Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to M Ptashne.
The recruitment model for gene activation stipulates that an activator works by bringing the transcriptional machinery to the DNA. Recent experiments in bacteria and yeast indicate that many genes can be activated by this mechanism. These findings have implications for our understanding of the nature of activating regions and their targets, and for the role of histones in gene regulation.
We examine transcriptional activation and chromatin remodeling at the PHO5 promoter in yeast by fusion proteins that are thought to act by recruiting the RNA polymerase II holoenzyme to DNA in the absence of a classic activating region. These hybrid proteins (e.g., Gal11+Pho4 or Gal4(58-97)+Pho4 in the presence of a GAL11P allele) efficiently activated transcription and remodeled chromatin. Similar chromatin remodeling was observed at a PHO5 promoter deleted for TATA and thus unable to support transcription. We conclude that recruitment of the holoenzyme or associated proteins suffices for chromatin remodeling. We also show that the SWI/SNF complex is required neither for efficient transcription of the wild-type PHO5 nor the GAL1 promoters, and we observe nearly complete chromatin remodeling at PHO5 in the absence of Snf2.
"Positive control" mutants of the cI protein of bacteriophage lambda (lambda cI) bind DNA but, unlike the wild-type protein, fail to activate transcription. According to the original interpretation of Ptashne and co-workers, these mutants bear amino acid substitutions that disrupt a stimulatory interaction between lambda cI bound at operator site O(R)2 and RNA polymerase bound at promoter P(RM), an idea supported by kinetic analysis in one case. Genetic analysis has suggested that one residue in particular, glutamate 34 (E34), is critical for the stimulatory effect of wild-type lambda cI. More recently, however, Kolkhof and Muller-Hill have challenged this view, suggesting that mutant E34K fails to activate because it binds at unusually low concentrations to O(R)3, a site that mediates repression of P(RM). To test this hypothesis, we have examined the behaviour of the lambda cI-E34K mutant both in vitro and in vivo by assaying transcription from P(RM) and monitoring operator site occupancy over a range of protein concentrations. Our results are inconsistent with the interpretation of Kolkhof and Muller-Hill, and demonstrate that under conditions where lambda operator O(R)2 is fully occupied and operator O(R)3 is vacant, wild-type lambda cI activates transcription from promoter P(RM) whereas the mutant does not.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The solution structure and backbone dynamics of the transcriptional activator PUT3 (31-100) has been characterized using NMR spectroscopy. PUT3 (31-100) contains three distinct domains: a cysteine zinc cluster, linker, and dimerization domain. The cysteine zinc cluster of PUT3 closely resembles the solution structure of GAL4, while the dimerization domain forms a long coiled-coil similar to that observed in the crystal structures of GAL4 and PPR1. However, the residues at the N-terminal end of the coiled-coil behave very differently in each of these proteins. A comparison of the structural elements within this region provides a model for the DNA binding specificity of these proteins. Furthermore, we have characterized the dynamics of PUT3 to find that the zinc cluster and dimerization domains have very diverse dynamics in solution. The dimerization domain behaves as a large protein, while the peripheral cysteine zinc clusters have dynamic properties similar to small proteins.
The single amino acid "P" (potentiator) mutation in the holoenzyme component GAL11 creates an interaction between that protein and the dimerization region of GAL4. That interaction triggers strong gene activation when the GAL4 fragment is tethered to DNA. Here we show that, among a series of variants of the GAL4 dimerization region and different GAL11P alleles, the strength of the interaction as quantitated in vitro correlates with the degree of activation in vivo; swapping the protein fragments bearing the GAL4 dimerization region and the GAL11P mutation such that the latter is tethered to DNA and the former is attached to the holoenzyme does not diminish gene activation; gene activation in this system is squelched by overproduction of either a fragment bearing the GAL4 dimerization region or a fragment of GAL11 bearing a P mutation; and neither GAL11 nor GAL11P is a target of an acidic activating region. These results argue that the GAL4-GAL11P interaction triggers gene activation simply by recruiting the holoenzyme to DNA. Consistent with this view, we also show that fusion of LexA to another holoenzyme component, SRB2, creates an activator, and that an SRB2 mutant predicted on genetic grounds to interact especially efficiently with a holoenzyme containing a specific mutant form of polymerase also activates more efficiently when tethered to DNA.
We quantitate the 'activating potentials' of deletion and point mutation variants of a 42 amino acid yeast transcriptional activating region excised from the yeast activator GAL4 and, using surface plasmon resonance, we measure the relative affinities of these molecules for a variety of proteins, including plausible target proteins as well as GAL80, a specific inhibitor of GAL4. We find a remarkable correlation between the relative activating potentials of the derivatives and their relative affinities for yeast TBP and for yeast TFIIB; other tested proteins interacted significantly more weakly, if at all. These results provide an especially strong argument that TBP and TFIIB are activating region targets. We also show, using one set of yeast activating region mutants, that activator-target interactions are strongly correlated with the length of the activating region, that the effect of point mutants is highly dependent on the length of the activating region mutated and that, unlike interactions with TBP and TFIIB, interaction with the specific inhibitor GAL80 is destroyed by deletion of certain critical residues in the C-terminal half of the 42 amino acid activating region.
