Content uploaded by Blaine Bartholomew
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Blaine Bartholomew on Apr 17, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review Article
Regulation of ATP-dependent chromatin
remodelers: accelerators/brakes,
anchors and sensors
Somnath Paul
1,2
and Blaine Bartholomew
1,2
1
Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, TX 78957, U.S.A.;
2
Center for Cancer
Epigenetics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Correspondence: Blaine Bartholomew (bbartholomew@mdanderson.org)
All ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers have a DNA translocase domain that moves
along double-stranded DNA when hydrolyzing ATP, which is the key action leading to
DNA moving through nucleosomes. Recent structural and biochemical data from a
variety of different chromatin remodelers have revealed that there are three basic ways in
which these remodelers self-regulate their chromatin remodeling activity. In several
instances, different domains within the catalytic subunit or accessory subunits through
direct protein–protein interactions can modulate the ATPase and DNA translocation prop-
erties of the DNA translocase domain. These domains or subunits can stabilize confor-
mations that either promote or interfere with the ability of the translocase domain to bind
or retain DNA during translocation or alter the ability of the enzyme to hydrolyze ATP.
Second, other domains or subunits are often necessary to anchor the remodeler to
nucleosomes to couple DNA translocation and ATP hydrolysis to DNA movement around
the histone octamer. These anchors provide a fixed point by which remodelers can gen-
erate sufficient torque to disrupt histone–DNA interactions and mobilize nucleosomes.
The third type of self-regulation is in those chromatin remodelers that space nucleosomes
or stop moving nucleosomes when a particular length of linker DNA has been reached.
We refer to this third class as DNA sensors that can allosterically regulate nucleosome
mobilization. In this review, we will show examples of these from primarily the INO80/
SWR1, SWI/SNF and ISWI/CHD families of remodelers.
Introduction
Chromatin remodelers physically rearrange nucleosomes using energy derived from ATP hydrolysis
and their remodeling activity can be modulated in response to variations in chromatin such as histone
post-translational modifications (i.e. particularly histone tails), histone variants such as H2A.Z or
length of linker DNA separating nucleosomes. Several remodelers, like the ISWI and SWI/SNF fam-
ilies, have been shown to require histone tails for efficient remodeling or recruitment of the remodeler,
and when histones are acetylated or otherwise covalently modified to either enhance or block nucleo-
some remodeling [1–7]. The interplay of histone modifications and chromatin remodelers is an active
area of research and there are likely many of these interactions yet to be discovered that regulate the
activity or recruitment of remodelers. A large number of the pivotal studies have been done with only
the catalytic subunit or with subcomplexes of a limited number of accessory subunits present in the
complex. The INO80, ISWI and CHD families of remodelers are important for regulating nucleosome
spacing at promoters or coding regions of genes, making them crucial for transcription regulation
[8–15]. These remodelers require not only a minimum length of linker DNA for mobilizing nucleo-
somes but also a sufficient length of linker DNA to be recruited to chromatin. Some chromatin
remodelers target chromatin regions that are marked by the incorporation of histone variants that are
Version of Record published:
22 November 2018
Received: 27 August 2018
Revised: 17 October 2018
Accepted: 18 October 2018
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society 1
Biochemical Society Transactions (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20180043
less abundant in the cell [16]. These same remodelers can also change the levels of histone variants incorpo-
rated at distinct regions in the genome. By understanding more fully the various ways in which chromatin
remodelers are regulated, we will learn more about the mechanisms of chromatin remodeling and how these
are disrupted in diseases through mutation of these complexes.
