions. Previous mutagenesis studies have identified a number of residues that, when mutated to alanine, perturb the binding and activation of HDAC3 (18). Several of these (W432, F440, and L458) are completely buried within the hydrophobic core of the domain (Fig. 4A) and probably perturb the structure of the whole domain. Two residues (F451 and Y470) are at least partly exposed on the surface of the domain and form the floor and one wall of the hydrophobic groove. These results suggest that the groove may represent part of the interaction surface with HDAC3. To confirm and further explore this possibility we made a number of additional mutations in this surface. We identified an additional three residues whose mutation significantly perturbs interaction with and activation of HDAC3 by the DAD. Of these, residues F444 and Y479 form part of the walls of the groove and Y471 forms a nonpolar patch on the surface of the DAD adjacent to the groove (Fig. 4). These findings strongly implicate the groove as being an interaction surface for HDAC3. Even more striking is the finding that mutation of K449 to alanine does not greatly influence the interaction with HDAC3, but abolishes activation of the enzyme. This separation of interaction and activation suggests that the two aspects are separable and supports the role of this region of the DAD structure.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

The interaction between SMRT DAD and HDAC3. (A) Effect of DAD mutations on the activation of HDAC3. The gray bars indicate the percentage of HDAC3 activity in a cotransfection assay. The numbers on the bars indicate the percentage of solvent exposure of that residue based on the lowest energy NMR structure. (B) Coimmunoprecipitation assay to monitor interaction between HDAC3 and the DAD mutants. Note that the interaction with HDAC3 mirrors the activation profile with the exception of the K449A mutation, which abolishes activation yet retains the ability to interact with HDAC3, showing that the two aspects are clearly separable. (C) Location of residues that perturb HDAC3 activity >50% (red) or <50% (green) in the structure of the DAD. Note that the residues that reduce HDAC3 activity cluster together on the surface of the DAD in the vicinity of a nonpolar groove.

Given that another unique feature of the DAD (compared with MYB and SANT domains) is the additional N-terminal helix H0, we used a analogous approach to determine whether this region was important for interaction with HDAC3. Significantly, single mutations in this region (V422 and R426) appeared to have no effect. However, destabilization of this helix through the mutation to proline of two adjacent residues (D425 and R426) in the middle of the helix did abolish HDAC3 interaction and activation. These results suggest that either helix H0 plays a direct role in HDAC3 interaction or it is required for the structural integrity of the whole domain.

Point mutation of conserved residues in the disordered N terminus of the DAD (L415 and D418) did not appear to perturb either interaction with or activation of HDAC3. This result was somewhat surprising because mapping studies indicate that the N-terminal region of the domain is critical for interaction with HDAC3. Indeed, truncation of just eight residues from the amino terminus of the construct used for this NMR study was found to be enough to abolish interaction and activation of HDAC3. This finding fits with the high degree of sequence conservation in this region of the DAD from diverse species, but seems surprising given that these residues clearly do not adopt an ordered structure in the isolated domain. It seems likely therefore that these residues become ordered on interaction with HDAC3.

Discussion

The specific targeting of HDAC complexes to particular genes is emerging as an important mechanism of gene regulation (37). To avoid inappropriate, nontargeted deacetylation of histones it is important that the enzymatic activity of HDACs is carefully regulated. For example, both HDAC1 and HDAC3 are activated as a result of assembly into targeted repression complexes (the NuRD and SMRT/NCoR complexes, respectively) (18, 19, 38). Other deacetylases, such as HDAC4, have been found to be apparently inactive (39), but it seems possible that there may also be specific activating mechanisms for these enzymes.

As a step toward understanding the mechanism of activation of HDAC3 by the SMRT-DAD, we have determined the solution structure of the DAD and mapped the residues required for interaction and activation of HDAC3. As expected, the core architecture of this domain is a three-helix triangle very similar to that found in the related MYB and SANT domains. However, there are significant and important differences in the DAD that are related to the function of the domain. First, there is an additional N-terminal helix, and second, a different relative orientation of the three core helices results in the formation of a nonpolar, surface groove not present in the MYB and SANT domains.

