A folded conformation of MukBEF and cohesin

Abstract

Structural maintenance of chromosomes (SMC)–kleisin complexes organize chromosomal DNAs in all domains of life, with key roles in chromosome segregation, DNA repair and regulation of gene expression. They function through the entrapment and active translocation of DNA, but the underlying conformational changes are largely unclear. Using structural biology, mass spectrometry and cross-linking, we investigated the architecture of two evolutionarily distant SMC–kleisin complexes: MukBEF from Escherichia coli, and cohesin from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We show that both contain a dynamic coiled-coil discontinuity, the elbow, near the middle of their arms that permits a folded conformation. Bending at the elbow brings into proximity the hinge dimerization domain and the head–kleisin module, situated at opposite ends of the arms. Our findings favour SMC activity models that include a large conformational change in the arms, such as a relative movement between DNA contact sites during DNA loading and translocation.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Folded conformation of MukBEF and cohesin.
Fig. 2: Elbow positions revealed by cross-linking and mass spectrometry.
Fig. 3: Structure of the MukB elbow.
Fig. 4: In vivo cross-linking of Pds5 to the Smc1 hinge.
Fig. 5: Conservation of the SMC elbow.
Fig. 6: Models for conformational changes that involve the SMC elbow.

Code availability

The Xi software suite is available at https://github.com/Rappsilber-Laboratory/XiSearch. Custom code for statistical analysis is available upon request.

Data availability

Crystallographic structure factors and model coordinates have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) with accession code 6H2X. The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited at the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository88 with the dataset identifiers PXD012370 (MukBEF) and PXD012377 (cohesin). Source data for Fig. 5 are available with the paper online. Other data are available upon request.

References

  1. 1.

    Hirano, T. Condensin-based chromosome organization from bacteria to vertebrates. Cell 164, 847–857 (2016).

  2. 2.

    Niki, H., Jaffe, A., Imamura, R., Ogura, T. & Hiraga, S. The new gene mukB codes for a 177 kd protein with coiled-coil domains involved in chromosome partitioning of E. coli. EMBO J. 10, 183–193 (1991).

  3. 3.

    Britton, R. A., Lin, D. C. & Grossman, A. D. Characterization of a prokaryotic SMC protein involved in chromosome partitioning. Genes Dev. 12, 1254–1259 (1998).

  4. 4.

    Saka, Y. et al. Fission yeast cut3 and cut14, members of a ubiquitous protein family, are required for chromosome condensation and segregation in mitosis. EMBO J. 13, 4938–4952 (1994).

  5. 5.

    Michaelis, C., Ciosk, R. & Nasmyth, K. Cohesins: chromosomal proteins that prevent premature separation of sister chromatids. Cell 91, 35–45 (1997).

  6. 6.

    Guacci, V., Koshland, D. & Strunnikov, A. A direct link between sister chromatid cohesion and chromosome condensation revealed through the analysis of MCD1 in S. cerevisiae. Cell 91, 47–57 (1997).

  7. 7.

    Hirano, T. & Mitchison, T. J. A heterodimeric coiled-coil protein required for mitotic chromosome condensation in vitro. Cell 79, 449–458 (1994).

  8. 8.

    Klein, F. et al. A central role for cohesins in sister chromatid cohesion, formation of axial elements, and recombination during yeast meiosis. Cell 98, 91–103 (1999).

  9. 9.

    Haering, C. H., Löwe, J., Hochwagen, A. & Nasmyth, K. Molecular architecture of SMC proteins and the yeast cohesin complex. Mol. Cell 9, 773–788 (2002).

  10. 10.

    Bürmann, F. et al. An asymmetric SMC-kleisin bridge in prokaryotic condensin. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 371–379 (2013).

  11. 11.

    Woo, J. S. et al. Structural studies of a bacterial condensin complex reveal ATP-dependent disruption of intersubunit interactions. Cell 136, 85–96 (2009).

  12. 12.

    Zawadzka, K. et al. MukB ATPases are regulated independently by the N- and C-terminal domains of MukF kleisin. eLife 7, e31522 (2018).

  13. 13.

    Anderson, D. E., Losada, A., Erickson, H. P. & Hirano, T. Condensin and cohesin display different arm conformations with characteristic hinge angles. J. Cell Biol. 156, 419–424 (2002).

