Protein–DNA Interactions


The control of the information stored in the genome is managed by DNA‐binding proteins, which are therefore of fundamental importance to cellular life. A wide diversity of such proteins, exhibiting various DNA‐binding modes, specificities and functions, is observed in living organisms. We start by describing the various roles that are played by DNA‐binding proteins, from transcription regulation to DNA repair, and review the types of molecular interactions that stabilise the protein–DNA complexes. We also describe the main structural DNA‐binding protein motifs, among which are the well‐known HTH (helix‐turn‐helix) motifs and zinc fingers, that are recurrently observed in proteins of various functions and origin. Finally, we discuss the different ways in which proteins acquire their specificity for a given DNA sequence, conformation and/or topology.

Key Concepts

  • DNA‐binding proteins have a fundamental role in the maintenance of genetic material and in the regulation of gene expression.
  • Most DNA‐binding proteins bind DNA through recurrent structural motifs.
  • The protein–DNA affinity is achieved through non‐specific interactions between amino acids and the DNA backbone and through specific interactions between amino acids and DNA bases.
  • Some proteins recognise specific DNA sequences owing to favourable direct interactions between amino acids and nucleobases.
  • Some proteins recognise specific local or global DNA conformations or topologies.

Keywords: protein–DNA binding; protein–DNA specificity; structural DNA‐binding motifs; direct/indirect readout; base/shape recognition

Figure 1. (a) Space‐filling model of the phage 434 Cro repressor in complex with the OR1 DNA operator (PDB ID: 3CRO). The α‐helices of the protein are in magenta and the coil regions in yellow; one DNA strand is depicted in green and the other in blue. The protein is drawn in transparency as a ribbon. (b) Close‐up view of the same structure showing the specific interactions at the protein–DNA interface, that is, three hydrogen bonds (depicted as dashed red lines) and one amino–π interaction (dashed light‐blue lines). The residues involved in these specific interactions are labelled and their carbon atoms coloured in green. The combination of amino/cation–π and hydrogen bonding represents a stair‐shaped motif that is recurrent at protein–DNA interfaces (Rooman et al., ). In the major groove, the glutamine side chain has the adequate hydrogen donor/acceptor geometry to specifically recognise adenine (Seeman et al., ).
Figure 2. (a,b) Main families of DNA‐binding protein domains. The proteins are represented as coloured ribbons and the DNA as brown sticks. Zinc ions are depicted as yellow spheres. Some representative members are depicted for each family; their PDB IDs and names are specified.
Figure 3. (a) An example of heteromultimeric protein–DNA complex, consisting of the DNA‐binding domain of NFAT1 (nuclear factor of activated T cells 1), Fos and Jun bound to DNA (PDB ID: 1A02). Proteins are depicted in orange (NFAT1), green (Fos) and blue (Jun) ribbons. The DNA molecule is represented with sticks using the following colour scheme: carbon in grey, oxygen in red, nitrogen in blue and phosphorus in orange. (b) Close‐up view of the structure showing the specific interactions at the protein–DNA interface. Hydrogen bonds are shown as dashed red lines and cation–π and amino–π interactions as dashed light‐blue lines. The residues involved in these specific interactions are labelled and their carbon atoms coloured in green. As seen in the figure, the double hydrogen bond patterns of arginine–guanine and glutamine–adenine are perfectly complementary in their donor/acceptor geometries (Seeman et al., ). The consecutive occurrence of hydrogen bonds and amino/cation–π interactions at protein–DNA interfaces was defined as cation–π/H‐bond stair motif (Rooman et al., ).


Anderson WF , Ohlendorf DH , Takeda Y and Matthews BW (1981) Structure of the Cro repressor from bacteriophage lambda and its interaction with DNA. Nature 290 (5809): 754–758.

Badis G , Berger MF , Philippakis AA , et al. (2008) Diversity and complexity in DNA recognition by transcription factors. Science 324 (5935): 1720–1723.

Bernstein FC , Koetzle TF , Williams GJ , et al. (1977) The protein data bank: a computer‐based archival file for macromolecular structures. Journal of Molecular Biology 112: 535.

Churchill ME and Travers AA (1991) Protein motifs that recognize structural features of DNA. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 16 (3): 92–97.

Cuthbertson L and Nodwell JR (2013) The TetR family of regulators. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 77 (3): 440–475.

Finn RD , Bateman A , Clements J , et al. (2014) The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Research Database Issue 42: D222–D230.

Garvie CW and Wolberger C (2001) Recognition of specific DNA sequences. Molecular Cell 8 (5): 937–946.

Guzikevich‐Guerstein G and Shakked Z (1996) A novel form of the DNA double helix imposed on the TATA‐box by the TATA‐binding protein. Nature Structural Biology 3 (1): 32–37.

Hong M and Marmorstein R (2008) Structural basis for sequence‐specific DNA recognition by transcription factors and their complexes. In: Rice PA and Correll CC , (eds). Protein‐Nucleic Acid Interactions: Structural Biology, pp. 47–67. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing.

