Molecular analyses of a three-subunit euryarchaeal clamp loader complex from Methanosarcina acetivorans

Diversity of the DNA replication system in the Archaea domain

The precise and timely duplication of the genome is essential for cellular life. It is achieved by DNA replication, a complex process that is conserved among the three domains of life. Even though the cellular structure of archaea closely resembles that of bacteria, the information processing machinery of archaea is evolutionarily more closely related to the eukaryotic system, especially for the proteins involved in the DNA replication process. While the general DNA replication mechanism is conserved among the different domains of life, modifications in functionality and in some of the specialized replication proteins are observed. Indeed, Archaea possess specific features unique to this domain. Moreover, even though the general pattern of the replicative system is the same in all archaea, a great deal of variation exists between specific groups.

Replication clamps and clamp loaders

To achieve the high degree of processivity required for DNA replication, DNA polymerases associate with ring-shaped sliding clamps that encircle the template DNA and slide freely along it. The closed circular structure of sliding clamps necessitates an enzyme-catalyzed mechanism, which not only opens them for assembly and closes them around DNA, but specifically targets them to sites where DNA synthesis is initiated and orients them correctly for replication. Such a feat is performed by multisubunit complexes known as clamp loaders, which use ATP to open sliding clamp rings and place them around the 3' end of primer-template (PT) junctions. Here we discuss the structure and composition of sliding clamps and clamp loaders from the three domains of life as well as T4 bacteriophage, and provide our current understanding of the clamp-loading process.

Rapid progress of DNA replication studies in Archaea, the third domain of life

Archaea, the third domain of life, are interesting organisms to study from the aspects of molecular and evolutionary biology. Archaeal cells have a unicellular ultrastructure without a nucleus, resembling bacterial cells, but the proteins involved in genetic information processing pathways, including DNA replication, transcription, and translation, share strong similarities with those of Eukaryota. Therefore, archaea provide useful model systems to understand the more complex mechanisms of genetic information processing in eukaryotic cells. Moreover, the hyperthermophilic archaea provide very stable proteins, which are especially useful for the isolation of replisomal multicomplexes, to analyze their structures and functions. This review focuses on the history, current status, and future directions of archaeal DNA replication studies.

Computational analysis of DNA replicases in double-stranded DNA viruses: relationship with the genome size

Genome duplication in free-living cellular organisms is performed by DNA replicases that always include a DNA polymerase, a DNA sliding clamp and a clamp loader. What are the evolutionary solutions for DNA replicases associated with smaller genomes? Are there some general principles? To address these questions we analyzed DNA replicases of double-stranded (ds) DNA viruses. In the process we discovered highly divergent B-family DNA polymerases in phiKZ-like phages and remote sliding clamp homologs in Ascoviridae family and Ma-LMM01 phage. The analysis revealed a clear dependency between DNA replicase components and the viral genome size. As the genome size increases, viruses universally encode their own DNA polymerases and frequently have homologs of DNA sliding clamps, which sometimes are accompanied by clamp loader subunits. This pattern is highly non-random. The absence of sliding clamps in large viral genomes usually coincides with the presence of atypical polymerases. Meanwhile, sliding clamp homologs, not accompanied by clamp loaders, have an elevated positive electrostatic potential, characteristic of non-ring viral processivity factors that bind the DNA directly. Unexpectedly, we found that similar electrostatic properties are shared by the eukaryotic 9-1-1 clamp subunits, Hus1 and, to a lesser extent, Rad9, also suggesting the possibility of direct DNA binding.

The GINS complex from the thermophilic archaeon, Thermoplasma acidophilum may function as a homotetramer in DNA replication

The eukaryotic GINS heterotetramer, consisting of Sld5, Psf1, Psf2, and Psf3, participates in "CMG complex" formation with mini-chromosome maintenance (MCM) and Cdc45 as a key component of a replicative helicase. There are only two homologs of the GINS proteins in Archaea, and these proteins, Gins51 and Gins23, form a heterotetrameric GINS with a 2:2 molar ratio. The Pyrococcus furiosus GINS stimulates the ATPase and helicase activities of its cognate MCM, whereas the Sulfolobus solfataricus GINS does not affect those activities of its cognate MCM, although the proteins bind each other. Intriguingly, Thermoplasma acidophilum, as well as many euryarchaea, have only one gene encoding the sequence homologous to that of archaeal Gins protein (Gins51) on the genome. In this study, we investigated the biochemical properties of the gene product (TaGins51). A gel filtration and electron microscopy revealed that TaGins51 forms a homotetramer. A physical interaction between TaGins51 and TaMcm was detected by a surface plasmon resonance analysis. Unexpectedly, TaGins51 inhibited the ATPase activity, but did not affect the helicase activity of its cognate MCM. These results suggest that another factor is required to form a stable helicase complex with MCM and GINS at the replication fork in T. acidophilum cells.

Reverse-chaperoning activity of an AAA+ protein

Speed and processivity of replicative DNA polymerases can be enhanced via coupling to a sliding clamp. Due to the closed ring shape of the clamp, a clamp loader protein, belonging to the AAA+ class of ATPases, needs to open the ring-shaped clamp before loading it to DNA. Here, we developed real-time fluorescence assays to study the clamp (PCNA) and the clamp loader (RFC) from the mesophilic archaeon Methanosarcina acetivorans. Unexpectedly, we discovered that RFC can assemble a PCNA ring from monomers in solution. A motion-based DNA polymerization assay showed that the PCNA assembled by RFC is functional. This PCNA assembly activity required the ATP-bound conformation of RFC. Our work demonstrates a reverse-chaperoning activity for an AAA+ protein that can act as a template for the assembly of another protein complex.

Protein-protein interactions in the archaeal core replisome

Most of the core components of the archaeal chromosomal DNA replication apparatus share significant protein sequence similarity with eukaryotic replication factors, making the Archaea an excellent model system for understanding the biology of chromosome replication in eukaryotes. The present review summarizes current knowledge of how the core components of the archaeal chromosome replication apparatus interact with one another to perform their essential functions.

Evolution of DNA replication protein complexes in eukaryotes and Archaea

Background

The replication of DNA in Archaea and eukaryotes requires several ancillary complexes, including proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), replication factor C (RFC), and the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) complex. Bacterial DNA replication utilizes comparable proteins, but these are distantly related phylogenetically to their archaeal and eukaryotic counterparts at best.

Methodology/Principal Findings

While the structures of each of the complexes do not differ significantly between the archaeal and eukaryotic versions thereof, the evolutionary dynamic in the two cases does. The number of subunits in each complex is constant across all taxa. However, they vary subtly with regard to composition. In some taxa the subunits are all identical in sequence, while in others some are homologous rather than identical. In the case of eukaryotes, there is no phylogenetic variation in the makeup of each complex—all appear to derive from a common eukaryotic ancestor. This is not the case in Archaea, where the relationship between the subunits within each complex varies taxon-to-taxon. We have performed a detailed phylogenetic analysis of these relationships in order to better understand the gene duplications and divergences that gave rise to the homologous subunits in Archaea.

Conclusion/Significance

This domain level difference in evolution suggests that different forces have driven the evolution of DNA replication proteins in each of these two domains. In addition, the phylogenies of all three gene families support the distinctiveness of the proposed archaeal phylum Thaumarchaeota.