  14. 14.

    Melby, T. E., Ciampaglio, C. N., Briscoe, G. & Erickson, H. P. The symmetrical structure of structural maintenance of chromosomes (SMC) and MukB proteins: long, antiparallel coiled coils, folded at a flexible hinge. J. Cell Biol. 142, 1595–1604 (1998).

  15. 15.

    Diebold-Durand, M. L. et al. Structure of full-length SMC and rearrangements required for chromosome organization. Mol. Cell 67, 334–347.e5 (2017).

  16. 16.

    Niki, H. et al. E.coli MukB protein involved in chromosome partition forms a homodimer with a rod-and-hinge structure having DNA binding and ATP/GTP binding activities. EMBO J. 11, 5101–5109 (1992).

  17. 17.

    Palecek, J. J. & Gruber, S. Kite proteins: a superfamily of SMC/kleisin partners conserved across bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. Structure 23, 2183–2190 (2015).

  18. 18.

    Wells, J. N., Gligoris, T. G., Nasmyth, K. A. & Marsh, J. A. Evolution of condensin and cohesin complexes driven by replacement of Kite by Hawk proteins. Curr. Biol. 27, R17–r18 (2017).

  19. 19.

    Gligoris, T. G. et al. Closing the cohesin ring: structure and function of its Smc3-kleisin interface. Science 346, 963–967 (2014).

  20. 20.

    Cuylen, S., Metz, J. & Haering, C. H. Condensin structures chromosomal DNA through topological links. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 894–901 (2011).

  21. 21.

    Wilhelm, L. SMC condensin entraps chromosomal DNA by an ATP hydrolysis dependent loading mechanism in Bacillus subtilis. eLife 4, e06659 (2015).

  22. 22.

    Gruber, S. et al. Evidence that loading of cohesin onto chromosomes involves opening of its SMC hinge. Cell 127, 523–537 (2006).

  23. 23.

    Murayama, Y. & Uhlmann, F. DNA entry into and exit out of the cohesin ring by an interlocking gate mechanism. Cell 163, 1628–1640 (2015).

  24. 24.

    Bürmann, F. et al. Tuned SMC arms drive chromosomal loading of prokaryotic condensin. Mol. Cell 65, 861–872.e9 (2017).

  25. 25.

    Minnen, A. et al. Control of Smc coiled coil architecture by the ATPase heads facilitates targeting to chromosomal ParB/parS and release onto flanking DNA. Cell Rep 14, 2003–2016 (2016).

  26. 26.

    Hu, B. et al. ATP hydrolysis is required for relocating cohesin from sites occupied by its Scc2/4 loading complex. Curr. Biol. 21, 12–24 (2011).

  27. 27.

    Badrinarayanan, A., Reyes-Lamothe, R., Uphoff, S., Leake, M. C. & Sherratt, D. J. In vivo architecture and action of bacterial structural maintenance of chromosome proteins. Science 338, 528–531 (2012).

  28. 28.

    Wang, X. et al. In vivo evidence for ATPase-dependent DNA translocation by the Bacillus subtilis SMC condensin complex. Mol. Cell 71, 841–847 (2018).

  29. 29.

    Wang, X., Brandao, H. B., Le, T. B., Laub, M. T. & Rudner, D. Z. Bacillus subtilis SMC complexes juxtapose chromosome arms as they travel from origin to terminus. Science 355, 524–527 (2017).

  30. 30.

    Ganji, M. et al. Real-time imaging of DNA loop extrusion by condensin. Science 360, 102–105 (2018).

  31. 31.

    Terakawa, T. et al. The condensin complex is a mechanochemical motor that translocates along DNA. Science 358, 672–676 (2017).

  32. 32.

    Nasmyth, K. Disseminating the genome: joining, resolving, and separating sister chromatids during mitosis and meiosis. Annu. Rev. Genet. 35, 673–745 (2001).

  33. 33.

    Alipour, E. & Marko, J. F. Self-organization of domain structures by DNA-loop-extruding enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 11202–11212 (2012).

  34. 34.

    Marsden, M. P. & Laemmli, U. K. Metaphase chromosome structure: evidence for a radial loop model. Cell 17, 849–858 (1979).

  35. 35.