Hudson WH and Ortlund EA (2014) The structure, function and evolution of proteins that bind DNA and RNA. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 15 (1): 749–760.

Jiang J and Levine M (1993) Binding affinities and cooperative interactions with bHLH activators delimit threshold responses to the dorsal gradient morphogen. Cell 72 (5): 741–752.

Kalodimos CG , Biris N , Bonvin AM , et al. (2004) Structure and flexibility adaptation in nonspecific and specific protein‐DNA complexes. Science 305 (5682): 386–389.

Kim JL , Nikolov DB and Burley SK (1993a) Co‐crystal structure of TBP recognizing the minor groove of a TATA element. Nature 365 (6446): 520–527.

Kim Y , Geiger JH , Hahn S and Sigler PB (1993b) Crystal structure of a yeast TBP/TATA‐box complex. Nature 365 (6446): 512–520.

Kirsanov DD , Zanegina ON , Aksianov EA , et al. (2013) NPIDB: nucleic acid‐protein interaction database. Nucleic Acids Research 41: D517–D523.

Lawson CL and Berman HM (2008) Indirect readout of DNA sequence by proteins. In: Rice PA and Correll CC , (eds). Protein‐Nucleic Acid Interactions: Structural Biology, pp. 66–90. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing.

Luscombe NM , Austin SE , Berman HM and Thornton JM (2000) An overview of the structures of protein‐DNA complexes. Genome Biology 1 (1): REVIEWS001.

McKay DB and Steitz TA (1981) Structure of catabolite gene activator protein at 2.9 Å resolution suggests binding to left‐handed B‐DNA. Nature 290 (5809): 744–749.

Muller CW (2001) Transcription factors: global, detailed views. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 11 (1): 23–32.

Olson WK , Gorin AA , Lu XJ , et al. (1998) DNA sequence‐dependent deformability deduced from protein‐DNA crystal complexes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95 (19): 11163–11168.

Pabo CO and Sauer RT (1992) Transcription factors: structural families and principles of DNA recognition. Annual Review of Biochemistry 61: 1053–1095.

Pabo CO and Nekludova L (2000) Geometric analysis and comparison of protein‐DNA interfaces: why is there no simple code for recognition? Journal of Molecular Biology 301 (3): 597–624.

Pavletich NP and Pabo CO (1991) Zinc finger‐DNA recognition: crystal structure of a Zif268‐DNA complex at 2.1 Å. Science 252 (5007): 809–817.

Rohs R , West SM , Sosinsky A , et al. (2009) The role of DNA shape in protein‐DNA recognition. Nature 461 (7268): 1248–1253.

Rohs R , Jin X , West SM , et al. (2010) Origins of specificity in protein‐DNA recognition. Annual Review of Biochemistry 79: 233–269.

Rooman M , Liévin J , Buisine E and Wintjens R (2002) Cation‐π/H‐bond stair motifs at protein‐DNA interfaces. Journal of Molecular Biology 319 (1): 67–76.

Schreiter ER and Drennan CL (2007) Ribbon‐helix‐ribbon transcription factors: variations on a theme. Nature Reviews Microbiology 5 (9): 710–720.

Schultz SC , Shields GC and Steitz TA (1991) Crystal structure of a CAP‐DNA complex: the DNA is bent by 90°. Science 253 (5023): 1001–1007.

Seeman NC , Rosenberg JM and Rich A (1976) Sequence‐specific recognition of double helical nucleic acids by proteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 73 (3): 804–808.

Siggers T and Gordân R (2014) Protein‐DNA binding: complexities and multi‐protein codes. Nucleic Acids Research 42 (4): 2099–2111.

Suzuki M , Yagi N and Gerstein M (1995) DNA recognition and superstructure formation by helix‐turn‐helix proteins. Protein Engineering 8 (4): 329–338.

Tanay A (2006) Extensive low‐affinity transcriptional interactions in the yeast genome. Genome Research 16 (8): 962–972.

Travers A (1998) Transcription: activation by cooperating conformations. Current Biology 8 (17): R616–R618.

Travers AA (1989) DNA conformation and protein binding. Annual Review of Biochemistry 58: 427–452.

Wintjens R and Rooman M (1996) Structural classification of HTH DNA‐binding domains and protein‐DNA interaction modes. Journal of Molecular Biology 262 (2): 294–313.

White MA , Parker DS , Barolo S and Cohen BA (2012) A model of spacially restricted transcription in opposing gradients of activators and repressors. Molecular Systems Biology 8: 614.

Wolberger C (1999) Multiprotein‐DNA complexes in transcriptional regulation. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure 28: 29–56.

Further Reading

Banaszak LJ (2000) Foundation of Structural Biology. London, UK: Academic Press.

Branden C and Tooze J (1998) Introduction to Protein Structure, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Travers A and Buckle M (2000) DNA‐Protein Interactions. A Practical Approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Rooman, Marianne, and Wintjens, René(Mar 2015) Protein–DNA Interactions. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0001348.pub3]