The brakes and accelerators of the ATPase domains
The importance of histone tails for regulating chromatin remodeling is probably best characterized in the ISWI
family. For ISWI complexes, the H4 histone tail has been shown to be required for efficient remodeling and the
H4 tail peptide alone with free DNA to stimulate the ATPase activity of ISWI [5–7,17]. Histone acetylation can
modulate ISWI chromatin remodeling activity and acetylation of the H4 tail mitigates the stimulatory effect of
the H4 tail with ISWI. Most of the studies with the ISWI remodeler have been done with only the catalytic
subunit, even though these complexes generally have 2–4 subunits, and have found both negative and positive
regulators of the DNA translocase domain. Deletion analysis of ISWI found two domains that negatively regu-
late ISWI remodeling called the AutoN and NegC domains [18–20]. Analysis of the crystal structure of ISWI
with and without H4 peptide found the AutoN to bridge lobes 1 and 2 of the DNA translocation or ATPase
domain, promoting the formation of an inactive ISWI conformation (Figure 1A), and H4 tail relieves inhibition
from the AutoN domain by competitive binding to lobe 2 [21]. The role of the C-terminal NegC domain is
not as clear in the structure because it reaches out to an adjacent ATPase domain and binds to lobe2, which
could be consistent with reports of ISWI forming dimers [21]. These experiments were all performed with only
the ISWI catalytic subunit, which was truncated and lacked the C-terminus containing the HAND, SANT and
SLIDE domains in most experiments, and did not have any of its accessory subunits. From other experiments,
it is evident that the accessory subunit does have a significant impact on the activity of the catalytic subunit
and the accessory subunit can also bind the H4 tail and affect H4 tail sensing [20]. CHD1 has similar structures
to ISWI in regard to both the AutoN and NegC domains of ISWI acting similar to the chromodomains and
C-terminal bridge of CHD1 (Figure 1B)[22]. The AutoN and NegC domains are therefore examples of
domains acting to brake the ATPase domain (Figure 2A).
Other domains and accessory subunits act as accelerators by positively regulating the activity of the ATPase
domain (Figure 2A). For many of the chromatin remodelers, it is fairly clear that accessory subunits stimulate
the overall activity of complexes. These effects could be due to enhancing substrate binding or recruitment and
not be directly regulating the ATPase activity. One example from yeast SWI/SNF shows that the Snf5 accessory
subunit directly contacts the ATPase domain by mapping intra- and inter-subunit interactions using chemical
cross-linking and mass spectrometry (CX-MS). Snf5 in mammalian SWI/SNF is a tumor suppressor, and in
yeast, SWI/SNF forms a submodule consisting of Snf5, Swp82 and Taf14 (a YEATS domain protein) and the
entire submodule is lost from SWI/SNF when Snf5 is deleted. When this aberrant SWI/SNF complex is fully
saturating nucleosomes, the ATPase and remodeling activities of SWI/SNF are reduced and indicates that the
Snf5 submodule has a catalytic role in SWI/SNF remodeling [23]. The Arp7 and 9 subunits bind to the Snf2
catalytic subunit through an N-terminal domain called the HSA (Helicase/SANT-Associated) domain and have
been shown to genetically interact with the Protusion I region between the two lobes of the ATPase domain
[24,25]. Arp7 and 9 in a minimal RSC complex lacking most of its accessory subunits stimulate its ATPase and
DNA translocation activities, which, in turn, enhances nucleosome remodeling [26].
In the CX-MS study of SWI/SNF, domains within the Snf2 catalytic subunit such as the SnAC (Snf2 ATP
Coupling) domain were also shown to contact the second lobe of the ATPase domain [23]. Earlier studies
found that the SnAC domain is conserved throughout all eukaryotes, is a SWI/SNF specific domain and acti-
vates the ATPase domain as well as serves as a crucial histone anchor needed to couple DNA translocation/
ATPase activity to nucleosome movement [27,28]. The recent cryo-EM structure of the yeast Snf2 subunit con-
firmed that the SnAC domain interacts with lobe 2 of the Snf2 ATPase domain consistent with the earlier
CX-MS data, even though much of the SnAC domain is not observed in this structure because of its inherent
flexibility and missing parts of SnAC in the truncated Snf2 used in these studies (Figure 1C and ref. [29]).
