DNA mimic foldamers affect chromatin composition and disturb cell cycle progression.

The use of synthetic chemicals to selectively interfere with chromatin and the chromatin-bound proteome represents a great opportunity for pharmacological intervention. Recently, synthetic foldamers that mimic the charge surface of double-stranded DNA have been shown to interfere with selected protein-DNA interactions. However, to better understand their pharmacological potential and to improve their specificity and selectivity, the effect of these molecules on complex chromatin needs to be investigated. We therefore systematically studied the influence of the DNA mimic foldamers on the chromatin-bound proteome using an in vitro chromatin assembly extract. Our studies show that the foldamer efficiently interferes with the chromatin-association of the origin recognition complex in vitro and in vivo, which leads to a disturbance of cell cycle in cells treated with foldamers. This effect is mediated by a strong direct interaction between the foldamers and the origin recognition complex and results in a failure of the complex to organise chromatin around replication origins. Foldamers that mimic double-stranded nucleic acids thus emerge as a powerful tool with designable features to alter chromatin assembly and selectively interfere with biological mechanisms.

Inhibition of Proteasome Activity Induces Formation of Alternative Proteasome Complexes.

The proteasome is an intracellular protease complex consisting of the 20S catalytic core and its associated regulators, including the 19S complex, PA28αß, PA28γ, PA200, and PI31. Inhibition of the proteasome induces autoregulatory de novo formation of 20S and 26S proteasome complexes. Formation of alternative proteasome complexes, however, has not been investigated so far. We here show that catalytic proteasome inhibition results in fast recruitment of PA28γ and PA200 to 20S and 26S proteasomes within 2-6 h. Rapid formation of alternative proteasome complexes did not involve transcriptional activation of PA28γ and PA200 but rather recruitment of preexisting activators to 20S and 26S proteasome complexes. Recruitment of proteasomal activators depended on the extent of active site inhibition of the proteasome with inhibition of ß5 active sites being sufficient for inducing recruitment. Moreover, specific inhibition of 26S proteasome activity via siRNA-mediated knockdown of the 19S subunit RPN6 induced recruitment of only PA200 to 20S proteasomes, whereas PA28γ was not mobilized. Here, formation of alternative PA200 complexes involved transcriptional activation of the activator. Alternative proteasome complexes persisted when cells had regained proteasome activity after pulse exposure to proteasome inhibitors. Knockdown of PA28γ sensitized cells to proteasome inhibitor-mediated growth arrest. Thus, formation of alternative proteasome complexes appears to be a formerly unrecognized but integral part of the cellular response to impaired proteasome function and altered proteostasis.