| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |


* Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany;
Department of PhysicsTheoretical Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom;
NORDITANordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, Copenhagen, Denmark; and
Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA
Correspondence: Address reprint requests to Ralf Metzler, E-mail: metz{at}nordita.dk.
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
in Escherichia coli follows either the lysogenic or the lytic pathway (Ptashne, 1992
-switch is the
-repressor which activates the expression of a gene that encodes the production of the
-repressor itself.
-repressor can bind to the three operator sites OR which overlap the two promoter sites of the switch.
-repressor binds cooperatively as a dimer, and typically under stable lysogenic conditions two such dimers on OR form a tetramer, the next higher order of cooperativity, which is the main factor for the stability of the
-switch against noise (Aurell and Sneppen, 2002
-repressor can also bind to the very similar operator OL, which is located roughly 2300 bp away and not part of the
-switch. It has been found that the two
-repressor tetramers at OL and OR synergistically form an octamer through DNA looping. This higher-ordered oligomerization enhances the performance of the switch considerably (Amouyal et al., 1998DNA looping often involves large loop sizes of several thousand bp. Therefore, the formation of these loops causes a non-negligible entropy loss which has to be overcome by the binding energy released at the bond formation on loop closure. In the present study, we quantify this entropy loss for such long DNA loops, taking into account self-avoiding effects due to both the monomer-monomer interaction within the loop and the additional effects due to the higher order contact points (vertices) at the loop closure site. The resulting numbers for typical systems suggest that the entropy loss is a relevant factor in the formation of DNA loops in comparison to the thermal energy and typical bond energies found in DNA nucleotides and other biopolymers, and it gives a lower bound for the bond-forming energy required to stabilize the loop.
Entropy loss due to loop formation was studied for the case of disconnected loops by Schellmann (1955)
, Flory (1956)
, and Semlyen (1997)
. In their seminal article, Poland and Scheraga (1965)
, and Wang and Uhlenbeck (1955)
, considered coupled Gaussian loops. To our knowledge the full effect of self-avoidance in the DNA looping network has not been considered before. Hereby, the contributions of nontrivial vertices turns out to be a relevant factor, and for multiple looping with a common locus actually become the dominating contribution. The analytical results presented here are derived from a scaling approach for general polymer networks and provide the advantage that, on their basis, estimates for the entropy loss in a given DNA system can be computed in a straightforward manner. It should also be noted that the additional vertex effects studied herein may be crucial in the analytical treatment of the DNA looping dynamics, as the higher-order self-interaction at such vertices poses an additional barrier in the loop closure process (Lee et al., 1976
; Merlitz et al., 1998
). Our results for long DNA with large loops complement the investigations of the bending and twisting energies in small DNA plasmids (Coleman et al., 2000
; Tobias et al., 2000
). In the case of intermediate-sized DNA segments, both approaches may be combined.
In what follows, we calculate the scaling results for the entropy loss on looping for the three different cases: 1), looping in a circular DNA; 2), looping in a linear DNA; and 3), multiple looping in a circular DNA. In the Appendix, the general expressions for calculating the system entropy of an arbitrary polymer network are compiled so that the entropy loss for different configurations can be calculated according to the general procedure developed below.
| LOOPING IN A CIRCULAR DNA CHAIN |
|---|
|
|
|---|
p of the double-stranded DNA chain. (It can be assumed that this criterion is fulfilled if the segment contains more than ten persistence lengths.) In this long chain limit, we can neglect energetic effects due to bending or twisting, such that we treat the DNA as a flexible self-avoiding polymer. Therefore, we can employ results for the configuration number of a general polymer network, which we briefly review in the Appendix.