Biophysical and genetic experiments have defined how the Saccharomyces cerevisiae protein GAL4 and a subset of related proteins recognize specific DNA sequences. We assessed DNA sequence preferences of GAL4 and a related protein, PPR1, in an in vitro DNA binding assay. For GAL4, the palindromic CGG triplets at the ends of the 17-bp recognition site are essential for tight binding, whereas the identities of the internal 11 bp are much less important, results consistent with the GAL4-DNA crystal structure. Small reductions in affinity due to mutations at the center-most 5 bp are consistent with the idea that an observed constriction in the minor groove in the crystalline GAL4-DNA complex is sequence dependent. The crystal structure suggests that this sequence dependence is due to phosphate contacts mediated by arginine 51, as part of a network of hydrogen bonds. Here we show that the mutant protein GAL4(1-100)R51A fails to discriminate sites with alterations in the center of the site from the wild-type site. PPR1, a relative of GAL4, also recognizes palindromic CGG triplets at the ends of its 12-bp recognition sequence. The identities of the internal 6 bp do not influence the binding of PPR1. We also show that the PPR1 site consists of a 12-bp duplex rather than 16 bp as reported previously: the two T residues immediately 5' to the CGG sequence in each half site, although highly conserved, are not important for binding by PPR1. Thus, GAL4 and PPR1 share common CGG half sites, but they prefer DNA sequences with the palindromic CGG separated by the appropriate number of base pairs, 11 for GAL4 and 6 for PPR1.
Cactus, a Drosophila homologue of I kappa B, binds to and inhibits Dorsal, a homologue of the p50 and p65 components of NF-kappa B. We describe experiments in yeast with various Dorsal and Cactus derivatives showing that Cactus blocks the DNA binding and nuclear localization functions of Dorsal. In contrast, Dorsal's transcriptional activating region is functional in the Dorsal-Cactus complex. We identify two Dorsal mutants, Dorsal C233R and Dorsal S234P, that escape Cactus inhibition in vivo, and we show that these mutants fail to interact with Cactus in vitro. From this and data of others, we identify the likely surface of Dorsal that binds Cactus. We also describe a modified PCR mutagenesis procedure, easier to use than conventional methods, that produces a library of high complexity.
The bacteriophage lambda repressor binds cooperatively to pairs of adjacent sites in the lambda chromosome, one repressor dimer binding to each site. The repressor's amino domain (that which mediates DNA binding) is connected to its carboxyl domain (that which mediates dimerization and the interaction between dimers) by a protease-sensitive linker region. We have generated a variant lambda repressor that lacks this linker region. We show that dimers of the variant protein are deficient in cooperative binding to sites at certain, but not all, distances. The linker region thus extends the range over which carboxyl domains of DNA-bound dimers can interact. In particular, the linker is required for cooperative binding to a pair of sites as found in the lambda chromosome, and thus is essential for the repressor's physiological function.
In yeast strains bearing the point mutation called GAL11P (for potentiator), certain GAL4 derivatives lacking any classical activating region work as strong activators. The P mutation confers upon GAL11, a component of the RNA polymerase II holoenzyme, the ability to interact with a portion of the dimerization region of GAL4. The region of GAL11 affected by the P mutation is evidently functionally inert in ordinary cells, suggesting that this mutation is of no functional significance beyond creating an artificial target for the GAL4 dimerization fragment. From these observations and further analyses of GAL11, we propose that a single activator-holoenzyme contact can trigger gene activation simply by recruiting the latter to DNA.
One protein can activate some genes and repress others in the same cell. The Drosophila protein Dorsal (which, like the human protein NF-kappa B3, is a member of the Rel family of transcriptional activators) activates the twist gene and represses the zen gene in the ventral region of early embryos. Here we describe a Drosophila HMG1 protein, called DSP1 (dorsal switch protein), that converts Dorsal and NF-kappa B from transcriptional activators to repressors. This effect requires a sequence termed a negative regulatory element (NRE), found adjacent to Dorsal-binding sites in the zen promoter and adjacent to the NF-kappa B-binding site in the human interferon-beta (IFN-beta) enhancer. Previous studies have shown that another type of HMG protein, HMG I(Y), can stimulate NF-kappa B activity. Thus, the HMG-like proteins DSP1 and HMG I(Y) can determine whether a specific regulator functions as an activator or a repressor of transcription.