The conservation of the 16-residue DAD-specific motif (N-terminal to the SANT-like domain) suggests that this region plays an important role in the function of the DAD. This conclusion is supported by the finding that deletion of the first 8 aa of this motif is sufficient to abolish interaction and activation of HDAC3. It was therefore surprising that these 8 aa show no ordered structure in solution. It would seem likely that these residues might play a role in interaction with HDAC3, perhaps through adopting an ordered conformation against an interaction surface on HDAC3. Somewhat surprisingly, mutation of L415 and D418 did not appear to perturb interaction and activation of HDAC3, suggesting that these side chains are not essential for the interaction.

The second portion of the DAD-specific motif forms a unique fourth helix within the DAD (here termed H0) that lies in the groove between helix H1 and the loop between helices H2 and H3. The role of this additional helix is not entirely clear because mutation of V422 (largely buried) or R426 (solvent exposed) does not affect interaction and activation of HDAC3. However, a double mutation of D425 and R426 to proline residues, designed to disrupt the helical secondary structure of H0, abolished interaction and activation of HDAC3. This finding suggests either that this helix plays a structural role in the stability of the DAD or alternatively that it plays a part in the interaction with HDAC3, but in the latter case it does not involve the side chains of V422 or R426.

A most striking feature of the DAD structure is the highly hydrophobic groove between helix H3 and the loop between helices H1 and H2. A number of residues in and around this groove perturb activation of HDAC3, delimiting a clear interaction surface.

Overall, it would seem likely that HDAC3 interacts with the DAD through two different interfaces: the DAD-specific motif and the hydrophobic groove. Probably the first residues of the DAD-specific motif (unfolded in the solution structure of the DAD alone) become structured upon binding, perhaps extending helix H0. If so, the unfolded character of this region might confer cooperativity to the interaction. It is interesting to note that the hydrophobic groove in the DAD is suggestive of a peptide interaction surface that would imply that a loop from HDAC3 might interact with this region of the DAD.

Importantly, there is ample evidence that the HDAC3-DAD assembly is a complex process requiring the TriC chaperone complex (20). This phenomenon is analogous to the MTA2-HDAC1 interaction, which requires cotranslation of the two proteins (38). However, the structure of the DAD does not itself explain why assembly with HDAC3 should not be a simple protein-protein association such as rigid docking or induced fit. A potential explanation is that HDAC3 forms homooligomers and heterooligomers (40) and it may be that these need to be actively dissociated by the chaperone before forming an active complex with the DAD. Alternatively, if both the DAD-specific motif and the hydrophobic groove contribute to the interaction, then the whole interface with HDAC3 might be quite large and require a chaperone-mediated folding event in HDAC3 for the formation of the full interface.

The finding that mutation of K449 to alanine results in a DAD that can still interact with HDAC3, but fails to activate, suggests that these two processes are separable and that simply binding to the DAD is insufficient to activate HDAC3. This observation is important and warrants further investigation in the context of the full-length corepressor, because it implies that this K449 might have a specific role in activating the enzymatic mechanism of HDAC3. Perhaps significantly this residue is invariant in all known DADs.

Interestingly, a search of translated genomes suggests that the DAD may be conserved in plants, fungi, and fission yeast (Fig. 5), although it remains unclear whether these proteins are bona fide corepressors involved in the activation of HDAC activity. However, class 1 deacetylases are ancient enzymes present in all of these species (41), and it is notable that most of the residues required for interaction and activation of HDAC3 are conserved.

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Alignment of DADs from diverse species. Identical residues are shaded gray. Similar residues are boxed. Sequences from human (Hs), mouse (Mm), rat (Rn), Xenopus (Xl), zebrafish (Dr), and Drosophila (Dm) are known to be corepressor homologues. Other sequences are only putative homologues of the DAD. Mutation of residues shaded in green does not perturb HDAC3 activation. Mutation of residues shaded in red results in a >50% loss in HDAC3 activation. Note that although the eight amino-terminal residues do not adopt a stable structure and are proteolytically sensitive, deletion studies indicate that they play a role in the interaction and activation of HDAC3.

The structure and functional analysis of the DAD provides insight into the mode of interaction and activation of HDAC3. Further studies to understand the specificity of the interaction with HDAC3 will be important because it is emerging that specific targeting of the different class 1 enzymes plays a major role in substrate selection. Understanding these HDAC interactions may facilitate the design of inhibitors that target specific deacetylases.

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs. Ji-Chun Yang and Rodrigo J. Carbajo for help with the acquisition and analysis of the NMR data. A.C. was supported by an European Molecular Biology Organization postdoctoral fellowship. This work was supported, in part, by Human Frontier Science Program and European Union Research Training Network grants (to J.W.R.S.) and National Institutes of Health Grants DK43806 and DK45586 (to M.A.L.).

Footnotes

    • ↵§ To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: john.schwabe{at}mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk.

    • ↵† A.C., J.D.L., and Y.L. contributed equally to this work.

    • Author contributions: A.C., J.D.L., M.A.L., D.N., and J.W.R.S. designed research; A.C., J.D.L., Y.L., and J.W.R.S. performed research; A.C., Y.L., M.A.L., D.N., and J.W.R.S. analyzed data; and A.C., M.A.L., D.N., and J.W.R.S. wrote the paper.

    • This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.

    • Abbreviations: HDAC, histone deacetylase; DAD, deacetylase activation domain; NCoR, nuclear receptor corepressor; NOE, nuclear Overhauser effect; rmsd, rms deviation; SANT, SWI3/ADA2/NCoR/TFIIIB; SMRT, silencing mediator of retinoid acid and thyroid hormone receptor.

    • Data deposition: The NMR chemical shifts have been deposited in the BioMagResBank, www.bmrb.wisc.edu (accession no. 6286). The atomic coordinates have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank, www.pdb.org (PDB ID code 1XC5).

    • Received January 13, 2005.
    • Copyright © 2005, The National Academy of Sciences

