References
1. Hajj, M., et al., Phylogenetic Diversity of Lhr Proteins and Biochemical Activities of the Thermococcales aLhr2 DNA/RNA Helicase.Biomolecules, 2021. 11 (7).
2. Reuven, N.B., et al., The gene for the longest known Escherichia coli protein is a member of helicase superfamily II. J Bacteriol, 1995. 177 (19): p. 5393-400.
3. Chamieh, H., H. Ibrahim, and J. Kozah, Genome-wide identification of SF1 and SF2 helicases from archaea. Gene, 2016.576 (1 Pt 2): p. 214-28.
4. Ejaz, A., Y. Goldgur, and S. Shuman, Activity and structure of Pseudomonas putida MPE, a manganese-dependent single-strand DNA endonuclease encoded in a nucleic acid repair gene cluster. J Biol Chem, 2019. 294 (19): p. 7931-7941.
5. Ordonez, H. and S. Shuman, Mycobacterium smegmatis Lhr Is a DNA-dependent ATPase and a 3’-to-5’ DNA translocase and helicase that prefers to unwind 3’-tailed RNA:DNA hybrids. J Biol Chem, 2013.288 (20): p. 14125-34.
6. Ejaz, A., et al., Structure of mycobacterial 3’-to-5’ RNA:DNA helicase Lhr bound to a ssDNA tracking strand highlights distinctive features of a novel family of bacterial helicases. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018. 46 (1): p. 442-455.
7. Ejaz, A. and S. Shuman, Characterization of Lhr-Core DNA helicase and manganese- dependent DNA nuclease components of a bacterial gene cluster encoding nucleic acid repair enzymes. J Biol Chem, 2018.293 (45): p. 17491-17504.
8. Buttner, K., S. Nehring, and K.P. Hopfner, Structural basis for DNA duplex separation by a superfamily-2 helicase. Nat Struct Mol Biol, 2007. 14 (7): p. 647-52.
9. Northall, S.J., et al., DNA binding and unwinding by Hel308 helicase requires dual functions of a winged helix domain. DNA Repair (Amst), 2017. 57 : p. 125-132.
10. Johnson, S.J. and R.N. Jackson, Ski2-like RNA helicase structures: common themes and complex assemblies. RNA Biol, 2013.10 (1): p. 33-43.
11. Buckley, R.J., et al., Mechanistic insights into Lhr helicase function in DNA repair. Biochem J, 2020. 477 (16): p. 2935-2947.
12. Warren, G.M., et al., Oligomeric quaternary structure of Escherichia coli and Mycobacterium smegmatis Lhr helicases is nucleated by a novel C-terminal domain composed of five winged-helix modules.Nucleic Acids Res, 2021. 49 (7): p. 3876-3887.
13. van Wolferen, M., X. Ma, and S.V. Albers, DNA Processing Proteins Involved in the UV-Induced Stress Response of Sulfolobales. J Bacteriol, 2015. 197 (18): p. 2941-51.
14. Cooper, D.L., D.C. Boyle, and S.T. Lovett, Genetic analysis of Escherichia coli RadA: functional motifs and genetic interactions. Mol Microbiol, 2015. 95 (5): p. 769-79.
15. Rand, L., et al., The majority of inducible DNA repair genes in Mycobacterium tuberculosis are induced independently of RecA. Mol Microbiol, 2003. 50 (3): p. 1031-42.
16. Mullins, E.A., et al., Structure of a DNA glycosylase that unhooks interstrand cross-links. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2017.114 (17): p. 4400-4405.
17. Kelley, L.A., et al., The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. Nat Protoc, 2015. 10 (6): p. 845-58.
18. Almatarneh, M.H., C.G. Flinn, and R.A. Poirier, Mechanisms for the deamination reaction of cytosine with H2O/OH(-) and 2H2O/OH(-): a computational study. J Chem Inf Model, 2008. 48 (4): p. 831-43.
19. Cadet, J. and J.R. Wagner, DNA base damage by reactive oxygen species, oxidizing agents, and UV radiation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol, 2013. 5 (2).
20. Kreutzer, D.A. and J.M. Essigmann, Oxidized, deaminated cytosines are a source of C –> T transitions in vivo.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1998. 95 (7): p. 3578-82.
21. Krokan, H.E., F. Drablos, and G. Slupphaug, Uracil in DNA–occurrence, consequences and repair. Oncogene, 2002.21 (58): p. 8935-48.
22. Aravind, L. and E.V. Koonin, The alpha/beta fold uracil DNA glycosylases: a common origin with diverse fates. Genome Biol, 2000.1 (4): p. RESEARCH0007.