Another example comes from CHD1, which is one of the few remodelers in yeast that consists of only one
subunit, the catalytic subunit and no other accessory subunits. The chromodomains of CHD1 appear to
positively regulate the ATPase domain by swinging into a position juxtaposed to the ATPase domain on
nucleosomal DNA, thereby causing closure of the ATPase domain and promoting its translocation along DNA
(Figure 1B and ref. [30]). The CHD1 structure provides compelling evidence for the chromodomains positively
regulating CHD1 through altering the conformation of the ATPase domain.
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society2
Biochemical Society Transactions (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20180043
Torque and nucleosome anchors in chromatin remodeling
Next, we examine the roles of anchors within chromatin remodelers that bind to nucleosomes and work inde-
pendent of regulating either the ATPase or DNA translocation activity of ATPase domains, but are nonetheless
essential for nucleosome mobilization. This type of anchor is thought to be needed in order for the ATPase
domain to translocate on DNA without DNA slipping and releasing the torque needed next to break histone–
DNA contacts and move DNA through nucleosomes (Figure 2B). An early example of this type of anchor is
the SnAC domain in SWI/SNF complexes which required the correct conditions such that the nucleosome
anchor activity can be distinguished from the ATPase-stimulating activity of the SnAC domain. Experiments
were done using a higher ATP concentration with SWI/SNF lacking the SnAC domain such that the rate of
ATP hydrolysis with the mutant was equivalent or slightly higher than wild-type SWI/SNF. In these conditions,
SWI/SNF lacking the SnAC domain was found to remodel nucleosomes nearly 200 times slower than wild
type, even though the rate of ATP hydrolysis was slightly higher with the mutant complex [28]. A protein foot-
printing technique in which Fe-EDTA was tethered to the surface of nucleosomes showed that the SnAC
domain of yeast SWI/SNF was located proximal to the histone octamer surface. In tethered single-molecule
B
CD
A
Figure 1. Structural examples of brakes, accelerators and anchors from different chromatin remodeling families.
(A) Shown is the structure of the ISWI subunit with its AutoN (red), NegC (tan) and ATPase domain (green) in its inactive
conformation which is overlaid with the active structure of the ATPase domain of Snf2 subunit ( purple) when bound to
nucleosomes. The AutoN domain serves as a brake by both blocking the DNA-binding cleft of the ATPase domain and
distorting the orientation between the two ATPase lobe when compared with Snf2 (PDB# 5JXR; 5XOY). (B) The structure of the
tandem chromo domain (orange) and the ATPase domain (green) of Chd1 bound to nucleosomes is shown. The
chromodomain binds to nucleosomal DNA adjacent to where the ATPase is bound, thereby promoting the active ATPase
domain conformation (PDB# 5O9G). (C) A portion of the SnAC domain (red) binds to one lobe of the ATPase domain of Snf2
(green), the catalytic subunit of SWI/SNF, along with the Brace (yellow) and Post-HSA domains (blue). A large portion of the
SnAC domain is not seen in the structure and is represented as a dotted line (PDB#: 5XOY). (D) Shown is the structure of the
Arp5 (orange) and Ies6 (blue) subunits of yeast INO80 that binds directly to the H2A–H2B dimer surface and to nucleosomal
DNA at SHL −2 and −3. The unresolved regions of Arp5 are shown as dotted lines and are numbered based on their amino
acid positions. The H2A and H2B histones are highlighted, respectively, red and yellow with black spheres showing the
residues in the acidic pocket (PDB# 6FML).
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society 3
Biochemical Society Transactions (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20180043
ATP ADP
DNA translocation
Brakes and Accelerators
Nucleosome Anchors
without anchor
with anchor
slips back, releases torsional strain
torsional strain created
translocates
torsional strain created
translocates
DNA moves past barrier
sub-optimal
conformation
DNA Sensors
Nucleosome
with sensor without sensor
A
B
C
optimal
conformation
Figure 2. Modes of regulation for ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers.