    References

    1. ↵
      Horlein, A. J., Naar, A. M., Heinzel, T., Torchia, J., Gloss, B., Kurokawa, R., Ryan, A., Kamei, Y., Soderstrom, M., Glass, C. K., et al. (1995) Nature 377, 397-404.pmid:7566114
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. Chen, J. D. & Evans, R. M. (1995) Nature 377, 454-457.pmid:7566127
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. Li, X. & McDonnell, D. P. (2002) Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 3663-3673.pmid:11997503
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      Heinzel, T., Lavinsky, R. M., Mullen, T. M., Soderstrom, M., Laherty, C. D., Torchia, J., Yang, W. M., Brard, G., Ngo, S. D., Davie, J. R., et al. (1997) Nature 387, 43-48.pmid:9139820
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. Zhang, J., Hug, B. A., Huang, E. Y., Chen, C. W., Gelmetti, V., Maccarana, M., Minucci, S., Pelicci, P. G. & Lazar, M. A. (2001) Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 156-163.pmid:11113190
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      Kao, H. Y., Downes, M., Ordentlich, P. & Evans, R. M. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 55-66.pmid:10640276
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      Ahmad, K. F., Melnick, A., Lax, S., Bouchard, D., Liu, J., Kiang, C. L., Mayer, S., Takahashi, S., Licht, J. D. & Prive, G. G. (2003) Mol. Cell. 12, 1551-1564.pmid:14690607
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      Tomita, A., Buchholz, D. R. & Shi, Y. B. (2004) Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 3337-3346.pmid:15060155
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      Picard, F., Kurtev, M., Chung, N., Topark-Ngarm, A., Senawong, T., Machado De Oliveira, R., Leid, M., McBurney, M. W. & Guarente, L. (2004) Nature 429, 771-776.pmid:15175761
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      Jepsen, K., Hermanson, O., Onami, T. M., Gleiberman, A. S., Lunyak, V., McEvilly, R. J., Kurokawa, R., Kumar, V., Liu, F., Seto, E., et al. (2000) Cell 102, 753-763.pmid:11030619
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      Li, J., Wang, J., Nawaz, Z., Liu, J. M., Qin, J. & Wong, J. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 4342-4350.pmid:10944117
      OpenUrlAbstract
    12. Wen, Y. D., Perissi, V., Staszewski, L. M., Yang, W. M., Krones, A., Glass, C. K., Rosenfeld, M. G. & Seto, E. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 7202-7207.pmid:10860984
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      Guenther, M. G., Lane, W. S., Fischle, W., Verdin, E., Lazar, M. A. & Shiekhattar, R. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 1048-1057.pmid:10809664
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      Huang, E. Y., Zhang, J., Miska, E. A., Guenther, M. G., Kouzarides, T. & Lazar, M. A. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 45-54.pmid:10640275
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      Wolffe, A. P. & Pruss, D. (1996) Cell 84, 817-819.pmid:8601304
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      Guenther, M. G. & Lazar, M. A. (2003) Methods Enzymol. 364, 246-257.pmid:14631849
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      Ishizuka, T. & Lazar, M. A. (2003) Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 5122-5131.pmid:12861000
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      Guenther, M. G., Barak, O. & Lazar, M. A. (2001) Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 6091-6101.pmid:11509652
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      Zhang, J., Kalkum, M., Chait, B. T. & Roeder, R. G. (2002) Mol. Cell 9, 611-623.pmid:11931768
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      Guenther, M. G., Yu, J., Kao, G. D., Yen, T. J. & Lazar, M. A. (2002) Genes Dev. 16, 3130-3135.pmid:12502735
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      Boyer, L. A., Langer, M. R., Crowley, K. A., Tan, S., Denu, J. M. & Peterson, C. L. (2002) Mol. Cell. 10, 935-942.pmid:12419236
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      Aasland, R., Stewart, A. F. & Gibson, T. (1996) Trends Biochem. Sci. 21, 87-88.pmid:8882580
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      Yu, J., Li, Y., Ishizuka, T., Guenther, M. G. & Lazar, M. A. (2003) EMBO J. 22, 3403-3410.pmid:12840002
      OpenUrlAbstract
    24. ↵
      Boyer, L. A., Latek, R. R. & Peterson, C. L. (2004) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 5, 158-163.pmid:15040448
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      Codina, A., Gairi, M., Tarrago, T., Viguera, A. R., Feliz, M., Ludevid, D. & Giralt, E. (2002) J. Biomol. NMR 22, 295-296.pmid:11991358
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      Goddard, T. D. & Kneller, D. G. (2004) sparky (University of California, San Francisco).
    27. ↵
      Chazin, W. J., Kordel, J., Thulin, E., Hofmann, T., Drakenberg, T. & Forsen, S. (1989) Biochemistry 28, 8646-8653.pmid:2605213
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      Diamond, R. (1992) Protein Sci. 1, 1279-1287.pmid:1303746
      OpenUrlPubMed
    29. ↵
      Cornilescu, G., Delaglio, F. & Bax, A. (1999) J. Biomol. NMR 13, 289-302.pmid:10212987
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. ↵
      Wishart, D. S., Bigam, C. G., Yao, J., Abildgaard, F., Dyson, H. J., Oldfield, E., Markley, J. L. & Sykes, B. D. (1995) J. Biomol. NMR 6, 135-140.pmid:8589602
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      Wishart, D. S. & Sykes, B. D. (1994) J. Biomol. NMR 4, 171-180.pmid:8019132
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      Ogata, K., Hojo, H., Aimoto, S., Nakai, T., Nakamura, H., Sarai, A., Ishii, S. & Nishimura, Y. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89, 6428-6432.pmid:1631139
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      Ogata, K., Morikawa, S., Nakamura, H., Sekikawa, A., Inoue, T., Kanai, H., Sarai, A., Ishii, S. & Nishimura, Y. (1994) Cell 79, 639-648.pmid:7954830
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      Grune, T., Brzeski, J., Eberharter, A., Clapier, C. R., Corona, D. F., Becker, P. B. & Muller, C. W. (2003) Mol. Cell 12, 449-460.pmid:14536084
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      Goodford, P. (1996) J. Chemometrics 10, 107-117.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    36. ↵
      Owen, D. J., Vallis, Y., Noble, M. E., Hunter, J. B., Dafforn, T. R., Evans, P. R. & McMahon, H. T. (1999) Cell 97, 805-815.pmid:10380931
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    37. ↵
      Li, J., Lin, Q., Wang, W., Wade, P. & Wong, J. (2002) Genes Dev. 16, 687-692.pmid:11914274
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    38. ↵
      Zhang, Y., Ng, H. H., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Tempst, P., Bird, A. & Reinberg, D. (1999) Genes Dev. 13, 1924-1935.pmid:10444591
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    39. ↵
      Fischle, W., Dequiedt, F., Hendzel, M. J., Guenther, M. G., Lazar, M. A., Voelter, W. & Verdin, E. (2002) Mol. Cell 9, 45-57.pmid:11804585
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      Yang, W. M., Tsai, S. C., Wen, Y. D., Fejer, G. & Seto, E. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 9447-9454.pmid:11779848
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    41. ↵
      Gregoretti, I. V., Lee, Y. M. & Goodson, H. V. (2004) J. Mol. Biol. 338, 17-31.pmid:15050820
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    Article Alerts
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Structural insights into the interaction and activation of histone deacetylase 3 by nuclear receptor corepressors
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    Structural insights into the interaction and activation of histone deacetylase 3 by nuclear receptor corepressors
    Anna Codina, James D. Love, Yun Li, Mitchell A. Lazar, David Neuhaus, John W. R. Schwabe
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2005, 102 (17) 6009-6014; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0500299102

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Request Permissions
    Share
    Structural insights into the interaction and activation of histone deacetylase 3 by nuclear receptor corepressors
    Anna Codina, James D. Love, Yun Li, Mitchell A. Lazar, David Neuhaus, John W. R. Schwabe
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2005, 102 (17) 6009-6014; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0500299102
    Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Mendeley logo Mendeley
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 102 (17)
    Table of Contents

    Submit

    Sign up for Article Alerts

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Abstract
      • Methods
      • Results
      • Discussion
      • Acknowledgments
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Figures & SI
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    You May Also be Interested in

    Surgeons hands during surgery
    Inner Workings: Advances in infectious disease treatment promise to expand the pool of donor organs
    Despite myriad challenges, clinicians see room for progress.
    Image credit: Shutterstock/David Tadevosian.
    Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
    Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
    Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
    Image credit: Witsawat.S.
    Double helix
    Journal Club: Noncoding DNA shown to underlie function, cause limb malformations
    Using CRISPR, researchers showed that a region some used to label “junk DNA” has a major role in a rare genetic disorder.
    Image credit: Nathan Devery.
    Steamboat Geyser eruption.
    Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
    Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
    Listen
    Past PodcastsSubscribe
    Multi-color molecular model
    Enzymatic breakdown of PET plastic
    A study demonstrates how two enzymes—MHETase and PETase—work synergistically to depolymerize the plastic pollutant PET.
    Image credit: Aaron McGeehan (artist).

    Similar Articles

    Site Logo
    Powered by HighWire
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS Feeds
    • Email Alerts

    Articles

    • Current Issue
    • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
    • List of Issues

    PNAS Portals

    • Anthropology
    • Chemistry
    • Classics
    • Front Matter
    • Physics
    • Sustainability Science
    • Teaching Resources

    Information

    • Authors
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewers
    • Librarians
    • Press
    • Site Map
    • PNAS Updates

    Feedback    Privacy/Legal

    Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490