    Yamazoe, M. et al. Complex formation of MukB, MukE and MukF proteins involved in chromosome partitioning in Escherichia coli. EMBO J. 18, 5873–5884 (1999).

  36. 36.

    Lioy, V. S. et al. Multiscale structuring of the E. coli chromosome by nucleoid-associated and condensin proteins. Cell 172, 771–783.e18 (2018).

  37. 37.

    Petrushenko, Z. M., Lai, C. H. & Rybenkov, V. V. Antagonistic interactions of kleisins and DNA with bacterial Condensin MukB. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 34208–34217 (2006).

  38. 38.

    Hons, M. T. et al. Topology and structure of an engineered human cohesin complex bound to Pds5B. Nat. Commun. 7, 12523 (2016).

  39. 39.

    Yoshimura, S. H. et al. Condensin architecture and interaction with DNA: regulatory non-SMC subunits bind to the head of SMC heterodimer. Curr. Biol. 12, 508–513 (2002).

  40. 40.

    Li, Y., Schoeffler, A. J., Berger, J. M. & Oakley, M. G. The crystal structure of the hinge domain of the Escherichia coli structural maintenance of chromosomes protein MukB. J. Mol. Biol. 395, 11–19 (2010).

  41. 41.

    Weitzel, C. S., Waldman, V. M., Graham, T. A. & Oakley, M. G. A repeated coiled-coil interruption in the Escherichia coli condensin MukB. J. Mol. Biol. 414, 578–595 (2011).

  42. 42.

    Haering, C. H. et al. Structure and stability of cohesin’s Smc1-kleisin interaction. Mol. Cell 15, 951–964 (2004).

  43. 43.

    Chao, W. C. et al. Structure of the cohesin loader Scc2. Nat. Commun. 8, 13952 (2017).

  44. 44.

    Huis in ‘t Veld, P. J. et al. Characterization of a DNA exit gate in the human cohesin ring. Science 346, 968–972 (2014).

  45. 45.

    Chan, K. L. et al. Pds5 promotes and protects cohesin acetylation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 13020–13025 (2013).

  46. 46.

    Mc Intyre, J. et al. In vivo analysis of cohesin architecture using FRET in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. EMBO J. 26, 3783–3793 (2007).

  47. 47.

    Waldman, V. M., Stanage, T. H., Mims, A., Norden, I. S. & Oakley, M. G. Structural mapping of the coiled-coil domain of a bacterial condensin and comparative analyses across all domains of life suggest conserved features of SMC proteins. Proteins 83, 1027–1045 (2015).

  48. 48.

    Eeftens, J. M. et al. Condensin Smc2-Smc4 dimers are flexible and dynamic. Cell Rep. 14, 1813–1818 (2016).

  49. 49.

    Soh, Y. M. et al. Molecular basis for SMC rod formation and its dissolution upon DNA binding. Mol. Cell 57, 290–303 (2015).

  50. 50.

    Srinivasan, N. et al. The cohesin ring uses its hinge to organize DNA using non-topological as well as topological mechanisms.Cell 173, 1508–1519.e18 (2018).

  51. 51.

    Xu, X. et al. Suppressor mutation analysis combined with 3D modeling explains cohesin’s capacity to hold and release DNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E4833–E4842 (2018).

  52. 52.

    Löwe, J., Cordell, S. C. & van den Ent, F. Crystal structure of the SMC head domain: an ABC ATPase with 900 residues antiparallel coiled-coil inserted. J. Mol. Biol. 306, 25–35 (2001).

  53. 53.

    Liu, Y. et al. ATP-dependent DNA binding, unwinding, and resection by the Mre11/Rad50 complex. EMBO J. 35, 743–758 (2016).

  54. 54.

    Lammens, A., Schele, A. & Hopfner, K. P. Structural biochemistry of ATP-driven dimerization and DNA-stimulated activation of SMC ATPases. Curr. Biol. 14, 1778–1782 (2004).

  55. 55.

    Chiu, A., Revenkova, E. & Jessberger, R. DNA interaction and dimerization of eukaryotic SMC hinge domains. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 26233–26242 (2004).

  56. 56.

    Griese, J. J., Witte, G. & Hopfner, K. P. Structure and DNA binding activity of the mouse condensin hinge domain highlight common and diverse features of SMC proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, 3454–3465 (2010).

  57. 57.

    Alt, A. et al. Specialized interfaces of Smc5/6 control hinge stability and DNA association. Nat. Commun. 8, 14011 (2017).

  58. 58.

    Nolivos, S. et al. MatP regulates the coordinated action of topoisomerase IV and MukBEF in chromosome segregation. Nat. Commun. 7, 10466 (2016).

  59. 59.

    Vos, S. M., Stewart, N. K., Oakley, M. G. & Berger, J. M. Structural basis for the MukB-topoisomerase IV interaction and its functional implications in vivo. EMBO J. 32, 2950–2962 (2013).

  60. 60.

    Marko, J. F., De Los Rios, P., Barducci, A. & Gruber, S. DNA-segment-capture model for loop extrusion by structural maintenance of chromosome (SMC) protein complexes. bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/325373v2 (2018).

  61. 61.

    Engler, C., Kandzia, R. & Marillonnet, S. A one pot, one step, precision cloning method with high throughput capability. PLoS ONE 3, e3647 (2008).

  62. 62.

    Studier, F. W. Protein production by auto-induction in high density shaking cultures. Protein Expr. Purif. 41, 207–234 (2005).

  63. 63.

    Petela, N. J. et al. Scc2 is a potent activator of cohesin’s ATPase that promotes loading by binding Scc1 without Pds5. Mol. Cell 70, 1134–1148.e7 (2018).

  64. 64.

    Zheng, S. Q. et al. MotionCor2: anisotropic correction of beam-induced motion for improved cryo-electron microscopy. Nat. Methods 14, 331–332 (2017).

  65. 65.

    Rohou, A. & Grigorieff, N. CTFFIND4: fast and accurate defocus estimation from electron micrographs. J. Struct. Biol. 192, 216–221 (2015).

  66. 66.

    Fernandez-Leiro, R. & Scheres, S. H. W. A pipeline approach to single-particle processing in RELION. Acta Crystallogr. D Struct. Biol. 73, 496–502 (2017).

  67. 67.

    Rappsilber, J., Ishihama, Y. & Mann, M. Stop and go extraction tips for matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization, nanoelectrospray, and LC/MS sample pretreatment in proteomics. Anal. Chem. 75, 663–670 (2003).

  68. 68.

    Chen, Z. A. et al. Architecture of the RNA polymerase II-TFIIF complex revealed by cross-linking and mass spectrometry. EMBO J. 29, 717–726 (2010).

  69. 69.

    Kolbowski, L., Mendes, M. L. & Rappsilber, J. Optimizing the parameters governing the fragmentation of cross-linked peptides in a tribrid mass spectrometer. Anal. Chem. 89, 5311–5318 (2017).

  70. 70.

    Chambers, M. C. et al. A cross-platform toolkit for mass spectrometry and proteomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 918–920 (2012).

  71. 71.

    Lenz, S., Giese, S. H., Fischer, L. & Rappsilber, J. In-search selection of monoisotopic peaks improves the identification of cross-linked peptides. preprint at bioRxiv (2018).

  72. 72.

    Giese, S. H., Fischer, L. & Rappsilber, J. A study into the collision-induced dissociation (CID) behavior of cross-linked peptides. Mol. Cell Proteomics 15, 1094–1104 (2016).

  73. 73.

    Fischer, L. & Rappsilber, J. Quirks of error estimation in cross-linking/mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 89, 3829–3833 (2017).

  74. 74.

    Stock, D., Perisic, O. & Lowe, J. Robotic nanolitre protein crystallisation at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 88, 311–327 (2005).

  75. 75.

    Evans, P. R. & Murshudov, G. N. How good are my data and what is the resolution? Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 69, 1204–1214 (2013).

  76. 76.

    Kabsch, W. XDS. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 66, 125–132 (2010).

  77. 77.

    Winn, M. D. et al. Overview of the CCP4 suite and current developments. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 67, 235–242 (2011).

  78. 78.

    Bunkoczi, G. et al. Phaser.MRage: automated molecular replacement. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 69, 2276–2286 (2013).

  79. 79.

    Cowtan, K. The Buccaneer software for automated model building. 1. Tracing protein chains. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 62, 1002–1011 (2006).

  80. 80.

    Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 60, 2126–2132 (2004).

  81. 81.