Before looping, the free energy of the circular DNA of total length L is given by
![]() | (1) |
circ is determined by the number of configurations (see De Gennes, 1979
![]() | (2) |
p of the polymer (
500 Å for double-stranded DNA corresponding to 100 bp; see Marko and Siggia, 1996
(Guida and Zinn-Justin, 1998
![]() | (3) |
and L -
by creation of a vertex at which four legs of the chain are bound together. For a self-avoiding chain, the number of configurations of the resulting figure-eight shape (Metzler et al., 2002a
![]() | (4) |
8 is a universal scaling function, and
is a universal exponent associated with the vertex with four outgoing legs. Note that in the Gaussian chain limit, the exponents
N vanish; as we are going to show, the inclusion of the additional effects due to the higher order vertex formation reflected by nonzero values for
N are non-negligible. Given the entropy S8 = kB ln
8 of the figure-eight configuration, the entropy loss suffered from creating this configuration out of the original circular DNA amounts to |S8 - Scirc|. To proceed, we now evaluate the scaling function
8(x) in some special cases, and calculate typical numbers for the required entropy loss compensation. Two limiting cases can be distinguished.
Limiting case 1
If one of the loop sizes is much smaller than the other (
<< L -
, say), the big loop of size L -
will essentially behave like a free circular chain so that its contribution to
8 will scale like a regular ring polymer, i.e., like (L -
)-3
. Consequently, we find the behavior
for x << 1, where a is a universal amplitude, and therefore (Hanke and Metzler, 2002
; Metzler et al., 2002a
,b
),
![]() | (5) |
![]() | (6) |
Hbond is the binding enthalpy at the loop closure site. The formation of the looping bond has to release a higher enthalpy than what is lost in entropy, i.e.,
Hbond < T(S8 - Scirc). Collecting the different expressions, we thus find the condition
![]() | (7) |
is small compared with the other contributions in Eqs. 7 and 9; for the cases discussed below, we give the corresponding numbers in Table 1), whereas the remaining contributions are universal (apart from the fact that L is measured in units of the nonuniversal monomer length).
|
-repressor loop in E. coli. With the size of the entire DNA of
3.5 x 103 kbp and the looping branch of
2.3 kbp, the two loops correspond to 3.5 x 104 and 23 monomers, respectively (each monomer corresponds to a persistence length
p of 100 bp; see above). Neglecting the nonuniversal first term in brackets in Eq. 7, these numbers produce
![]() | (8) |
4 term in Eq. 7 amounts to
20% of the required enthalpy. In the Conclusion section, we compare the results obtained in the text with the corresponding ones in the Gaussian chain limit, demonstrating the significant increase of |
Hbond| if self-avoidance is taken into consideration (see Table 1).
Limiting case 2
If the two created loops are of comparable size, i.e., x =
/ (L -
)
1, the corresponding value of the scaling function
8(x) is a finite number. For example, for
= L/2 one finds
![]() | (9) |
![]() | (10) |
Hbond < -12.5 kcal/mol. | LOOPING IN A LINEAR DNA CHAIN |
|---|
|
|
|---|
![]() | (11) |
is a universal exponent (Caracciolo et al., 1998
![]() | (12) |
is the size of the loop, and
1 and
2 are the sizes of the two loose end-segments, respectively.
We distinguish four different cases belonging to two groups: the configuration with
1
2, and the telomere configuration for which
1 = 0 (or
2 = 0).
![]() | (13) |
A(x) =
A(x,1). If furthermore
<< L -
, an analogous reasoning as in the limiting case 1 of the previous section, leads to
![]() | (14) |
carries the same exponent as in Eq. 5 is due to the local effect of self-interaction for the small loop; in both cases, the small loop is connected to a 4-vertex.
For the binding enthalpy, we obtain the condition
![]() | (15) |
To obtain a numerical value, consider the
-repressor loop of 23 monomers and the E. coli DNA length of 3.5 x 104 monomers, a configuration which can be obtained by cutting the E. coli DNA. Neglecting the (nonuniversal) first term in the square brackets, we find in this case
![]() | (16) |
Case 2
Conversely, if
=
1 =
2, the simpler expression
![]() | (17) |
![]() | (18) |
Taking 23 monomers for each segment and neglecting the (nonuniversal) first term in the square brackets yields the condition
![]() | (19) |
Hbond < -11.3 kcal/mol.
Cases 3 and 4
The next two cases belong to the telomere configuration corresponding to Fig. 1 (right) with
1 = 0 and
2 = L -
.
Case 3
This case involves a 3-vertex instead of a 4-vertex, and has only one loose end-segment. The number of configurations the telomere configuration can assume is
![]() | (20) |
and
(see the Appendix). We note that in Eq. 20, the explicit occurrence of
1 is due to the existence of only one loose end. In the two cases (case 1 and case 2, this section) considered above, we encounter two loose ends, and the
1 can be incorporated into
= 1 + 2
1.
Let us first calculate the entropy loss in the small loop limit
<< L -
. Here, the linear chain part should essentially behave like a simple linear chain, which implies that
for x << 1, and thus
![]() | (21) |
The corresponding condition for the bond enthalpy reads
![]() | (22) |
Taking a loop of 2.3 kbp in a chain of length 3500 kbp and neglecting the (nonuniversal) first term in the square brackets gives
![]() | (23) |
For comparison, if the loop size is 230 kbp, this value is increased to
Hbond < -9.3 kcal/mol.
Case 4
If the loop size and the linear chain segment are of equal size,
= L/2, the configuration number becomes
![]() | (24) |
![]() | (25) |
Taking a chain length of 460 kbp and neglecting the (nonuniversal) first term in the square brackets we find
![]() | (26) |
| MULTIPLE LOOPING IN A CIRCULAR DNA CHAIN |
|---|
|
|
|---|
![]() | (27) |
2m is associated with a vertex with 2m outgoing legs (see the Appendix). It should be noted that this result holds true only if the size of the locus is much smaller than the sizes of the created loops (Metzler et al., 2002a
|
![]() | (28) |
2m increases rapidly with increasing m, and can be determined from Padé or Padé-Borel analysis as shown in Schäfer et al. (1992)
8 = -2.4),
![]() | (29) |
8 term is as large as 50% of the total entropy loss. | CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In Table 1 we summarize the obtained estimates for the minimum bond energy
Hbond in the present self-avoiding model, and compare them with the corresponding results in the Gaussian limit. The differences are significant, clearly showing the much higher entropy loss in the self-avoiding case. In Table 1 we also show estimates for the corresponding nonuniversal contributions, which we neglected in the explicit calculation of
Hbond.
Our calculations are valid in the long chain limit. In units of the monomer size of a typical DNA double-helix persistence length
p
100 bp, a minimum number of at least 10 monomers is expected to be required to consider a segment in the final structure flexible. For shorter segments, additional effects due to bending and twisting energy are expected to become relevant. As the mentioned examples document, there are numerous systems, both in vivo and in vitro, in which the flexibility condition is easily fulfilled, and in which our estimation method for the entropy loss becomes fully applicable. The persistence length of single-stranded DNA and RNA is much shorter, typically taken to be of the order
p
8 bases. Thus, in single strand looping experiments the expected entropy loss will be considerably larger.
| APPENDIX A: CONFIGURATION EXPONENTS FOR A GENERAL POLYMER NETWORK |
|---|
|
|
|---|
like the one depicted in Fig. 3 consists of vertices which are joined by
chain segments of lengths s1,...,s
. Their total length is
In the scaling limit si >> 1, the number of configurations of such a network is given by Duplantier (1986
![]() | (A1) |
is a nonuniversal amplitude, µ is the effective connectivity constant for self-avoiding walks, and 
is a scaling function. The topology of the network is reflected in the configuration exponent
![]() | (A2) |
is the Euler number of independent loops, nN is the number of N-vertices, and
N is an exponent connected to an N-vertex. Thus, Eq. A1 generalizes the familiar form
µLL
-1 of a linear polymer chain. The numerical values we use in the text are given in Table 2 for the topological exponents
N; furthermore, we employ
= 0.588 and
(Caracciolo et al., 1998
= 2
1 + 1.
|
|
![]() | (A3) |
is the number of configurations of a ring polymer with indistinguishable monomers. Likewise,
circ corresponds to the number of closed random walks of length L which start and end at a given point in space (compare also to Metzler et al., 2002a
The number of configurations of a looped structure (with at least one vertex) is also given by Eq. A1. This is due to the fact that the established looping bond is chemically fixed within the chain, so that the chain cannot reptate within a given trajectory. For the same reason (and in contrast to references Hanke and Metzler, 2002
; Metzler et al., 2002a
,b
), different loops cannot exchange length with each other.
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This work was supported in part by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (A.H.) and by the Emmy Noether Program of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (R.M.).
Submitted on November 25, 2002; accepted for publication March 12, 2003.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Alberts, B., K. Roberts, D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, and J. D. Watson. 1994. The molecular biology of the cell. Garland, New York.
Amouyal, M., N. Perez, and S. Rolland. 1998. Adjacent cooperation of proteins on DNA are not representative of long-distance interactions. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris. 321:877881.[Medline]
Aurell, E., and K. Sneppen. 2002. Epigenetics as a first exit problem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88:048101.[Medline]
Aurell, E., S. Brown, J. Johanson, and K. Sneppen. 2002. Stability puzzles in phage lambda. Phys. Rev. E. 65:051914.
Bell, C. E., and M. Lewis. 2001. Crystal structure of the lambda repressor C-terminal domain octamer. J. Mol. Biol. 314:11271136.[Medline]
Bell, C. E., P. Frescura, A. Hochschild, and M. Lewis. 2000. Crystal structure of the lambda repressor C-terminal domain provides a model for cooperative operator binding. Cell. 101:801811.[Medline]
Blackwood, E. M., and J. T. Kadonaga. 1998. Going the distance: a current view of enhancer action. Science. 281:6063.
Bolsover, S. R., J. S. Hyams, S. Jones, E. A. Shephard, and H. A. White. 2001. From Genes to Cells. Wiley, New York.
Breslauer, K. J., R. Frank, H. Blocker, and L. A. Marky. 1986. Predicting DNA duplex stability from the base sequence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 83:37463750.
Caracciolo, S., M. S. Causo, and A. Pelissetto. 1998. High-precision determination of the critical exponent gamma for self-avoiding walks. Phys. Rev. E. 57:R1215R1218.
Coleman, B. D., D. Swigon, and I. Tobias. 2000. Elastic stability of DNA configurations. II. Supercoiled plasmids with self-contact. Phys. Rev. E. 61:759770.
De Bruin, D., Z. Zaman, R. A. Liberatore, and M. Ptashne. 2001. Telomere looping permits gene activation by a downstream UAS in yeast. Nature. 409:109113.[Medline]
De Gennes, P.-G. 1979. Scaling concepts in polymer physics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Duplantier, B. 1986. Polymer network of fixed topology: renormalization, exact critical exponent gamma in two dimensions, and d = 4-epsilon. Phys. Rev. Lett. 57:941945.[Medline]
Duplantier, B. 1989. Statistical mechanics of polymer networks of any topology. J. Stat. Phys. 54:581680.
Flory, P. J. 1956. Theory of elastic mechanisms in fibrous proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 78:52225235.
Griffith, J. D., L. Comeau, S. Rosenfield, R. M. Stansel, A. Bianchi, H. Moss, and T. de Lange. 1999. Mammalian telomeres end in a large duplex loop. Cell. 97:503514.[Medline]
Guida, R., and J. Zinn-Justin. 1998. Critical exponents of the N-vector model. J. Phys. A. 31:81038121.
Hanke, A., and R. Metzler. 2002. Towards the molecular workshop: entropy-driven designer molecules, entropy activation, and nanomechanical devices. Chem. Phys. Lett. 359:2226.
Lee, C. S., R. E. Pyeritz, and C. A. Thomas, Jr. 1976. Kinetic studies on cyclization of T7 and T1 DNAs. Biopolymers. 15:671686.[Medline]
Marko, J. F., and E. D. Siggia. 1996. Stretching DNA. Macromolecules. 28:87598770.
Merlitz, H., K. Rippe, K. V. Klenin, and J. Langowski. 1998. Looping dynamics of linear DNA molecules and the effect of DNA curvature: a study by Brownian dynamics simulation. Biophys. J. 74:773779.
Metzler, R. 2001. The future is noisy: on the role of spatial fluctuations and the merits of cooperativity in genetic switching. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87:068103.[Medline]
Metzler, R., A. Hanke, P. G. Dommersnes, Y. Kantor, and M. Kardar. 2002a. Equilibrium shapes of flat knots. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88:188101.[Medline]
Metzler, R., A. Hanke, P. G. Dommersnes, Y. Kantor, and M. Kardar. 2002b. Tightness of slip-linked polymer chains. Phys. Rev. E. 65:061103.
Montigny, W. J., C. R. Houchens, S. Illenye, J. Gilbert, E. Coonrod, Y.-C. Chang, and N. H. Heintz. 2001. Condensation by DNA looping facilitates transfer of large DNA molecules into mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 29:19821988.
Ohno, K., and K. Binder. 1988. Scaling theory of star polymers and general polymer networks in bulk and semi-infinite good solvents. J. Phys. (Paris). 49:13291351.
Poland, D. C., and H. A. Scheraga. 1965. Statistical mechanics of non-covalent bonds in polyamino acids. VIII. Covalent loops in protein. Biopolymers. 3:379399.
Ptashne, M., and A. Gunn. 2002. Genes and signals. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor.
Ptashne, M. 1992. A Genetic Switch. Cell Press and Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Révet, B., B. van Wilcken-Bergmann, H. Bessert, A. Barker, and B. Müller-Hill. 1999. Four dimers of lambda repressor bound to two suitably spaced pairs of lambda operators form octamers and DNA loops over large distances. Curr. Biol. 9:151154.[Medline]
Schäfer, L., C. van Ferber, U. Lehr, and B. Duplantier. 1992. Renormalization of polymer networks and stars. Nucl. Phys. B. 374:473495.
Schellmann, J. A. editor. 1955. The stability of hydrogen-bonded peptide structures in aqueous solution. C. R. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg Ser. Chim. 29:230259.
Semlyen, J. A. 1997. Large Ring Molecules. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, England.
Semsey, S., M. Geanacopoulos, D. E. A. Lewis, and S. Adhya. 2002. Operator-bound GalR dimers close DNA loops by direct interaction: tetramerization and inducer binding. EMBO J. 21:43494356.[Medline]
Snustad, D. P., and M. J. Simmons. 2003. Principles of Genetics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Tobias, I., D. Swigon, and B. D. Coleman. 2000. Elastic stability of DNA configurations. I. General theory. Phys. Rev. E. 61:747758.
Wang, M. C., and G. E. Uhlenbeck. 1955. On the theory of the Brownian motion II. Rev. Mod. Phys. 17:323342.
Xu, H., and T. R. Hoover. 2001. Transcriptional regulation at a distance in bacteria. Curr. Op. Microbiol. 4:138144.[Medline]
Zaman, Z., C. Heid, and M. Ptashne. 2002. Telomere looping permits repression at a distance in yeast. Curr. Biol. 12:930933.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. Marenduzzo, C. Micheletti, and P. R. Cook Entropy-Driven Genome Organization Biophys. J., May 15, 2006; 90(10): 3712 - 3721. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Zhang, A. E. McEwen, D. M. Crothers, and S. D. Levene Statistical-Mechanical Theory of DNA Looping Biophys. J., March 15, 2006; 90(6): 1903 - 1912. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. M. Sokolov, R. Metzler, K. Pant, and M. C. Williams Target Search of N Sliding Proteins on a DNA Biophys. J., August 1, 2005; 89(2): 895 - 902. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |