Mutual Information Identifies Sequence Positions Conserved within the Nuclear Receptor Superfamily: Approach Reveals Functionally Important Regions for DNA Binding Specificity

Abstract

Members of the nuclear receptor superfamily differentiate in terms of specificity for DNA recognition and binding, oligomeric state, and ligand binding. The wide range of specificities are impressive given the high degree of sequence conservation in the DNA binding domain (DBD) and moderate sequence conservation with high structural similarity within the ligand binding domains (LBDs). Determining sequence positions that are conserved within nuclear receptor subfamilies can provide important indicators into the structural dynamics that translate to oligomeric state of the active receptor, DNA binding specificity and ligand affinity and selectivity. Here we present a method to analyze sequence data from all nuclear receptors that facilitates detection of co-evolving pairs using Mutual Information (MI). Using this method we demonstrate that MI can reveal functionally important sequence positions within the superfamily and the approach identified three sequence positions that have conserved sequence patterns across all nuclear receptors and subfamilies. Interestingly, two of the sequence positions identified are located within the DBD CII and the third was within Helix c of the DBD. These sequences are located within the heterodimer interface of PPARγ (CII) and RXR α (Helix c) based on PDB:3DZU. Helix c of PPARγ, which is not involved in the DBD dimer interface, binds the minor groove in the 5’ flanking region in a consensus PPARγ response element (PPRE) and the corresponding RXR α (CII) is found in the 3’ flanking region of RXRE (3DZU). As these three sequence positions represent unique identifiers for all nuclear receptors and they are located within the dimer interface of PPARγ-RXRα DBD (3DZU) interfacing with the flanking regions of the NRRE, we conclude they are critical sequence positions perhaps dictating nuclear receptor (NR) DNA binding specificity.

References

Atchley

W. R.

, Wollenberg

K. R.

, Fitch

W. M.

, Terhalle

, and Dress

A. W.

(2000). Correlations among amino acid sites in bHLH protein domains: an information theoretic analysis Mol Biol Evol 17, 164–78.

Chandra

, Huang

, Hamuro

, Raghuram

, Wang

, Burris

T. P.

, and Rastinejad

(2008). Structure of the intact PPAR-γ-RXR-α nuclear receptor complex on DNA Nature, 350–356.

Chen

C. P.

, Chern

S. R.

, Wang

T.Y.

, Wang

K. L.

, and Jeng

C. J.

(1999). Androgen receptor gene mutations in 46,XY females with germ cell tumours Hum Reprod 14, 664–70.

Committee

N. R. N.

(1999). A unified nomenclature system for the nuclear receptor superfamily Cell 97, 161–3.

Desvergne

, and Wahli

(1999). Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors: nuclear control of metabolism Endocr Rev 20, 649–88.

Govindarajan

, Ness

J. E.

, Kim

, Mundorff

E. C.

, Minshull

, and Gustafsson

(2003). Systematic variation of amino acid substitutions for stringent assessment of pairwise covariation J Mol Biol 328, 1061–9.

Ijpenberg

, Jeannin

, Wahli

, and Desvergne

(1997). Polarity and specific sequence requirements of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)/retinoid X receptor heterodimer binding to DNA. A functional analysis of the malic enzyme gene PPAR response element J Biol Chem 272, 20108–17.

Juge-Aubry

, Pernin

, Favez

, Burger

A. G.

, Wahli

, Meier

C. A.

, and Desvergne

(1997). DNA binding properties of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor subtypes on various natural peroxisome proliferator response elements. Importance of the 5'-flanking region J Biol Chem 272, 25252–9.

Martin

L. C.

, Gloor

G. B.

, Dunn

S. D.

, and Wahl

L. M.

(2005). Using information theory to search for co-evolving residues in proteins Bioinformatics 21, 4116–24.

10.

Meijsing

S. H.

, Pufall

M. A.

, So

A. Y.

, Bates

D. L.

, Chen

, and Yamamoto

K. R.

(2009). DNA binding site sequence directs glucocorticoid receptor structure and activity Science 324, 407–10.

11.

Robinson-Rechavi

, Escriva Garcia

, and Laudet

(2003). The nuclear receptor superfamily J Cell Sci 116, 585–6.

12.

Shannon

C. E.

(1948). A mathematical theory of communication Bell Syst Tech J 27, 379–423, 623–656.

13.

Tilley

W. D.

, Buchanan

, Hickey

T. E.

, and Bentel

J. M.

(1996). Mutations in the androgen receptor gene are associated with progression of human prostate cancer to androgen independence Clin Cancer Res 2, 277–85.

14.

Tillier

E. R.

, and Lui

T. W.

(2003). Using multiple interdependency to separate functional from phylogenetic correlations in protein alignments Bioinformatics 19, 750–5.

15.

Ueda

, Sun

G. C.

, Murata

, and Hirose

(1992). A novel DNA-binding motif abuts the zinc finger domain of insect nuclear hormone receptor FTZ-F1 and mouse embryonal long terminal repeat-binding protein Mol Cell Biol 12, 5667–72.

16.

Weidemann

, Linck

, Haupt

, Mentrup

, Romalo

, Stockklauser

, Brinkmann

A. O.

, Schweikert

H. U.

, and Spindler

K. D.

(1996). Clinical and biochemical investigations and molecular analysis of subjects with mutations in the androgen receptor gene Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 45, 733–9.

17.

Weidemann

, Peters

, Romalo

, Spindler

K. D.

, and Schweikert

H. U.

(1998). Response to androgen treatment in a patient with partial androgen insensitivity and a mutation in the deoxyribonucleic acid-binding domain of the androgen receptor J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83, 1173–6.

18.

Wooster

, Mangion

, Eeles

, Smith

, Dowsett

, Averill

, Barrett-Lee

, Easton

D. F.

, Ponder

B. A.

, and Stratton

M. R.

(1992). A germline mutation in the androgen receptor gene in two brothers with breast cancer and Reifenstein syndrome Nat Genet 2, 132–4.

19.

Wurtz

J. M.

, Bourguet

, Renaud

J. P.

, Vivat

, Chambon

, Moras

, and Gronemeyer

(1996). A canonical structure for the ligand-binding domain of nuclear receptors Nat Struct Biol 3, 87–94.