(A) The basic properties of ATP hydrolysis and DNA translocation can be either up- or down-regulated to control the extent
of chromatin remodeling. We refer to those subunits or domains that affect remodeling in this way as either brakes or
accelerators. (B) Anchors that attach to the core nucleosome particle are another way in which chromatin remodeling is
regulated. The ATPase domain will have a high tendency to slip on DNA in the presence of barriers such as histone–DNA
interaction without a nucleosome anchor being present due to the torsional strain that is created. (C) Some remodelers will not
move nucleosomes to close together and have some type of sensor that detects when the minimal acceptable length of linker
DNA has been achieved. We refer to the subunits or domains involved in this process as DNA sensors.
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society4
Biochemical Society Transactions (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20180043
experiments, the SnAC mutant SWI/SNF complex was found to translocate as efficiently along DNA as
wild-type SWI/SNF, further showing the critical difference in the mutant complex is its histone-anchoring
activity [28].
The other example is from the INO80 remodeling complex, which has 15 different subunits, mobilizes and
spaces nucleosomes, and can potentially exchange H2A–H2B dimers [12,31]. Loss of the actin-related protein
(Arp) 5 and Ies6 subunits of human INO80 uncouples the ATPase activity from the nucleosome-mobilizing
activity of INO80 as shown using recombinant INO80. Omission of any one of the two subunits loses both
subunits from the complex [32]. In yeast, deletion of different regions of Arp5 causes the loss of Arp5 and Ies6
from the INO80 complex and these complexes, while the ATPase activity stimulated by the addition of nucleo-
some remained equivalent to wild-type INO80, the mutant INO80 was severely impaired for nucleosome
mobilization [33]. In these experiments, the addition of Arp5/Ies6 to the mutant INO80 complexes was able to
restore the nucleosome-mobilizing activity of INO80, confirming the role of Arp5 and Ies6 for coupling
ATPase activity to nucleosome mobilization [33]. In the recent human and Chaetomium thermophilum INO80
(ctINO80) structures, Arp5 was found to directly contact nucleosomal DNA and the histone octamer close to
the acidic pocket region, consistent with Arp5/Ies6 serving as a nucleosome anchor for INO80 with minimal
interactions detected with the ATPase domain (Figure 1D and refs [34,35]). The Arp5 and Ies6 module is prob-
ably one of the more definitive examples of the important roles nucleosome anchors have in regulating the
efficiency of nucleosome movement by the remodeler. Because of where Arp5 binds nucleosomes, Arp5 may be
capable of distinguishing between H2A and H2A.Z where one of the primary differences between these two
histones is the extended acidic patch found in H2A.Z.
DNA sensors for nucleosome spacing-type chromatin
remodelers
At the C-terminus of the ISWI catalytic subunit are located three domains called the HAND, SANT and
SLIDE domains. For the yeast ISW2 remodeling complex, the SLIDE domain was found to bind extranucleoso-
mal DNA 19 bp from the edge of nucleosomes by site-directed DNA cross-linking and peptide mapping [36].
Similarly, the SLIDE and SANT domains of ISW1a have been mapped by a different photocross-linking
approach to ∼10 and 0 bp from the edge of nucleosomes when ISW1a binds dinucleosomes [37]. The SLIDE
domain is structurally similar to the SANT and MYB DNA-binding domain, except that it has more basic resi-
dues in the appropriate positions to promote DNA binding than the SANT domain [38]. Based on the SLIDE
domain’s location on extranucleosomal DNA and ISW2 ability to move nucleosomes until the linker DNA has
reached a minimum length of >20 bp [39], the SLIDE domain appeared to be a likely candidate in the ISW2
complex for sensing linker DNA length to regulate the ISW2 chromatin remodeling activity (Figure 2C). The
DNA-binding interface of the SLIDE domain was targeted by mutating four basic residues suggested by
molecular modeling to be critical for binding DNA, which was confirmed by DNA footprinting with hydroxyl-
free radicals [40]. The mutant SLIDE ISW2 complex did, however, bind normally everywhere else on nucleo-
somes like wild-type ISW2. Mutant SLIDE ISW2 hydrolyzes ATP and remodels nucleosomes 6–9 times slower
than wild-type ISW2, and suggest that stable binding of the SLIDE domain to linker DNA is required for
efficient ISW2 remodeling [40]. Single-molecule FRET experiments showed that mutant SLIDE complexes
were more prone to move DNA bi-directionally, whereas wild-type ISW2 had a strong preference to move
DNA uni-directionally, thereby properly repositioning nucleosomes. These and other data point to the SLIDE
domain being important for promoting DNA entering into the nucleosome as mediated by ISW2 and suggest
that there are co-ordinated actions between the SLIDE and ATPase domains that are both required for efficient
nucleosome movement by ISW2.
