North JA , Shimko JC , Javaid S , Mooney AM , Shoffner MA , Rose SD , Bundschuh R , Fishel R , Ottesen JJ , Poirier MG .

CA067007 NCI NIH HHS , GM080176 NIGMS NIH HHS , GM083055 NIGMS NIH HHS , R01 GM080176 NIGMS NIH HHS , R01 GM083055 NIGMS NIH HHS

	Figure 1. H3(K56ac) increases the rate of nucleosome unwrapping. (A) DNA constructs for FRET measurements of nucleosome unwrapping kinetics. Both higher affinity 601 NPS or lower affinity X. borealis contain a LexA protein binding site from bases 8–27 and a Cy3 molecule on the 5′-end. (B) Structure of FRET-labeled nucleosome (41) containing 601L or 5SL DNAs; the LexA-binding site in red, Cy3 in green, Cy5 on H2A(K119C) in magenta and H3(K56Ac) in orange. (C) A three-state model for LexA binding to its target site within a nucleosome. (D and E) Stopped Flow Cy5 emission versus time of 601L nucleosomes containing unmodified H3 or H3(K56Ac) nucleosomes, respectively, at 1 mM NaCl mixed with 0–900 nM LexA. (F) Normalized stopped flow Cy5 emission versus time at 900 nM LexA for nucleosomes containing unmodified H3 (blue circles), H3(K56Q) (red circles) and H3(K56ac) (orange circles) at 1 mM NaCl. (G) Relative unwrapping and calculated rewrapping rates of nucleosomes containing H3(K56Q) and H3(K56ac) versus unmodified at 1 mM NaCl. (H) Normalized stopped flow Cy5 emission versus time at 30 μM LexA for nucleosomes containing unmodified H3 (blue circles), H3(K56Q) (red circles) and H3(K56ac) (orange circles) at 130 mM NaCl. (I) Relative unwrapping and calculated rewrapping rates of nucleosomes containing H3(K56Q) and H3(K56ac) versus unmodified H3 at 130 mM NaCl (see also Supplementary Figure S1).
	Figure 2. DNA sequence does not influence H3(K56ac) enhancement of TF binding. (A) Cy3 fluorescence image of native PAGE analysis of purified FRET-labeled nucleosomes containing the 5SL NPS and unmodified H3 (lane 2), H3(K56Q) (lane 3) or H3(K56ac) (lane 4). (B and C) Fluoresence emission spectra of 5SL FRET-labeled nucleosomes containing unmodified H3 or H3(K56ac), respectively, excited at 510 nm (donor excitation) in the presence of 0.5× TE, 1 mM NaCl and LexA at 0 nM (black), 30 nM (red) or 1000 nM (blue), (D) Steady-state FRET efficiency, as determined by the (ratio)A method (36), versus LexA concentration for nucleosomes containing unmodified H3 (blue), H3(C110) (purple), H3(K56Q) (red), and H3(K56a) (orange) at 1 mM NaCl. Plots are the average of three LexA titrations and the error bars were determined from the SD of the three measurements. The data were fit to a non-cooperative binding curve, which determines S0.5-nuc, the LexA concentration at which 50% of the nucleosomes are bound by LexA. (E) Relative change in Keq for nucleosomes with the 601L (14) or 5SL NPS containing H3(K56Q) or H3(K56ac) versus unmodified H3 at 1 mM NaCl. This is inversely related to the relative change in S0.5.
