Reorientation of INO80 on hexasomes reveals basis for mechanistic versatility.

Unlike other chromatin remodelers, INO80 preferentially mobilizes hexasomes, which can form during transcription. Why INO80 prefers hexasomes over nucleosomes remains unclear. Here, we report structures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae INO80 bound to a hexasome or a nucleosome. INO80 binds the two substrates in substantially different orientations. On a hexasome, INO80 places its ATPase subunit, Ino80, at superhelical location -2 (SHL -2), in contrast to SHL -6 and SHL -7, as previously seen on nucleosomes. Our results suggest that INO80 action on hexasomes resembles action by other remodelers on nucleosomes such that Ino80 is maximally active near SHL -2. The SHL -2 position also plays a critical role for nucleosome remodeling by INO80. Overall, the mechanistic adaptations used by INO80 for preferential hexasome sliding imply that subnucleosomal particles play considerable regulatory roles.

A hexasome is the preferred substrate for the INO80 chromatin remodeling complex, allowing versatility of function.

The critical role of the INO80 chromatin remodeling complex in transcription is commonly attributed to its nucleosome sliding activity. Here, we have found that INO80 prefers to mobilize hexasomes over nucleosomes. INO80's preference for hexasomes reaches up to ∼60 fold when flanking DNA overhangs approach ∼18-bp linkers in yeast gene bodies. Correspondingly, deletion of INO80 significantly affects the positions of hexasome-sized particles within yeast genes in vivo. Our results raise the possibility that INO80 promotes nucleosome sliding by dislodging an H2A-H2B dimer, thereby making a nucleosome transiently resemble a hexasome. We propose that this mechanism allows INO80 to rapidly mobilize nucleosomes at promoters and hexasomes within gene bodies. Rapid repositioning of hexasomes that are generated in the wake of transcription may mitigate spurious transcription. More generally, such versatility may explain how INO80 regulates chromatin architecture during the diverse processes of transcription, replication, and repair.

Development of the biology card sorting task to measure conceptual expertise in biology.

There are widespread aspirations to focus undergraduate biology education on teaching students to think conceptually like biologists; however, there is a dearth of assessment tools designed to measure progress from novice to expert biological conceptual thinking. We present the development of a novel assessment tool, the Biology Card Sorting Task, designed to probe how individuals organize their conceptual knowledge of biology. While modeled on tasks from cognitive psychology, this task is unique in its design to test two hypothesized conceptual frameworks for the organization of biological knowledge: 1) a surface feature organization focused on organism type and 2) a deep feature organization focused on fundamental biological concepts. In this initial investigation of the Biology Card Sorting Task, each of six analytical measures showed statistically significant differences when used to compare the card sorting results of putative biological experts (biology faculty) and novices (non-biology major undergraduates). Consistently, biology faculty appeared to sort based on hypothesized deep features, while non-biology majors appeared to sort based on either surface features or nonhypothesized organizational frameworks. Results suggest that this novel task is robust in distinguishing populations of biology experts and biology novices and may be an adaptable tool for tracking emerging biology conceptual expertise.