Related DNA binding proteins often recognize similar DNA sites but can distinguish among them with the use of different protein-DNA contacts. Here, it is shown that members of the C6 zinc cluster family of yeast transcriptional activators distinguish related DNA sites by a different mechanism. The DNA binding site for each of these proteins contains identical nucleotide triplets (CGG ... CCG) but differs in the spacings between the triplets. It is shown that zinc clusters of these proteins work interchangeably to recognize the conserved triplets and that the region 19 amino acids to the carboxyl-terminal side of the zinc cluster, comprising the linker and the beginning of a dimerization element as inferred from the GAL4 crystal structure, directs the protein to its preferred site.
Transcriptional activating sequences have been described that are encoded by parts of the genome of Escherichia coli. These acidic peptides, fused to a DNA-binding fragment of the yeast transcriptional activator GAL4, activate transcription of a gene in a wide array of eukaryotes, provided that gene bears GAL4-binding sites nearby. Here we describe an E. coli-encoded sequence that, when attached to the same DNA-binding fragment (GAL4(1-147)), converts that fragment into a repressor. Thus, as assayed in yeast or in vitro in yeast extracts, this molecule represses transcription when bound upstream of a variety of different activators. Two additional repressing regions that work when tethered upstream, a multiple mutant derivative of the original isolate and a synthetic peptide are, like the original isolate, highly basic. At least one activator can be inhibited by the mutant but not by the parental repressing region. These and other findings suggest that these repressing regions interact with and inhibit the activity of activating regions bound nearby on DNA.
Human transcription factor TFIIB, a protein of 316 amino acids, was subjected to limited proteolysis in order to define stable structural domains. We find that the C-terminal region of TFIIB, residues 106-316, is relatively stable, while the N-terminal region is very sensitive to proteases. Like full-length TFIIB, the stable domain, which we refer to as TFIIBc, interacts with the TATA-binding protein (TBP) on DNA. However, TFIIBc is unable to substitute for TFIIB in an in vitro transcription assay. We show by gel mobility-shift experiments that TFIIBc arrests formation of the transcription complex after binding to TBP, and we conclude that the N-terminal region of TFIIB, which is missing from TFIIBc, is responsible for the recruitment of RNA polymerase II to the promoter. We also show that TFIIBc inhibits transcription by competing with full-length TFIIB for the interaction with TBP, either in the presence or in the absence of the TBP-associated factors. The acidic transcriptional activator GAL4-VP16 does not favor the assembly of the functional transcription complex over the nonfunctional complex containing TFIIBc. Thus, if the function of GAL4-VP16 is enhancement of the interaction between TFIIB and the TFIID-DNA complex, then this function can also be exerted on the protease-resistant domain TFIIBc.
The Epstein-Barr viral transcriptional activator ZEBRA induces expression of viral early lytic genes when introduced into cells bearing latent Epstein-Barr virus. We show here that a ZEBRA-herpes simplex viral protein 16 (VP16) fusion protein induces early viral lytic gene expression in Epstein-Barr virus-containing cells more efficiently than does wild-type ZEBRA. The fusion protein is also a more powerful transcriptional activator in these cells, as assayed with reporter constructs. Our experiments also suggest that ZEBRA manifests a function required for full activity on certain natural promoters but not on promoters bearing oligomerized ZEBRA binding sites; this function cannot be provided by VP16.
A DNA fragment encoding the yeast GAL4 transcriptional activator DNA-binding domain (amino acids 1-93) was cloned into an Escherichia coli expression vector such that the overproduced protein is tagged with six histidine residues and a factor Xa protease cleavage site. The vector also contains unique restriction sites at the 3' end of the gene to allow the construction of fusion proteins. These fusion proteins can easily be purified to homogeneity and their activity tested in vitro.
Several mechanisms contribute to the glucose repression of the GAL1 gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We show that one mechanism involves the transcriptional down-regulation of the GAL4 gene and a second requires the GAL80 gene. We also examine the contribution of cis-acting negative elements in the GAL1 promoter to glucose repression. In an otherwise wild-type strain disruption of any one of these three mechanisms alleviates repression of GAL1 only 2- to 4-fold. However, in the absence of the other two mechanisms the transcriptional down-regulation of GAL4 is sufficient to repress GAL1 expression 40- to 60-fold and the GAL80-dependent mechanism is sufficient to repress GAL1 expression 20- to 30-fold. These first two mechanisms constitute a functionally redundant system of repression and both must be disrupted in order to abolish glucose repression of GAL1. In contrast, negative elements in the GAL1 promoter are effective in repressing GAL1 expression 2- to 4-fold in glucose medium only when at least one of the other two mechanisms of repression is present. Thus, glucose repression of GAL1 is mediated primarily by the first two mechanisms, whereas the third mechanism supplements repression severalfold.