	Figure 3. DNA sequence between the nucleosome entry–exit and the TF-binding site impacts nucleosome unwrapping. (A) DNA constructs with the 601 sequence (blue) iteratively replaced by the 5S sequence (lavender), where the parenthetical numbers represents the bases in 601 replaced by 5S; lexA site in red. (B) Steady-state FRET efficiency, as determined by the (ratio)A method, versus lexA concentration for nucleosomes containing 601L and unmodified H3 (blue), 601L and H3(K56Q) (red), 5SL(1–7) and unmodified H3 (green), and 5SL(1–7) and H3(K56Q) (olive) at 75 mM NaCl. Plots are the average of three LexA titrations and the error bars were determined from the SD of the three measurements. The data were fit to a non-cooperative binding curve. (C) Relative Keq for the indicated nucleosome versus nucleosomes containing 601L and unmodified H3 at 75 mM NaCl. (D) Normalized stopped flow Cy5 emission versus time at 15 μM LexA for nucleosomes containing 601L and unmodified H3 (blue), 601L and H3(K56Q) (red), 5SL(1–7) and unmodified H3 (green), and 5SL(1–7) and H3(K56Q) (olive) at 75 mM NaCl. (E and F) Relative unwrapping and calculated rewrapping rates, respectively, for the indicated nucleosomes versus nucleosome containing 601L and unmodified H3 at 75 mM NaCl (see also Supplementary Figure S4).
	Figure 4. Relation between DNA–histone binding and DNA unwrapping free energies. (A) Cy3 fluorescence image of native PAGE analysis of competitive reconstitutions performed in triplicate for unmodified HO with the DNA chimeras used for site exposure measures. (B) Change in free energy of nucleosome formation (ΔΔGnuc, light gray) relative to 601L as determined by competitive reconstitution from the gel in (A), and the change in nucleosome free energy for wrapping (ΔΔGwrap, dark gray) relative to 601L as determined from site accessibility measures (Figure 3B and C). The error bars for ΔΔGnuc are the SD of the three independent measurements for each nucleosome type. (C) Table of the change in free energy values in kcal/mol for nucleosome formation of each DNA species relative to Lumbriculus variegatus 5S NPS , for nucleosome formation of each DNA species relative to 601L DNA and for nucleosome wrapping for each DNA species relative to 601L DNA .
	Figure 5. TF-binding sites predominantly reside within nucleosomes. (A) Distribution of TF-binding site distances from the nearest nucleosome dyad (black circles), with distances of 0–36 bases considered within the dyad region, distances of 37–74 bases considered within the entry–exit region, and distance greater than 74 bases considered to be in naked DNA (see Experimental Procedures and Supplementary Figure S5 for details). The black line represents the expected TF-binding site distribution if they were distributed randomly throughout the genome. (B) Measured and expected percentages of TFs in each region calculated from the distribution in (A).
	Figure 6. H3(K56ac) facilitates nucleosome dissociation by the mismatch recognition complex hMSH2–hMSH6. (A) DNA constructs containing the X. borealis 5S NPS with (5S-GT) or without (5S-GC) a DNA mismatch and a 3′-biotin. (B and C) Electrophoretic mobility shift analysis of H3(C110) nucleosomes adjacent to a GT mismatch, and H3(K56ac) nucleosomes adjacent to a GT mismatch disassembled by hMSH2–hMSH6, respectively. Lane 1: sucrose gradient–purified nucleosomes, Lane 2: nucleosomes bound by streptavidin, Lane 3: nucleosomes bound by streptavidin and hMSH2–hMSH6, Lanes 4–9: kinetic analysis of streptavidin-bound nucleosome disassembly by hMSH2–hMSH6 in the presence of 1 mM ATP. (D) The fraction of unmodified 5S-GC NPS nucleosomes (black square), H3(C110) 5S-GT NPS nucleosomes (lavender diamond) and H3(K56ac) 5S-GT 5S-GT NPS nucleosomes (orange triangle) versus time in the presence of hMSH2–hMSH6 (250 nM) and ATP (1 mM). The error bars were determined from the SD of at least three separate experiments. The fraction of nucleosomes versus time were fit excluding the zero time point to a single exponential decay, A × e−t/τ (see also Supplementary Figure S6).
