Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

The Tetrahymena telomerase p75–p45–p19 subcomplex is a unique CST complex

Nature Structural & Molecular Biology volume 22, pages 1023–1026 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Tetrahymena telomerase holoenzyme subunits p75, p45 and p19 form a subcomplex (7–4–1) peripheral to the catalytic core. We report structures of p45 and p19 and reveal them as the Stn1 and Ten1 subunits of the CST complex, which stimulates telomerase complementary-strand synthesis. 7–4–1 binds telomeric single-stranded DNA, and mutant p19 overexpression causes telomere 3′-overhang elongation. We propose that telomerase-tethered Tetrahymena CST coordinates telomere G-strand and C-strand synthesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Structural and biochemical analyses of the Tetrahymena 7–4–1 complex.
Figure 2: Disruption of the p45N-p19 interaction affects holoenzyme assembly and telomere synthesis.

Similar content being viewed by others

Accession codes

Primary accessions

Protein Data Bank

References

  1. Witkin, K.L. & Collins, K. Genes Dev. 18, 1107–1118 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Witkin, K.L., Prathapam, R. & Collins, K. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 2074–2083 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Min, B. & Collins, K. Mol. Cell 36, 609–619 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Zeng, Z. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20357–20361 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Upton, H.E., Hong, K. & Collins, K. Mol. Cell. Biol. 34, 4200–4212 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jiang, J. et al. Nature 496, 187–192 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hong, K. et al. Mol. Cell. Biol. 33, 3962–3971 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sun, J. et al. Genes Dev. 23, 2900–2914 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bryan, C., Rice, C., Harkisheimer, M., Schultz, D.C. & Skordalakes, E. PLoS ONE 8, e66756 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gelinas, A.D. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19298–19303 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stewart, J.A., Chaiken, M.F., Wang, F. & Price, C.M. Mutat. Res. 730, 12–19 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen, L.Y. & Lingner, J. Nucleus 4, 277–282 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sun, J. et al. Cell Res. 21, 258–274 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mer, G. et al. Cell 103, 449–456 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacob, N.K., Skopp, R. & Price, C.M. EMBO J. 20, 4299–4308 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jacob, N.K., Kirk, K.E. & Price, C.M. Mol. Cell 11, 1021–1032 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Linger, B.R., Morin, G.B. & Price, C.M. Mol. Biol. Cell 22, 4161–4170 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jacob, N.K., Lescasse, R., Linger, B.R. & Price, C.M. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 1592–1601 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen, L.Y., Redon, S. & Lingner, J. Nature 488, 540–544 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ray, S., Karamysheva, Z., Wang, L., Shippen, D.E. & Price, C.M. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 5859–5868 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Otwinowski, Z. & Minor, W. Methods Enzymol. 276, 307–326 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Adams, P.D. et al. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 66, 213–221 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W.G. & Cowtan, K. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 66, 486–501 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jerabek-Willemsen, M., Wienken, C.J., Braun, D., Baaske, P. & Duhr, S. Assay Drug Dev. Technol. 9, 342–353 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Moretti, P., Freeman, K., Coodly, L. & Shore, D. Genes Dev. 8, 2257–2269 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Shang, Y. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 3734–3739 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kimura, M. et al. Nat. Protoc. 5, 1596–1607 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the National Center for Protein Science Shanghai (Protein Expression and Purification system) for instrument support and technical assistance. We thank L. Wu, D. Yao, W. Qin and R. Zhang at Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility for help with data collection and processing. This work was supported by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2013CB910402 to M.L.), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31330040 to M.L. and 31270787 to Z.Z.), the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB08010201 to M.L.), the US National Science Foundation (Graduate Research Fellowship under grant DGE-1106400 to H.U.) and the US National Institutes of Health (GM54198 to K.C.). Use of the Advanced Photon Source was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under contract no. DE-AC02-06CH11357.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Bingbing Wan and Ting Tang: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Center for Protein Science Shanghai, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China

    Bingbing Wan, Ting Tang, Jin Shuai, Song Li, Juan Chen, Jian Wu & Ming Lei

  2. Shanghai Science Research Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China

    Bingbing Wan, Ting Tang, Jin Shuai, Song Li, Juan Chen, Jian Wu & Ming Lei

  3. School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China

    Ting Tang

  4. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA

    Heather Upton & Kathleen Collins

  5. College of Life Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China

    Yuanzhe Zhou & Zhixiong Zeng

  6. Northwestern University Center for Synchrotron Research, Life Sciences Collaborative Access Team, Argonne, Illinois, USA

    Joseph S Brunzelle

Authors
  1. Bingbing Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ting Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heather Upton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jin Shuai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuanzhe Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Song Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Juan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Joseph S Brunzelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Zhixiong Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kathleen Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jian Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ming Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.W. and T.T. were responsible for the structural determination and biochemical experiments; H.U. for Tetrahymena telomerase activity assay and telomere-length quantification; J.S. for p45C crystallization; Y.Z., S.L., Z.Z. and J.C. for some of the protein purification; and J.S.B. for data collection and processing. K.C., J.W. and M.L. contributed to overall design, interpretation of the studies and manuscript preparation.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jian Wu or Ming Lei.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Superposition of p19 on the structures of human STN1, S. pombe Stn1 and S. cerevisiae Ten1.

(a) p19 vs. human STN1; (b) p19 vs. S. pombe Stn1; (c) p19 vs. S. cerevisiae Ten1. p19 is colored in cyan; HsSTN1, SpStn1, and ScTen1 are in light green, purple, and dark yellow, respectively. The rmsd values and the numbers of residues used for superposition are listed.

Supplementary Figure 2 Interaction of p19 and p45.

(a) Effects of p19 and p45 truncations on the p45-p19 interaction in yeast two-hybrid assays. Interaction between LexA-p19 and GAD-p45 was determined by measuring the β-galactosidase activity produced by the reporter gene. Data are averages of three independent β-galactosidase measurements. (b) and (c) Superposition of the p45N-p19 complex on the structures of human STN1N-TEN1 complex (b), and Candida tropicalis Stn1N-Ten1 complex (c). p45N and p19 are colored in yellow and cyan, respectively; HsSTN1N, HsTEN1, CtStn1N, and CtTen1 are shown in light purple, light orange, dark blue, and dark magenta, respectively. The rmsd values and the numbers of residues used for superposition are listed on the right.

Supplementary Figure 3 Superposition of p45C WH1 and WH2 motifs on the structures of S. cerevisiae and human STN1 WH motifs.

(a) p45C-WH1 vs. ScStn1C-WH1; (b) p45C-WH2 vs. ScStn1C-WH2; (c) p45C-WH1 vs. HsStn1C-WH1; (d) p45C-WH2 vs. HsStn1C-WH2. The rmsd values and the numbers of residues used for superposition are listed.

Supplementary Figure 4 Recombinant p75, p45 and p19 form a stable ternary complex in vitro.

(a) Gel filtration chromatography profile (Hiload Superdex 200) of the complex of full-length p75, p45, and p19 proteins coexpressed in Sf9 cells. (b) SDS-PAGE of p75, p45, and p19 proteins in the peak fractions of the gel filtration profile. Protein markers are indicated on the left. Elution volumes of the protein samples loaded in every lane in the gel are indicated on the top. (c) Effects of p75 and p45 truncations on the p75-p45 interaction in yeast two-hybrid assays. Interaction between LexA-p75 and GAD-p45 was determined by measuring the β-galactosidase activity produced by the reporter gene. Data are averages of three independent β-galactosidase measurements.

Supplementary Figure 5 Microscale thermophoresis measurements of the interactions between the 7–4–1 complex and wild-type and mutant telomeric ssDNAs.

A typical MST equilibrium experiment for quantification of an interaction is set up as a titration experiment. The concentration of a fluorescently labeled molecule is kept constant, whereas the concentration of an unlabeled binding partner is varied. This means that the target concentration is typically varied starting at a concentration of at least about 10 times above the expected dissociation constant down to sub-stoichiometric concentration with respect to the labeled molecule. The MST signal will detect the binding by a quantification of the change in the normalized fluorescence (i.e., the amplitude of the MST signal). By denoting x the fraction of labeled molecules bound to their targets, the changing fluorescence signal depending on the concentration of target is given by:

Fnorm = (1-x) Fnorm(unbound) + x Fnorm(bound)

Here, Fnorm (unbound) is the normalized fluorescence of unbound labeled molecules, and Fnorm (bound) is the normalized fluorescence of complexes (i.e., of labeled molecules bound to their targets in saturation). The unbound state acts as a reference state. All values are multiplied by a factor of 1,000, yielding a relative fluorescence change in per thousand [1/1000]. In our measurements, the 7-4-1 complex was titrated against 20 nM of the fluorescently labeled wild-type (a-c) or mutant (d-h) telomeric ssDNA. The calculated dissociation constant values of these DNAs to 7-4-1 are listed in each panel.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–5 and Supplementary Tables 1–3 (PDF 3916 kb)

Supplementary Data Set 1

Uncropped blots for Figure 2 (PDF 1487 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wan, B., Tang, T., Upton, H. et al. The Tetrahymena telomerase p75–p45–p19 subcomplex is a unique CST complex. Nat Struct Mol Biol 22, 1023–1026 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3126

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3126

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing