CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsProtein Structure and DynamicsNuclear Structure and Function

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mechanistic basis for the opposing effects of H2A and H2B ubiquitination on nucleosome stability and dynamics

Open access
Baweja, Lokesh, Wereszczynski, Jeff·2025·Epigenetics & Chromatin
DOI 10.1186/s13072-025-00635-0PMC PMC12628893

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nucleosome ubiquitination at lysine 119 of histone H2A (H2AK119ub) and lysine 120 of histone H2B (H2BK120ub) are prominent post-translational modifications with opposing roles in chromatin regulation. Although H2AK119ub is associated with transcriptional repression and H2BK120ub with activation, the molecular basis for these contrasting effects has remained unclear. RESULTS: Here, we use microsecond all-atom and millisecond coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations to reveal how the position of ubiquitin reshapes nucleosome structure and assembly. H2AK119ub rigidifies the histone core by indirectly reinforcing the L1-L1 interface between H2A histones, strengthening both tetramer-dimer and dimer-dimer interactions, and slowing complete nucleosome assembly. In contrast, H2BK120ub disrupts these interfaces, weakens the histone core, and favors partially assembled hexasome and tetrasome states. Both modifications cause dramatic slowdowns in nucleosome folding, with H2BK120ub producing an order-of-magnitude greater effect. These simulations establish clear molecular mechanisms by which site-specific ubiquitination alters nucleosome stability and assembly kinetics. CONCLUSION: Our findings quantitatively explain how H2A and H2B ubiquitination exert opposing effects on chromatin regulation. This mechanism is directly relevant to the opposing roles of these marks in transcriptional activation and repression, and may represent one way that combinations of histone modifications modulate chromatin function in vivo.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13072-025-00635-0

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 A, B Initial conformations of the H2AK119ub and H2BK120ub nucleosome systems generated with Chimera and the Widom 601 nucleotide sequence in 5’ to 3’ orientation. The DNA exit end is AT-rich. C Super helical locations (SHLs) are sites marked on the nucleosomal DNA
Fig. 1 A, B Initial conformations of the H2AK119ub and H2BK120ub nucleosome systems generated with Chimera and the Widom 601 nucleotide sequence in 5’ to 3’ orientation. The DNA exit end is AT-rich. C Super helical locations (SHLs) are sites marked on the nucleosomal DNACC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 A–D Root mean squared deviations (RMSD) of ubiquitin in H2A119ub and H2BK120ub nucleosome systems in all-atom MD simulations, which quantify its motion relative to the histone core. Ubiquitin has more restricted dynamics in the H2BK120ub system. E Representative configurations from the five most populated structural clusters, based on RMSD in the equilibrated portions of the trajectories
Fig. 2 A–D Root mean squared deviations (RMSD) of ubiquitin in H2A119ub and H2BK120ub nucleosome systems in all-atom MD simulations, which quantify its motion relative to the histone core. Ubiquitin has more restricted dynamics in the H2BK120ub system. E Representative configurations from the five most populated structural clusters, based on RMSD in the equilibrated portions of the trajectoriesCC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 A Schematic of the dyad axis and the H2A axis, illustrating the angle measured to quantify dimer motion within the nucleosome core. B, C Distribution and mean values of the H2A-dyad angle in all-atom MD simulations. Both H2AK119ub (grey) and H2BK120ub (blue) systems exhibit increased outward tilting of the H2A-H2B dimers relative to the canonical nucleosome (red)
Fig. 3 A Schematic of the dyad axis and the H2A axis, illustrating the angle measured to quantify dimer motion within the nucleosome core. B, C Distribution and mean values of the H2A-dyad angle in all-atom MD simulations. Both H2AK119ub (grey) and H2BK120ub (blue) systems exhibit increased outward tilting of the H2A-H2B dimers relative to the canonical nucleosome (red)CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 A Structural view of the H2A-H2B dimer-dimer interface in the nucleosome, highlighting the roles of the H2A L1-L1 loops and H2B \upalpha 2 helices. B–D Per-residue contact maps showing inter-dimer interactions in the canonical, H2AK119ub, and H2BK120ub in all-atom MD simulations. The H2A L1-L1 region in H2AK119ub shows a pronounced increase in contacts. The color bar indicates the total number of contacts per residue pair
Fig. 4 A Structural view of the H2A-H2B dimer-dimer interface in the nucleosome, highlighting the roles of the H2A L1-L1 loops and H2B \upalpha 2 helices. B–D Per-residue contact maps showing inter-dimer interactions in the canonical, H2AK119ub, and H2BK120ub in all-atom MD simulations. The H2A L1-L1 region in H2AK119ub shows a pronounced increase in contacts. The color bar indicates the total number of contacts per residue pairCC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 DNA unwrapping (“breathing”) at the nucleosome entry and exit sites, quantified by the number of base pairs unwrapped from the superhelical axis over time in all-atom MD simulations. Both the canonical and H2BK120ub nucleosomes show greater DNA unwrapping than the H2AK119ub system
Fig. 5 DNA unwrapping (“breathing”) at the nucleosome entry and exit sites, quantified by the number of base pairs unwrapped from the superhelical axis over time in all-atom MD simulations. Both the canonical and H2BK120ub nucleosomes show greater DNA unwrapping than the H2AK119ub systemCC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 A, B Differences in atomic mutual information (dynamical correlations) between H2AK119ub and H2BK120ub nucleosomes, relative to the canonical system, in all-atom MD simulations. Positive values reflect increased coupling; negative values reflect reduced coupling. Diagonal blocks represent intra-molecular correlations; off-diagonal blocks indicate inter-molecular correlations between histones and DNA. These maps highlight how H2AK119ub enhances coupling at the DNA entry and exit regions, whereas H2BK120ub reduces histone-DNA correlations within the nucleosome core
Fig. 6 A, B Differences in atomic mutual information (dynamical correlations) between H2AK119ub and H2BK120ub nucleosomes, relative to the canonical system, in all-atom MD simulations. Positive values reflect increased coupling; negative values reflect reduced coupling. Diagonal blocks represent intra-molecular correlations; off-diagonal blocks indicate inter-molecular correlations between histones and DNA. These maps highlight how H2AK119ub enhances coupling at the DNA entry and exit regions, whereas H2BK120ub reduces histone-DNA correlations within the nucleosome coreCC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Top six assembly pathways for the canonical nucleosome, as identified by transition path theory from the coarse-grain Markov State Model. Each node represents a macrostate, with size proportional to equilibrium free energy. Arrow thickness indicates pathway dominance. The pathways highlight transitions between tetrasomal (T, T1, T2), hexasomal (HR, HR1, HR2, HR3, HL), and nucleosomal (N) states
Fig. 7 Top six assembly pathways for the canonical nucleosome, as identified by transition path theory from the coarse-grain Markov State Model. Each node represents a macrostate, with size proportional to equilibrium free energy. Arrow thickness indicates pathway dominance. The pathways highlight transitions between tetrasomal (T, T1, T2), hexasomal (HR, HR1, HR2, HR3, HL), and nucleosomal (N) statesCC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 Top six assembly pathways for the H2AK119ub-modified nucleosome, as identified by transition path theory from Markov State Model analysis of the coarse-grain MD simulations. Each node represents a macrostate, with its size proportional to the equilibrium free energy. The arrow thickness indicates the pathway’s dominance. Compared to the canonical system, the nucleosomal state (N) is destabilized, while extended (T, T1) and compact (T2, Part_T) tetrasomal states remain low in free energy. The HL1 hexasomal state also appears as a relatively stable intermediate, contributing to the dominant folding routes
Fig. 8 Top six assembly pathways for the H2AK119ub-modified nucleosome, as identified by transition path theory from Markov State Model analysis of the coarse-grain MD simulations. Each node represents a macrostate, with its size proportional to the equilibrium free energy. The arrow thickness indicates the pathway’s dominance. Compared to the canonical system, the nucleosomal state (N) is destabilized, while extended (T, T1) and compact (T2, Part_T) tetrasomal states remain low in free energy. The HL1 hexasomal state also appears as a relatively stable intermediate, contributing to the dominant folding routesCC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 9 Top six assembly pathways for the H2BK120ub-modified nucleosome, as identified by transition path theory from Markov State Model analysis of the coarse-grain MD simulations. Each node represents a macrostate, with its size proportional to the equilibrium free energy. The arrow thickness indicates the pathway’s dominance. Compared to both the canonical and H2AK119ub systems, the nucleosomal state (N) is sparsely populated and high in free energy, while multiple tetrasomal states are strongly stabilized. Folding pathways are highly diffuse, with many weakly populated routes, consistent with slower and less efficient nucleosome assembly