	Figure 7. Kinetic model of H3(K56Ac) and DNA sequence modulation of nucleosome unwrapping rate. (A and B) Nucleosomes containing TF-binding sites at two different loci within the genome (nucleosome 1 with entry–exit in blue, nucleosome 2 with entry–exit in magenta). The DNA sequence between the entry–exit and TF-binding site influences the inherent nucleosome unwrapping rate to regulate TF binding within each nucleosome. Acetylation/de-acetylation of H3 lysine 56 at nucleosome 1 enhances/suppresses the DNA unwrapping rate to adjust TF occupancy. This influences both the TF occupancy within nucleosome 1 but also TF occupancy relative to nucleosome 2.

Adams, Binding of disparate transcriptional activators to nucleosomal DNA is inherently cooperative. 1995, Pubmed

Adams, Binding of disparate transcriptional activators to nucleosomal DNA is inherently cooperative. 1995, Pubmed
Albert, Translational and rotational settings of H2A.Z nucleosomes across the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. 2007, Pubmed
Anderson, Poly(dA-dT) promoter elements increase the equilibrium accessibility of nucleosomal DNA target sites. 2001, Pubmed
Anderson, Sequence and position-dependence of the equilibrium accessibility of nucleosomal DNA target sites. 2000, Pubmed
Anderson, Effects of histone acetylation on the equilibrium accessibility of nucleosomal DNA target sites. 2001, Pubmed
Andrews, The histone chaperone Nap1 promotes nucleosome assembly by eliminating nonnucleosomal histone DNA interactions. 2010, Pubmed , Xenbase
Baker, Histone H3 Thr 45 phosphorylation is a replication-associated post-translational modification in S. cerevisiae. 2010, Pubmed
Bucceri, Rapid accessibility of nucleosomal DNA in yeast on a second time scale. 2006, Pubmed
Cairns, The logic of chromatin architecture and remodelling at promoters. 2009, Pubmed
Celic, Histone H3 K56 hyperacetylation perturbs replisomes and causes DNA damage. 2008, Pubmed
Chen, Acetylated lysine 56 on histone H3 drives chromatin assembly after repair and signals for the completion of repair. 2008, Pubmed
Clapier, The biology of chromatin remodeling complexes. 2009, Pubmed
Clegg, Fluorescence resonance energy transfer and nucleic acids. 1992, Pubmed
Das, CBP/p300-mediated acetylation of histone H3 on lysine 56. 2009, Pubmed
Dawson, JAK2 phosphorylates histone H3Y41 and excludes HP1alpha from chromatin. 2009, Pubmed
Fishel, Mismatch repair, molecular switches, and signal transduction. 1998, Pubmed
Flaus, Mapping nucleosome position at single base-pair resolution by using site-directed hydroxyl radicals. 1996, Pubmed
Forties, A quantitative model of nucleosome dynamics. 2011, Pubmed
Ganapathi, Extensive role of the general regulatory factors, Abf1 and Rap1, in determining genome-wide chromatin structure in budding yeast. 2011, Pubmed
Han, Rtt109 acetylates histone H3 lysine 56 and functions in DNA replication. 2007, Pubmed
Hurd, Phosphorylation of histone H3 Thr-45 is linked to apoptosis. 2009, Pubmed
Iwasaki, Comprehensive structural analysis of mutant nucleosomes containing lysine to glutamine (KQ) substitutions in the H3 and H4 histone-fold domains. 2011, Pubmed
Javaid, Nucleosome remodeling by hMSH2-hMSH6. 2009, Pubmed , Xenbase
Jiang, A compiled and systematic reference map of nucleosome positions across the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. 2009, Pubmed
Kelbauskas, Sequence-dependent nucleosome structure and stability variations detected by Förster resonance energy transfer. 2007, Pubmed
Koopmans, spFRET using alternating excitation and FCS reveals progressive DNA unwrapping in nucleosomes. 2009, Pubmed
Kurumizaka, Sin mutations of histone H3: influence on nucleosome core structure and function. 1997, Pubmed , Xenbase
Li, Rapid spontaneous accessibility of nucleosomal DNA. 2005, Pubmed
Li, Nucleosomes facilitate their own invasion. 2004, Pubmed , Xenbase
Little, Cleavage of LexA repressor. 1994, Pubmed
Lowary, New DNA sequence rules for high affinity binding to histone octamer and sequence-directed nucleosome positioning. 1998, Pubmed
Luger, Characterization of nucleosome core particles containing histone proteins made in bacteria. 1997, Pubmed , Xenbase
Luger, Preparation of nucleosome core particle from recombinant histones. 1999, Pubmed , Xenbase
MacIsaac, An improved map of conserved regulatory sites for Saccharomyces cerevisiae. 2006, Pubmed
Makde, Structure of RCC1 chromatin factor bound to the nucleosome core particle. 2010, Pubmed , Xenbase
Manohar, Acetylation of histone H3 at the nucleosome dyad alters DNA-histone binding. 2009, Pubmed , Xenbase
Nelson, Proline isomerization of histone H3 regulates lysine methylation and gene expression. 2006, Pubmed
Neumann, A method for genetically installing site-specific acetylation in recombinant histones defines the effects of H3 K56 acetylation. 2009, Pubmed
Nightingale, A single high affinity binding site for histone H1 in a nucleosome containing the Xenopus borealis 5 S ribosomal RNA gene. 1996, Pubmed , Xenbase
Park, Histone chaperones in nucleosome eviction and histone exchange. 2008, Pubmed
Poirier, Dynamics and function of compact nucleosome arrays. 2009, Pubmed
Poirier, Spontaneous access to DNA target sites in folded chromatin fibers. 2008, Pubmed
Polach, A model for the cooperative binding of eukaryotic regulatory proteins to nucleosomal target sites. 1996, Pubmed
Polach, Mechanism of protein access to specific DNA sequences in chromatin: a dynamic equilibrium model for gene regulation. 1995, Pubmed
Pruss, Histone-DNA contacts in a nucleosome core containing a Xenopus 5S rRNA gene. 1993, Pubmed , Xenbase
Ransom, Chaperoning histones during DNA replication and repair. 2010, Pubmed
Rhee, Comprehensive genome-wide protein-DNA interactions detected at single-nucleotide resolution. 2011, Pubmed
Rhodes, Structural analysis of a triple complex between the histone octamer, a Xenopus gene for 5S RNA and transcription factor IIIA. 1985, Pubmed , Xenbase
Richmond, The structure of DNA in the nucleosome core. 2003, Pubmed
Ryan, Snf2-family proteins: chromatin remodellers for any occasion. 2011, Pubmed
Shimko, Preparation of fully synthetic histone H3 reveals that acetyl-lysine 56 facilitates protein binding within nucleosomes. 2011, Pubmed
Simon, Histone fold modifications control nucleosome unwrapping and disassembly. 2011, Pubmed
Suganuma, Signals and combinatorial functions of histone modifications. 2011, Pubmed
Tachiwana, Crystal structure of the human centromeric nucleosome containing CENP-A. 2011, Pubmed
Thåström, Measurement of histone-DNA interaction free energy in nucleosomes. 2004, Pubmed
Thåström, Sequence motifs and free energies of selected natural and non-natural nucleosome positioning DNA sequences. 1999, Pubmed
Thåström, Nucleosomal locations of dominant DNA sequence motifs for histone-DNA interactions and nucleosome positioning. 2004, Pubmed
Tims, Dynamics of nucleosome invasion by DNA binding proteins. 2011, Pubmed
Xie, Histone h3 lysine 56 acetylation is linked to the core transcriptional network in human embryonic stem cells. 2009, Pubmed
Xu, Sir2 deacetylates histone H3 lysine 56 to regulate telomeric heterochromatin structure in yeast. 2007, Pubmed
Zhou, Integrated approaches reveal determinants of genome-wide binding and function of the transcription factor Pho4. 2011, Pubmed