    Murshudov, G. N. et al. REFMAC5 for the refinement of macromolecular crystal structures. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 67, 355–367 (2011).

  82. 82.

    Afonine, P. V. et al. Towards automated crystallographic structure refinement with phenix.refine. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 68, 352–367 (2012).

  83. 83.

    Datta, S., Costantino, N. & Court, D. L. A set of recombineering plasmids for gram-negative bacteria. Gene 379, 109–115 (2006).

  84. 84.

    Miyazaki, K. Molecular engineering of a PheS counterselection marker for improved operating efficiency in Escherichia coli. Biotechniques 58, 86–88 (2018).

  85. 85.

    Delorenzi, M. & Speed, T. An HMM model for coiled-coil domains and a comparison with PSSM-based predictions. Bioinformatics 18, 617–625 (2002).

  86. 86.

    Liu, Y., Schmidt, B. & Maskell, D. L. MSAProbs: multiple sequence alignment based on pair hidden Markov models and partition function posterior probabilities. Bioinformatics 26, 1958–1964 (2010).

  87. 87.

    Capra, J. A. & Singh, M. Predicting functionally important residues from sequence conservation. Bioinformatics 23, 1875–1882 (2007).

  88. 88.

    Vizcaino, J. A. et al. 2016 update of the PRIDE database and its related tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 11033 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to D. Ciziene for help with crystallography and M. Yu for help with X-ray data collection. We thank X. Deng, F. Coscia and G. Cannone for help with electron microscopy. We thank J. Fredens for advice on recombineering and for the gift of the pheS*-hygR cassette. We thank G. Fisher and D. Sherratt for help with initial complementation experiments and gift of the neoR marker. We thank the staff of beamline I04-1 at Diamond Light Source for assistance during crystallographic data collection. We thank S. Gruber and A. Durand for comments on the manuscript. F.B. is funded by an EMBO Long-Term Fellowship (EMBO ALTF 1151-2017). This work was funded by the Medical Research Council (U105184326 to J.L.), the Wellcome Trust (202754/Z/16/Z to J.L. and 202062/Z/16/Z to B.H.), the DFG (25065445 to J.R.), and the Wellcome Trust through a Senior Research Fellowship to J.R. (103139). The Wellcome Centre for Cell Biology is supported by core funding from the Wellcome Trust (203149).

Author information

F.B. and B.-G.L. purified proteins. F.B. and B.-G.L. performed electron microscopy experiments. L.S. and F.J.O. performed mass spectrometry experiments and identified cross-links. F.B. performed CLMS data analysis and bioinformatics. F.B. performed X-ray crystallography experiments. F.B. and J.L. analyzed X-ray diffraction data. F.B. constructed E. coli strains. T.T. constructed yeast strains and performed in vivo cross-linking experiments. S.Y. conceived the paper model. F.B. prepared the manuscript with input from all authors. J.R., B.H., K.N. and J.L. supervised the work.

Correspondence to Jan Löwe.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 EM analysis of MukBEF.

a, Negative stain 2D class averages for the folded conformation of native E. coli MukBEF using a circular mask of 640 Å. b, SDS-PAGE analysis of purified Desulfovermiculus halophilus MukBEF. The gel was stained with Coomassie. c, Cartoon of intermediate particle shapes of D. halophilus MukBEF indicating the presence of a coiled-coil elbow in different conformations. d, Cryo-EM imaging of D. halophilus MukBEF in unsupported vitreous ice. Contrast was enhanced by use of a Volta phase plate and high total electron dose. Typical fields of view are shown on the left, examples of single particle images are shown on the right. We estimate that approximately 35 % of particles may adopt a fully folded conformation under the conditions used. Low particle abundance and sample heterogeneity prevented further structural analysis.