The INO80 complex also has DNA sensor activity in that it spaces nucleosomes 30 bp apart and required a
minimum of ∼35–40 bp of extranucleosomal DNA with 70 bp being optimal for binding and mobilizing
nucleosomes [12]. In the recent cryo-EM structure, the part of INO80 binding to the extranucleosomal DNA
was not resolved due to its inherent flexibility and does not provide much structural information or insights
into the DNA sensor module of INO80 [34,35]. An alternative approach using site-directed DNA cross-linking
was used instead to map the spatial arrangement of the INO80 subunits bound to linker DNA and by peptide
mapping identified the protein domains or regions that directly bind linker DNA [41]. The Arp8 and Arp4
subunits were found to bind close to each other 37–51 bp from the edge of nucleosomes and are at the correct
location to properly sense linker DNA length for the INO80 complex. The non-conserved N-terminus of Arp8
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society 5
Biochemical Society Transactions (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20180043
and the actin fold region of Arp4 near its C-terminus were found to contact DNA. Deletion of the N-terminus
of Arp8 eliminated binding of the Arp8–Arp4 module to linker DNA without perturbing the complex integrity
of INO80 or its ability to bind nucleosomes or for nucleosomes to stimulate its ATPase activity. Chromatin
remodeling was, however, reduced and shows that deletion of the N-terminus of Arp8 causes ATPase activity
to be uncoupled from nucleosome movement [41]. Additional experiments showed that loss of the N-terminus
of Arp8 and its corresponding loss of binding to linker DNA causes an allosteric effect with the Ino80 catalytic
subunit and its ATPase domain shifting from inside nucleosomes at super helical loop (SHL)-6 to the linker
DNA region ∼30 bp away from its original position. There is also another allosteric effect in that Arp5’s inter-
action with the acidic patch of nucleosomes is reduced, thus mirroring the effect when Arp5 is not present in
the complex [32,33]. For INO80, there is evidence that the DNA sensor consisting of the Arp8–Arp4–actin
module is an allosteric switch that disengages the critical histone anchor of INO80 required for coupling
ATPase activity to nucleosome movement and causes repositioning of the DNA translocase domain that also
leads to reduced nucleosome movement.
Yeast INO80 appears to have some redundancy in how it senses linker DNA as there is another protein
module besides the Arp8–Arp4–actin module that binds to linker DNA. Nhp10, an HMG-like protein that
associates with Ies1, 3 and 5, also binds close to the same region as Arp8–Arp4–actin and remains bound to
this region in the absence of Arp8 and Arp4 binding to this region [41]. In a separate study, deletion of Nhp10
causes the loss of an entire multi-subunit module from the INO80 complex and eliminates the DNA-sensing
capability of INO80 altogether such that it mobilizes nucleosomes regardless of the length of linker DNA
present [42]. The Arp8 and Nhp10 modules appear to work in very distinct ways in that Nhp10 module nega-
tively regulates INO80 remodeling such that it can only work with nucleosomes with particular linker DNA
lengths, whereas binding of Arp8 is required for positively regulating INO80’s chromatin remodeling activity.