23. Savitsky, P., et al., High-throughput production of human proteins for crystallization: the SGC experience. J Struct Biol, 2010.172 (1): p. 3-13.
24. Datsenko, K.A. and B.L. Wanner, One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2000. 97 (12): p. 6640-6645.
Figure Legends
Figure 1: The E. coli Lhr-CTD is a uracil DNA glycosylase requiring a catalytic aspartic acid
(A) AlphaFold 2 structural model of E. coli Lhr that is based on strong homology with the cryo-EM structure of Lhr helicase core and Lhr-CTD from M. smegmatis , respectively PDB: 5V9X and PDB:7LHL. The E. coli Lhr-core helicase (amino acids 1-897) contains RecA domains, a beta-sheet bundle (β) and a winged helix domain (WH) as indicated. Lhr-CTD (amino acids 898-1538) comprises folds with structural homology to SecB chaperones and AlkZ glycosylases, as indicted.
(B) Coomassie stained SDS-PAGE acrylamide gels showing purified Lhr and Lhr-CTD, with molecular mass ladder (M) values in kDa.
(C) Products from mixing Lhr-CTD (50, 100, 200, 400 and 800 nM) with 5’ Cy5-ssDNA (12.5 nM) containing a d-Uracil base 18 located nucleotides from the fluorescent moiety as indicated (lanes 1-12), seen in a 15% denaturing acrylamide TBE gel. Addition of NaOH (lanes 8-12) causes β/δ elimination at the site of the abasic DNA product, resulting in DNA backbone cleavage. This confirms glycosylase protein activity. Marker (M) is made from known lengths of 5’ Cy5 ssDNA.
(D) As for (C) in reactions containing unmodified 5’ Cy5-ssDNA (12.5 nM).
(E) Phyre2 structural model of E. coli Lhr-CTD with predicted active site residues as labelled, including Lhr-CTD residue Asp-1536 that we mutated in this work.
(F) Products from mixing Lhr-CTD and Lhr-CTDD1536Aproteins with 12.5 mM d-uracil containing 5’ Cy5-ssDNA substrate, viewed in a 18% acrylamide denaturing TBE gel. Product formation is shown every 5 minutes for 30 minutes, observing no glycosylase activity from Lhr-CTDD1536A.
Figure 2: LhrD1536A is inactive as a glycosylase but binds to DNA
(A ) EMSA assays showing Lhr (12.5, 25, 50, 100 and 200nM) complexes bound to DNA (12.5 nM) that are stable migrating through a 5% acrylamide TBE gel, compared with Lhr-CTD at the same concentrations.
(B ) Products of Lhr glycosylase activity seen in an 18% acrylamide denaturing TBE gel were absent when reactions contained LhrD1536A. Proteins were used at 25, 50, 100 and 200 nM, with 12.5 nM of d-uracil containing 5’ Cy5-ssDNA substrate.
(C ) EMSA showing that LhrD1536A and Lhr (12.5, 25, 50, 100 and 200 nM) form stable complex with DNA in a 5% acrylamide TBE gel
Figure 3: Lhr is inactive against 8-oxoguanine, and its uracil DNA glycosylase activity on duplex DNA functions independently from Lhr helicase activity
(A ) Time-dependent uracil DNA glycosylase activity of Lhr (50 nM) compared with LhrD1536A. The data shows means of glycosylase activity (n=3, with bars for standard error) alongside a representative gel used for quantification.
(B ) Comparison of Lhr (50 nM) glycosylase activity on ss-, ds- and forked d-uracil containing DNA substrates (12.5 nM) as a function of time, with samples taken at time points indicated  plots are means of two independent experiments showing standard error bars.
(C ) Time-course assays (10, 20, 30 minutes) showing products from Lhr and Lhr-CTD (each 80 nM) mixed with the preferred flayed duplex uracil-DNA, seen in an 18% acrylamide denaturing TBE gel. Known length DNA strands are shown (M) and the positive control reaction (+ve) is product from 5 units of E. coli uracil DNA glycosylase.
(D ) As for (C) except d-uracil DNA was replaced with otherwise identical 8-oxo-d-Guanine DNA, and the control reaction (+ve) shows product formed by 5 units of formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (Fpg) protein.
(E ) Lhr (80 nM) uracil-DNA glycosylase activity seen as products in 18% acrylamide denaturing TBE gels (lanes 1-4), after 30-minute reactions in either EDTA, manganese or calcium, each replacing magnesium as indicated, compared with unmodified DNA (lanes 5-8).
(F ) DNA unwinding by Lhr and LhrD1536Aproteins (12.5, 25, 50, 100 and 200 nM) on 12.5 nM of 5’ Cy5 labelled flayed duplex DNA, seen in 10% acrylamide TBE gel.