Fig. 9 Top six assembly pathways for the H2BK120ub-modified nucleosome, as identified by transition path theory from Markov State Model analysis of the coarse-grain MD simulations. Each node represents a macrostate, with its size proportional to the equilibrium free energy. The arrow thickness indicates the pathway’s dominance. Compared to both the canonical and H2AK119ub systems, the nucleosomal state (N) is sparsely populated and high in free energy, while multiple tetrasomal states are strongly stabilized. Folding pathways are highly diffuse, with many weakly populated routes, consistent with slower and less efficient nucleosome assemblyCC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 10 Illustration depicting the distinct mechanisms by which H2AK119ub and H2BK120ub alter nucleosome stability and assembly. H2AK119ub indirectly strengthens the L1-L1 interface between H2A histones, stabilizing the nucleosome core and slowing assembly. In contrast, H2BK120ub disrupts these contacts and weakens the histone core, promoting partially assembled hexasome and tetrasome states. Arrows and annotations indicate the sites of ubiquitination, key affected interfaces, and the resulting structural and kinetic effects on nucleosome folding
Fig. 10 Illustration depicting the distinct mechanisms by which H2AK119ub and H2BK120ub alter nucleosome stability and assembly. H2AK119ub indirectly strengthens the L1-L1 interface between H2A histones, stabilizing the nucleosome core and slowing assembly. In contrast, H2BK120ub disrupts these contacts and weakens the histone core, promoting partially assembled hexasome and tetrasome states. Arrows and annotations indicate the sites of ubiquitination, key affected interfaces, and the resulting structural and kinetic effects on nucleosome foldingCC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. Luger K, Mäder AW, Richmond RK, Sargent DF, Richmond TJ. Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8 Å resolution. Nature. 1997;389:251–60. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bilokapic S, Strauss M, Halic M. Histone octamer rearranges to adapt to DNA unwrapping. Nature Struct Mol Biol. 2018;25:101–8. · DOI
  3. Mariño-Ramírez L, Kann MG, Shoemaker BA, Landsman D. Histone structure and nucleosome stability. Expert Rev Proteom. 2005;2:719–29. · DOI
  4. Peng Y, Li S, Landsman D, Panchenko AR. Histone tails as signaling antennas of chromatin. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2021;67:153–60. · DOI
  5. Karantza V, Freire E, Moudrianakis EN. Thermodynamic studies of the core histones: pH and ionic strength effects on the stability of the (H3–H4)/(H3–H4) 2 system. Biochemistry. 1996;35:2037–46. · DOI
  6. Hazan NP, Tomov TE, Tsukanov R, Liber M, Berger Y, Masoud R, et al. Nucleosome core particle disassembly and assembly kinetics studied using single-molecule fluorescence. Biophys J. 2015;109:1676–85. · DOI
  7. Weaver TM, Morrison EA, Musselman CA. Reading more than histones: the prevalence of nucleic acid binding among reader domains. Molecules. 2018;23:2614. · DOI
  8. Isaac RS, Jiang F, Doudna JA, Lim WA, Narlikar GJ, Almeida R. Nucleosome breathing and remodeling constrain CRISPR-Cas9 function. Elife. 2016;5:e13450. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Widom J. Structure, dynamics, and function of chromatin in vitro. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 1998;27:285–327. · DOI
  10. Huertas D, Sendra R, Muñoz P. Chromatin dynamics coupled to DNA repair. Epigenetics. 2009;4:31–42. · DOI
  11. Bowman GD, Poirier MG. Post-translational modifications of histones that influence nucleosome dynamics. Chem Rev. 2014;115:2274–95. · DOI
  12. Chen JJ, Stermer D, Tanny JC. Decoding histone ubiquitylation. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2022;10:968398. · DOI
  13. Zhang Y. Transcriptional regulation by histone ubiquitination and deubiquitination. Genes Dev. 2003;17:2733–40. · DOI
  14. Goldknopf IL, Busch H. Isopeptide linkage between nonhistone and histone 2A polypeptides of chromosomal conjugate-protein A24. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1977;74:864–8. · DOI
  15. Weake VM. Histone ubiquitylation control of gene expression. Fund Chrom. 2013;257–307. · DOI
  16. Meas R, Mao P. Histone ubiquitylation and its roles in transcription and DNA damage response. DNA Repair. 2015;36:36–42. · DOI
  17. Nathan D, Ingvarsdottir K, Sterner DE, Bylebyl GR, Dokmanovic M, Dorsey JA, et al. Others histone sumoylation is a negative regulator in saccharomyces cerevisiae and shows dynamic interplay with positive-acting histone modifications. Genes Dev. 2006;20:966–76. · DOI
  18. Wang H, Zhai L, Xu J, Joo H-Y, Jackson S, Erdjument-Bromage H, et al. Histone H3 and H4 ubiquitylation by the CUL4-DDB-ROC1 ubiquitin ligase facilitates cellular response to DNA damage. Mol Cell. 2006;22:383–94. · DOI
  19. Shafiq TA, Yu J, Feng W, Zhang Y, Zhou H, Paulo JA, et al. Genomic context-and H2AK119 ubiquitination-dependent inheritance of human Polycomb silencing. Sci Adv. 2024;10:eadl4529. · DOI
  20. Oss-Ronen L, Sarusi T, Cohen I. Histone mono-ubiquitination in transcriptional regulation and its mark on life: emerging roles in tissue development and disease. Cells. 2022;11:2404. · DOI
  21. Tamburri S, Lavarone E, Fernández-Pérez D, Conway E, Zanotti M, Manganaro D, et al. Histone H2AK119 mono-ubiquitination is essential for polycomb-mediated transcriptional repression. Mol Cell. 2020;77:840–56. · DOI
  22. Ciapponi M, Karlukova E, Schkölziger S, Benda C, Müller J. Structural basis of the histone ubiquitination read-write mechanism of RYBP-PRC1. Nature Struct Mol Biol. 2024;31:1–5. · DOI
  23. Xiao X, Liu C, Pei Y, Wang Y-Z, Kong J, Lu K, et al. others Histone H2A ubiquitination reinforces mechanical stability and asymmetry at the single-nucleosome level. J Am Chem Soc. 2020;142:3340–5. · DOI
  24. Luo A, Kong J, Chen J, Xiao X, Lan J, Li X, et al. H2B ubiquitination recruits FACT to maintain a stable altered nucleosome state for transcriptional activation. Nat Commun. 2023;14:741. · DOI
  25. Woods DC, Wereszczynski J. Elucidating the influence of linker histone variants on chromatosome dynamics and energetics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48:3591–604. · DOI
  26. Armeev GA, Kniazeva AS, Komarova GA, Kirpichnikov MP, Shaytan AK. Histone dynamics mediate DNA unwrapping and sliding in nucleosomes. Nat Commun. 2021;12:2387. · DOI
  27. Khatua P, Tang PK, Moulick A, Patel R, Manandhar A, Loverde S. Sequence dependence in nucleosome dynamics. J Phys Chem B. 2024;128:3090–101 (PMID: 38530903). · DOI
  28. Portillo-Ledesma S, Tsao LH, Wagley M, Lakadamyali M, Cosma MP, Schlick T. Nucleosome clutches are regulated by chromatin internal parameters. J Mol Biol. 2021;433:166701. · DOI
  29. Li S, Wei T, Panchenko AR. Histone variant H2A. Z modulates nucleosome dynamics to promote DNA accessibility. Nat Commun. 2023;14:218. · DOI
  30. Patel R, Onyema A, Tang PK, Loverde SM. Conformational dynamics of the nucleosomal histone H2B tails revealed by molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Inform Mod. 2024;64(12):4709–26. · DOI
  31. Fedulova AS, Armeev GA, Romanova TA, Singh-Palchevskaia L, Kosarim NA, Motorin NA, et al. Molecular dynamics simulations of nucleosomes are coming of age. WIREs Comput Mol Sci. 2024;14:e1728. · DOI
  32. Kariyawasam NL, Wereszczynski J. The influence of ionic environment on nucleosome-mica interactions revealed via molecular dynamics simulations. J Phys Chem B. 2024;128:12038–49. · DOI
  33. Brandani GB, Tan C, Takada S. The kinetic landscape of nucleosome assembly: a coarse-grained molecular dynamics study. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17:e1009253. · DOI
  34. Husic BE, Pande VS. Markov state models: from an art to a science. J Am Chem Soc. 2018;140:2386–96. · DOI
  35. Davey CA, Sargent DF, Luger K, Maeder AW, Richmond TJ. Solvent mediated interactions in the structure of the nucleosome core particle at 1.9 Å resolution. J Molecular Biol. 2002;319:1097–113. · DOI
  36. Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM, Meng EC, et al. UCSF Chimera-a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem. 2004;25:1605–12. · DOI
  37. Widom J. Role of DNA sequence in nucleosome stability and dynamics. Q Rev Biophys. 2001;34:269–324. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Case DA, Cheatham TE III, Darden T, Gohlke H, Luo R, Merz KM Jr, et al. The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. J Comput Chem. 2005;26:1668–88. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Frisch A. Others gaussian 09W Reference. vol. 470. Wallingford; 2009. p. 25.
  40. Tian C, Kasavajhala K, Belfon KA, Raguette L, Huang H, Migues AN, et al. others ff19SB: amino-acid-specific protein backbone parameters trained against quantum mechanics energy surfaces in solution. J Chem Theory Comput. 2019;16:528–52. · DOI
  41. Ivani I, Dans PD, Noy A, Pérez A, Faustino I, Hospital A, et al. others Parmbsc1: a refined force field for DNA simulations. Nat Methods. 2016;13:55–8. · DOI
  42. Izadi S, Anandakrishnan R, Onufriev AV. Building water models: a different approach. J Phys Chem Lett. 2014;5:3863–71. · DOI
  43. Hopkins CW, Le Grand S, Walker RC, Roitberg AE. Long-time-step molecular dynamics through hydrogen mass repartitioning. J Chem Theory Comput. 2015;11:1864–74. · DOI
  44. Ryckaert J-P, Ciccotti G, Berendsen HJ. Numerical integration of the cartesian equations of motion of a system with constraints: molecular dynamics of n-alkanes. J Comput Phys. 1977;23:327–41. · DOI
  45. Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph. 1996;14:33–8. · DOI · Paper page
  46. DeLano WL. Others Pymol: an open-source molecular graphics tool. CCP4 Newsl Protein Crystallogr. 2002;40:82–92.
  47. Roe DR, Cheatham TE III. PTRAJ and CPPTRAJ: software for processing and analysis of molecular dynamics trajectory data. J Chem Theory Comput. 2013;9:3084–95. · DOI
  48. Li W, Wang W, Takada S. Energy landscape views for interplays among folding, binding, and allostery of calmodulin domains. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111:10550–5. · DOI
  49. Freeman GS, Hinckley DM, Lequieu JP, Whitmer JK, De Pablo JJ. Coarse-grained modeling of DNA curvature. J Chem Phys. 2014;141:165103. · DOI
  50. Niina T, Brandani GB, Tan C, Takada S. Sequence-dependent nucleosome sliding in rotation-coupled and uncoupled modes revealed by molecular simulations. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017;13:e1005880. · DOI
  51. Manning GS. Limiting laws and counterion condensation in polyelectrolyte solutions II. Self-diffusion of the small ions. J Chem Phys. 1969;51:934–8. · DOI
  52. Manning GS. The molecular theory of polyelectrolyte solutions with applications to the electrostatic properties of polynucleotides. Q Rev Biophys. 1978;11:179–246. · DOI
  53. Honig B, Nicholls A. Classical electrostatics in biology and chemistry. Science. 1995;268:1144–9. · DOI
  54. Terakawa T, Takada S. RESPAC: method to determine partial charges in coarse-grained protein model and its application to DNA-binding proteins. J Chem Theory Comput. 2014;10:711–21. · DOI
  55. Weeks SD, Grasty KC, Hernandez-Cuebas L, Loll PJ. Crystal structures of Lys-63-linked tri-and di-ubiquitin reveal a highly extended chain architecture. Proteins: Structure. Funct Bioinform. 2009;77:753–9. · DOI
  56. Terakawa T, Takada S. Multiscale ensemble modeling of intrinsically disordered proteins: p53 N-terminal domain. Biophys J. 2011;101:1450–8. · DOI
  57. Morrison EA, Baweja L, Poirier MG, Wereszczynski J, Musselman CA. Nucleosome composition regulates the histone H3 tail conformational ensemble and accessibility. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:4750–67. · DOI
  58. Kenzaki H, Koga N, Hori N, Kanada R, Li W, Okazaki K-I, et al. CafeMol: a coarse-grained biomolecular simulator for simulating proteins at work. J Chem Theory Comput. 2011;7:1979–89. · DOI
  59. Fierz B, Kilic S, Hieb AR, Luger K, Muir TW. Stability of nucleosomes containing homogenously ubiquitylated H2A and H2B prepared using semisynthesis. J Am Chem Soc. 2012;134:19548–51. · DOI
  60. Schultze S, Grubmüller H. Time-lagged independent component analysis of random walks and protein dynamics. J Chem Theory Comput. 2021;17:5766–76. · DOI
  61. Scherer MK, Trendelkamp-Schroer B, Paul F, Pérez-Hernández G, Hoffmann M, Plattner N, et al. PyEMMA 2: a software package for estimation, validation, and analysis of Markov models. J Chem Theory Comput. 2015;11:5525–42. · DOI
  62. Likas A, Vlassis N, Verbeek JJ. The global k-means clustering algorithm. Pattern Recogn. 2003;36:451–61. · DOI
  63. Michaud-Agrawal N, Denning EJ, Woolf TB, Beckstein O. MDAnalysis: a toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations. J Comput Chem. 2011;32:2319–27. · DOI
  64. Hunter JD. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput Sci Eng. 2007;9:90–5. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Miller BR III, McGee TD Jr, Swails JM, Homeyer N, Gohlke H, Roitberg AE. MMPBSA. py: an efficient program for end-state free energy calculations. J Chem Theory Comput. 2012;8:3314–21. · DOI
  66. Shirts MR, Chodera JD. Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equilibrium states. J Chem Phys. 2008;129:124105. · DOI
  67. Tekpinar M, Neron B, Delarue M. Extracting dynamical correlations and identifying key residues for allosteric communication in proteins by correlationplus. J Chem Inf Model. 2021;61:4832–8. · DOI
  68. Hicks CW, Rahman S, Gloor SL, Fields JK, Husby NL, Vaidya A, et al. Ubiquitinated histone H2B as gatekeeper of the nucleosome acidic patch. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52:9978–95. · DOI
  69. Landré V, Revi B, Mir MG, Verma C, Hupp TR, Gilbert N, et al. Regulation of transcriptional activators by DNA-binding domain ubiquitination. Cell Death Differ. 2017;24:903–16. · DOI
  70. Hou T, Wang J, Li Y, Wang W. Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 1. the accuracy of binding free energy calculations based on molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Inf Modeling. 2011;51:69–82. · DOI
  71. Onufriev AV, Case DA. Generalized born implicit solvent models for biomolecules. Annu Rev Biophys. 2019;48:275–96. · DOI
  72. Brandani GB, Niina T, Tan C, Takada S. DNA sliding in nucleosomes via twist defect propagation revealed by molecular simulations. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:2788–801. · DOI
  73. Mattiroli F, Penengo L. Histone ubiquitination: an integrative signaling platform in genome stability. Trends Genet. 2021;37:566–81. · DOI
  74. Bonisch C, Hake SB. Histone H2A variants in nucleosomes and chromatin: more or less stable? Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:10719–41. · DOI
  75. Bowerman S, Hickok RJ, Wereszczynski J. Unique Dynamics in Asymmetric macroH2A-H2A Hybrid Nucleosomes Result in Increased Complex Stability. J Phys Chem B. 2018;123:419–27. · DOI
  76. Chakravarthy S, Luger K. The histone variant macro-H2A preferentially forms hybrid nucleosomes. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:25522–31. · DOI
  77. Ullner M, Woodward CE, Jönsson B. A Debye-Hückel theory for electrostatic interactions in proteins. J Chem Phys. 1996;105:2056–65. · DOI
  78. Pan AC, Roux B. Building Markov state models along pathways to determine free energies and rates of transitions. J Chem Phys. 2008;129:6. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Baweja, L., & Wereszczynski, J.
Affiliations
Illinois Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Wereszczynski, Jeff
ORCID
Venue
Epigenetics & Chromatin
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-11-19
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
74-74
ISSN
1756-8935 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13072-025-00635-0
PMC
PMC12628893
OpenAlex
W4416392468
Cited by
3
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Epigenetics & Chromatin (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119647)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nuclear Structure and Function
Keywords
histone H2A ubiquitination, histone H2B ubiquitination, H2AK119ub, nucleosome stability, hexasome, chromatin regulation, transcriptional repression, transcriptional activation, histone modifications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mechanistic basis for the opposing effects of H2A and H2B ubiquitination on nucleosome stability and dynamics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13072-025-00635-0
The paper
Baweja, L., & Wereszczynski, J. (2025). Mechanistic basis for the opposing effects of H2A and H2B ubiquitination on nucleosome stability and dynamics. Epigenetics & Chromatin. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13072-025-00635-0