Perspectives
ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers are key epigenetic factors involved in development and human diseases
that have significant diversity of operation as well as compositional complexity, making it difficult at times to
study. Much of the efforts in the field have focused on understanding how the fundamental motors of these
complexes can be regulated, but there is a whole other level of regulation that we are just beginning to appreci-
ate involving the other subunits within these complexes. The recent cryo-EM structures of the human and
yeast INO80 complexes bound to nucleosomes provide important structural information and clues as to how
accessory subunits can potentially regulate chromatin remodeling as critical anchors to the nucleosome core
particle including both histones and nucleosomal DNA. Nevertheless, certain regions within the structure
could not be resolved as exemplified by the cryo-EM structure of INO80, and additional information gained by
other methods such as site-directed DNA and histone cross-linking, chemical CX-MS and other methods are
needed. As the work moves forward, more attention should be given to the regulation of these large
multi-subunit chromatin remodeling complexes not as individual subunits or small subcomplexes, but with
the intact full complex to properly understand how these complexes are regulated and sometimes mis-regulated
in various diseases. It will also be important to find the interplay and potential overlap in the ways of
altering remodeling activity with brakes/accelerators, anchors and sensors. One domain may work in multiple
ways such as the SnAC domain of SWI/SNF which enhances ATPase activity as well as functions as a
histone anchor.
Abbreviations
Arp, actin-related protein; CX-MS, cross-linking and mass spectrometry; HSA, Helicase/SANT-Associated;
SHL, super helical loop; SnAC, Snf2 ATP coupling.
Competing Interests
The Authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with the manuscript.
References
1 Ferreira, H., Flaus, A. and Owen-Hughes, T. (2007) Histone modifications influence the action of Snf2 family remodelling enzymes by different
mechanisms. J. Mol. Biol. 374, 563–579 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2007.09.059
2 Chatterjee, N., Sinha, D., Lemma-Dechassa, M., Tan, S., Shogren-Knaak, M.A. and Bartholomew, B. (2011) Histone H3 tail acetylation modulates
ATP-dependent remodeling through multiple mechanisms. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 8378–8391 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr535
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society6
Biochemical Society Transactions (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20180043
3 Chatterjee, N., North, J.A., Dechassa, M.L., Manohar, M., Prasad, R., Luger, K. et al. (2015) Histone acetylation near the nucleosome dyad axis
enhances nucleosome disassembly by RSC and SWI/SNF. Mol. Cell. Biol. 35, 4083–4092 https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00441-15
4 Hassan, A.H., Neely, K.E. and Workman, J.L. (2001) Histone acetyltransferase complexes stabilize SWI/SNF binding to promoter nucleosomes. Cell
104, 817–827 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00279-3
5 Clapier, C.R., Langst, G., Corona, D.F.V., Becker, P.B. and Nightingale, K.P. (2001) Critical role for the histone H4 N terminus in nucleosome remodeling
by ISWI. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 875–883 https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.21.3.875-883.2001
6 Clapier, C.R., Nightingale, K.P. and Becker, P.B. (2002) A critical epitope for substrate recognition by the nucleosome remodeling ATPase ISWI. Nucleic
Acids Res. 30, 649–655 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/30.3.649
7 Corona, D.F., Clapier, C.R., Becker, P.B. and Tamkun, J.W. (2002) Modulation of ISWI function by site-specific histone acetylation. EMBO Rep. 3,
242–247 https://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kvf056
8 Ocampo, J., Chereji, R.V., Eriksson, P.R. and Clark, D.J. (2016) The ISW1 and CHD1 ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers compete to set nucleosome
spacing in vivo.Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 4625–4635 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw068
9 Smolle, M., Venkatesh, S., Gogol, M.M., Li, H., Zhang, Y., Florens, L. et al. (2012) Chromatin remodelers Isw1 and Chd1 maintain chromatin structure
during transcription by preventing histone exchange. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 19, 884–892 https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2312
10 Gkikopoulos, T., Schofield, P., Singh, V., Pinskaya, M., Mellor, J., Smolle, M. et al. (2011) A role for Snf2-related nucleosome-spacing enzymes in
genome-wide nucleosome organization. Science 333, 1758–1760 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206097
11 Tirosh, I., Sigal, N. and Barkai, N. (2010) Widespread remodeling of mid-coding sequence nucleosomes by Isw1. Genome Biol. 11, R49 https://doi.org/
10.1186/gb-2010-11-5-r49
12 Udugama, M., Sabri, A. and Bartholomew, B. (2011) The INO80 ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complex is a nucleosome spacing factor. Mol.
Cell. Biol. 31, 662–673 https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01035-10
13 Krietenstein, N., Wal, M., Watanabe, S., Park, B., Peterson, C.L., Pugh, B.F. et al. (2016) Genomic nucleosome organization reconstituted with pure
proteins. Cell 167, 709–721.e12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.045
14 Willhoft, O., McCormack, E.A., Aramayo, R.J., Bythell-Douglas, R., Ocloo, L., Zhang, X. et al. (2017) Crosstalk within a functional INO80 complex dimer
regulates nucleosome sliding. eLife 6, e25782 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25782
15 Zentner, G.E., Tsukiyama, T. and Henikoff, S. (2013) ISWI and CHD chromatin remodelers bind promoters but act in gene bodies. PLoS Genet. 9,
e1003317 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003317
16 Mizuguchi, G., Shen, X., Landry, J., Wu, W.H., Sen, S. and Wu, C. (2004) ATP-driven exchange of histone H2AZ variant catalyzed by SWR1 chromatin
remodeling complex. Science 303, 343–348 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090701
17 Dang, W., Kagalwala, M.N. and Bartholomew, B. (2006) Regulation of ISW2 by concerted action of histone H4 tail and extranucleosomal DNA. Mol. Cell.
Biol. 26, 7388–7396 https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01159-06
18 Ludwigsen, J., Pfennig, S., Singh, A.K., Schindler, C., Harrer, N., Forné, I. et al. (2017) Concerted regulation of ISWI by an autoinhibitory domain and
the H4 N-terminal tail. eLife 6, e21477 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21477
19 Clapier, C.R. and Cairns, B.R. (2012) Regulation of ISWI involves inhibitory modules antagonized by nucleosomal epitopes. Nature 492, 280–284
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11625
20 Hwang, W.L., Deindl, S., Harada, B.T. and Zhuang, X. (2014) Histone H4 tail mediates allosteric regulation of nucleosome remodelling by linker DNA.
Nature 512, 213–217 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13380
21 Yan, L., Wang, L., Tian, Y., Xia, X. and Chen, Z. (2016) Structure and regulation of the chromatin remodeller ISWI. Nature 540, 466–469 https://doi.
org/10.1038/nature20590
22 Manning, B.J. and Peterson, C.L. (2013) Releasing the brakes on a chromatin-remodeling enzyme. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20,5–7https://doi.org/10.
1038/nsmb.2482
23 Sen, P., Luo, J., Hada, A., Hailu, S.G., Dechassa, M.L., Persinger, J. et al. (2017) Loss of Snf5 induces formation of an aberrant SWI/SNF complex.
Cell Rep. 18, 2135–2147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.02.017
24 Szerlong, H., Hinata, K., Viswanathan, R., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Tempst, P. and Cairns, B.R. (2008) The HSA domain binds nuclear actin-related
proteins to regulate chromatin-remodeling ATPases. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 469–476 https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1403
25 Schubert, H.L., Wittmeyer, J., Kasten, M.M., Hinata, K., Rawling, D.C., Héroux, A. et al. (2013) Structure of an actin-related subcomplex of the SWI/SNF
chromatin remodeler. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 3345–3350 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215379110
26 Clapier, C.R., Kasten, M.M., Parnell, T.J., Viswanathan, R., Szerlong, H., Sirinakis, G. et al. (2016) Regulation of DNA translocation efficiency within the
chromatin remodeler RSC/Sth1 potentiates nucleosome sliding and ejection. Mol. Cell 62, 453–461 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.03.032
27 Sen, P., Ghosh, S., Pugh, B.F. and Bartholomew, B. (2011) A new, highly conserved domain in Swi2/Snf2 is required for SWI/SNF remodeling. Nucleic
Acids Res. 39, 9155–9166 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr622
28 Sen, P., Vivas, P., Dechassa, M.L., Mooney, A.M., Poirier, M.G. and Bartholomew, B. (2013) The SnAC domain of SWI/SNF is a histone anchor required
for remodeling. Mol. Cell. Biol. 33, 360–370 https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00922-12
29 Liu, X., Li, M., Xia, X., Li, X. and Chen, Z. (2017) Mechanism of chromatin remodelling revealed by the Snf2-nucleosome structure. Nature 544,
440–445 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22036
30 Farnung, L., Vos, S.M., Wigge, C. and Cramer, P. (2017) Nucleosome-Chd1 structure and implications for chromatin remodelling. Nature 550, 539–542
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24046
31 Brahma, S., Udugama, M.I., Kim, J., Hada, A., Bhardwaj, S.K., Hailu, S.G. et al. (2017) INO80 exchanges H2A.Z for H2A by translocating on DNA
proximal to histone dimers. Nat. Commun. 8, 15616 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15616
32 Willhoft, O., Bythell-Douglas, R., McCormack, E.A. and Wigley, D.B. (2016) Synergy and antagonism in regulation of recombinant human INO80
chromatin remodeling complex. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 8179–8188 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw509
33 Yao, W., Beckwith, S.L., Zheng, T., Young, T., Dinh, V.T., Ranjan, A. et al. (2015) Assembly of the Arp5 (actin-related protein) subunit involved in distinct
INO80 chromatin remodeling activities. J. Biol. Chem. 290, 25700–25709 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M115.674887
34 Eustermann, S., Schall, K., Kostrewa, D., Lakomek, K., Strauss, M., Moldt, M. et al. (2018) Structural basis for ATP-dependent chromatin remodelling
by the INO80 complex. Nature 556, 386–390 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0029-y
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society 7
Biochemical Society Transactions (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20180043
35 Ayala, R., Willhoft, O., Aramayo, R.J., Wilkinson, M., McCormack, E.A., Ocloo, L. et al. (2018) Structure and regulation of the human
INO80-nucleosome complex. Nature 556, 391–395 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0021-6
36 Dang, W. and Bartholomew, B. (2007) Domain architecture of the catalytic subunit in the ISW2-nucleosome complex. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 8306–8317
https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01351-07
37 Yamada, K., Frouws, T.D., Angst, B., Fitzgerald, D.J., DeLuca, C., Schimmele, K. et al. (2011) Structure and mechanism of the chromatin remodelling
factor ISW1a. Nature 472, 448–453 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09947
38 Grüne, T., Brzeski, J., Eberharter, A., Clapier, C.R., Corona, D.F.V., Becker, P.B. et al. (2003) Crystal structure and functional analysis of a nucleosome
recognition module of the remodeling factor ISWI. Mol. Cell 12, 449–460 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1097-2765(03)00273-9
39 Kagalwala, M.N., Glaus, B.J., Dang, W., Zofall, M. and Bartholomew, B. (2004) Topography of the ISW2-nucleosome complex: insights into nucleosome
spacing and chromatin remodeling. EMBO J. 23, 2092–2104 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7600220
40 Hota, S.K., Bhardwaj, S.K., Deindl, S., Lin, Y.C., Zhuang, X. and Bartholomew, B. (2013) Nucleosome mobilization by ISW2 requires the concerted
action of the ATPase and SLIDE domains. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 222–229 https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2486
41 Brahma, S., Ngubo, M., Paul, S., Udugama, M. and Bartholomew, B. (2018) The Arp8 and Arp4 module acts as a DNA sensor controlling INO80
chromatin remodeling. Nat. Commun. 9, 3309 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05710-7
42 Zhou, C.Y., Johnson, S.L., Lee, L.J., Longhurst, A.D., Beckwith, S.L., Johnson, M.J. et al. (2018) The yeast INO80 complex operates as a tunable DNA
length-sensitive switch to regulate nucleosome sliding. Mol. Cell 69, 677–688.e9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2018.01.028
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society8
Biochemical Society Transactions (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20180043