Supplementary Figure 2 Cross-linking and mass spectrometry of MukBEF and cohesin.

a, SEC profiles of native co-expressed MukBEF (blue), BS3 treated co-expressed MukBEF (orange), singlet MukBEF (MukBEFS) reconstituted in buffer containing 40 mM NaCl, 2 mM MgCl2 (red) and doublet MukBEF (MukBEFD) reconstituted in buffer containing 200 mM NaCl (green). Reconstitution was similar to protocols established previously (J. Biol. Chem. 281, 34208–34217, 2006). b, SDS-PAGE analysis of a purified cohesin complex containing Smc1, Smc3, Scc1 and Scc3. The gel was stained with Coomassie. c, SEC profiles of the cohesin complex containing Smc1, Smc3, Scc1 and Scc3 before and after treatment with BS3 (see Fig. 1h). d, Inter-subunit cross-links of a cohesin complex containing Smc1, Smc3, Scc1, Scc3 and Scc2. As in Fig. 2a. e, Kernel density estimates for the position of cross-link sites mapped onto the partial structure of the H. ducreyi MukBEF head module (PDB ID 3EUH) and the cohesin Smc1–Scc1 cWHD interface (PDB ID 1W1W). f, Kernel density estimates for long-distance cross-links at the MukB hinge. Probability density for MukB cross-links to MukB sites located at least 500 aa away (left) or to MukEF (middle). The cartoon (right) illustrates an explanation for the observed cross-linking pattern. g, Cross-link midpoint analysis for MukB performed as in Fig. 2c but using random resampling without replacement before data processing. h, Cross-link midpoint analysis for various cohesin datasets (as in Fig. 2). Peak density for human cohesin corresponds to residues 375 and 813 (Smc1) and 379 and 811 (Smc3).

Supplementary Figure 3 Conservation analysis and mutagenesis of the MukB elbow.

a, Sequence alignment of the N-terminal (left) and C-terminal (right) parts of the MukB elbow. Residues chosen for mutagenesis are highlighted by triangles. Eco, Escherichia coli; Mmo, Morganella morganii; Tmo, Thioflavicoccus mobilis; Emo, Endozoicomonas montiporae; Tau, Tolumonas auensis; Osp, Oceanimonas sp. GK1; Btr, Bibersteinia trehalosi; Hdu, Haemophilus ducreyi. b, Sequence conservation (Jensen-Shannon divergence) was mapped onto the structure (high conservation is purple, low conservation is cyan). c, Growth of strains containing point mutations at the elbow in the endogenous mukB gene. d, Construction of a functional mukB-HaloTag allele. e, Protein levels of elbow mutants fused to a HaloTag. Extracts were labelled with a HaloTag-TMR substrate and were analyzed by in-gel fluorescence (top) and Coomassie staining (bottom) after SDS-PAGE. WT, wild-type.

Supplementary Figure 4 BPA-dependent expression of Smc1(K620BPA).

Strains were grown either in the absence or presence of 1 mM BPA, and extracts were analyzed by Western blotting.

Supplementary Figure 5 Locations of coiled-coil discontinuities in bacterial and archaeal Smc proteins.

a, Aggregate coiled-coil probability profile (same as in Fig. 5) and single-sequence profiles for B. subtilis Smc (bacterial) and Pyrococcus yayanosii Smc (archaeal). Positions of coiled-coil discontinuities experimentally determined by X-ray crystallography (Mol Cell 67, 334-347.e5, 2017) or disulfide cross-linking (Proteins 83, 1027–1045, 2015) are highlighted in red. b, The elbow region of P. yayanosii Smc. The predicted coiled-coil probability from aggregate analysis (see a and Fig. 5) is mapped onto the crystal structure of a central arm fragment (PDB ID 5XG2). Positions of the predicted and crystallographically determined discontinuities are shown.

Supplementary Figure 6 Bending of SMC dimers.

a, An SMC dimer with C2 symmetry. Monomers and their body-frame coordinate systems are shown in black or blue. The symmetry axis of the dimer is shown in purple. b, Symmetry breaking upon elbow bending. Option 1: monomers bend into opposite directions; Option 2: monomers twist and bend into the same direction. Orientations of the relevant body-frame coordinate axes are shown at the bottom.

Supplementary Figure 7 Inchworm models for DNA and translocation and loop extrusion.

a, DNA translocation model requiring a regulated grapple DNA binding site and a sliding anchor DNA binding site. DNA binding may or may not involve a DNA entrapping ring that could be used to enhance processivity. b, Loop extrusion using a second anchor site. DNA binding may or may not involve a DNA entrapping ring that could be used to enhance processivity.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Figures, Supplementary Table and Supplementary Dataset

Supplementary Figures 1–7, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Dataset 1

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Dataset 2

Source data

Source Data, Figure 5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading