DOCSLIB.ORG

Targets TFIID and TFIIA to Prevent Activated Transcription

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Targets TFIID and TFIIA to Prevent Activated Transcription Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on September 26, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press The mammalian transcriptional repressor RBP (CBF1) targets TFIID and TFIIA to prevent activated transcription Ivan Olave, Danny Reinberg,1 and Lynne D. Vales2 Department of Biochemistry and 1Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854 USA RBP is a cellular protein that functions as a transcriptional repressor in mammalian cells. RBP has elicited great interest lately because of its established roles in regulating gene expression, in Drosophila and mouse development, and as a component of the Notch signal transduction pathway. This report focuses on the mechanism by which RBP represses transcription and thereby regulates expression of a relatively simple, but natural, promoter. The results show that, irrespective of the close proximity between RBP and other transcription factors bound to the promoter, RBP does not occlude binding by these other transcription factors. Instead, RBP interacts with two transcriptional coactivators: dTAFII110, a subunit of TFIID, and TFIIA to repress transcription. The domain of dTAFII110 targeted by RBP is the same domain that interacts with TFIIA, but is disparate from the domain that interacts with Sp1. Repression can be thwarted when stable transcription preinitiation complexes are formed before RBP addition, suggesting that RBP interaction with TFIIA and TFIID perturbs optimal interactions between these coactivators. Consistent with this, interaction between RBP and TFIIA precludes interaction with dTAFII110. This is the first report of a repressor specifically targeting these two coactivators to subvert activated transcription. [Key Words: RBP; transcriptional repression; TFIIA/TFIID targeting] Received November 17, 1997; revised version accepted April 1, 1998. The role of the cellular RBP protein in gene regulation Barr encoded EBNA2 (Grossman et al. 1994; Henkel et al. has been established fairly recently. Earlier genetic stud- 1994; Laux et al. 1994; Waltzer et al. 1994; Zimber-Strobl ies demonstrated a pivotal role for the Drosophila homo- et al. 1994); EBNA3A,B,C (Robertson et al. 1996); and the log of RBP in development (Nash 1965, 1970; Furukawa mammalian proteins Notch (Fortini and Artavanis-Tsa- et al. 1992; Schweisguth and Posakony 1992; Tun et al. konas 1994; Hsieh et al. 1996)] and KyoT2 (Taniguchi et 1994). Initial studies on mammalian RBP contributed al. 1998). biochemical and genetic characterizations, although The identification of RBP as a transcriptional repressor RBP was thought to be a recombinase at that time in mammalian cells was established during studies of (Hamaguchi et al. 1989, 1992; Matsunami et al. 1989; virus gene expression. The important role of RBP in regu- Kawaichi et al. 1992). Since then, RBP has been recog- lating gene expression in the mature cell is highlighted nized to be a transcription factor that represses mamma- by its sequestration during virus infection. Both adeno- lian gene expression (Dou et al. 1994; Kannabiran et al. virus and Epstein-Barr virus evolved to sequester RBP for 1997; Plaisance et al. 1997; Oswald et al. 1998), but ac- viral advantage. The adenoviral gene encoding the capsid tivates Drosophila gene expression (Brou et al. 1994). protein polypeptide IX (pIX) is expressed only after viral RBP has recently been implicated in the Notch signal DNA replication in infected cells. We found that the pIX transduction pathway in Drosophila, which may bridge promoter contained a repressive element that was spe- the role of RBP in gene expression and development (For- cifically bound by cellular RBP. RBP was shown to re- tini and Artavanis-Tsakonas 1994; Bailey and Posakony press pIX expression before viral DNA replication oc- 1995; Lecourtois and Schweisguth 1995; Hsieh et al. curs; this repression was dependent on the presence of 1996; Eastman et al. 1997). That RBP has a pivotal regu- the RBP-specific DNA-binding site within the pIX pro- latory role in gene expression is highlighted by its inter- moter. Furthermore, purified RBP protein was shown to action with viral and cellular proteins that modulate its repress pIX transcription in a reconstituted transcription activity [Drosophila Hairless (Brou et al. 1994); Epstein– assay performed in vitro (Dou et al. 1994). RBP was shown to be usurped during Epstein-Barr vi- 2Corresponding author. rus infection by the potent transcriptional activator E-MAIL [email protected]; FAX (732) 235-4783. EBNA2. EBNA2 lacks DNA-binding activity, but a com- GENES & DEVELOPMENT 12:1621–1637 © 1998 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press ISSN 0890-9369/98 $5.00; www.genesdev.org 1621 Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on September 26, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Olave et al. plex formed between RBP and EBNA2 facilitates EBNA2 ous report showing that RBP does not occlude Sp1 or tethering to the DNA via the RBP-specific DNA-binding TBP binding, RBP does not occlude binding of Sp1, activity (Grossman et al. 1994; Henkel et al. 1994; Laux TFIIA, and TFIID. All four proteins bind the pIX pro- et al. 1994; Waltzer et al. 1994; Zimber-Strobl et al. moter concomitantly. Instead of repressing by occlusion, 1994). Transcriptional activation by EBNA2 is expedited our results show that RBP mediates repression by direct not only by RBP-mediated access to specific promoters, interaction with two coactivators: TFIIA and the but also by EBNA2 masking of the RBP repression do- TAFII110 subunit of TFIID. Moreover, the component of main (Hsieh and Hayward 1995). TFIID targeted by RBP is the same TAF that interacts Transcriptional repression in eukaryotes has been ap- with TFIIA as well as with the activation domains of preciated relatively recently (for review, see Herschbach Sp1, the only activator required for optimal pIX expres- and Johnson 1993; Johnson 1995). Several repressors sion. However, our results also show that the domain of have been identified and their critical role in regulating TAFII110 targeted by RBP is the same as that which in- gene expression has been established. Similar to the teracts with TFIIA, but distinct from that which inter- precedents set by studies of prokaryotic repressors, dif- acts with Sp1. Furthermore, interaction between RBP ferent eukaryotic repressors that target distinct compo- and TFIIA precludes interaction of TAFII110. Therefore, nents and stages of the transcription process have been RBP interaction with TFIID and TFIIA alters optimal documented recently. Some repressors target activated interaction between these two coactivators, not to dis- transcription by competing with activators for overlap- lodge them from the promoter, but instead to subvert ping DNA-binding sites (e.g., Oct-1 and C/EBP; Wu et al. activated transcription. 1997). Other repressors interact with activators to mask activation domains (e.g., MDM2 and p53; Oliner et al. 1993). Activator–repressor interactions can also serve to Results tether the repressor to specific promoters. Then the re- pressor can effectively compete with other activators for Repression depends on the position of the RBP site basal transcription factors (e.g., MDM2 and TFIIE–TBP; in vivo Thut et al. 1997) or compete with a basal transcription factor for interaction with other activators (e.g., pRb and Figure 1a shows the simple adenoviral pIX promoter con- TBP; Weintraub et al. 1995). Some repressors complex taining a single Sp1 site, a single RBP site, and a consen- with basal transcription factors to exclude interaction sus TATA box. Our previous studies showed that this with other factors (Dr1 and TBP; Inostroza et al. 1992), region is sufficient for pIX regulation, that RBP-mediated whereas others can access promoters directly and target repression required the RBP-binding site, and that RBP candidate basal transcription factors to silence gene ex- binding did not dislodge Sp1 or TBP from the pIX pro- pression (e.g., Kruppel and TFIIB–TFIIEb; Sauer et al. moter (Dou et al. 1994). We initiated our studies to iden- 1995). RBP is a transcriptional repressor with specific tify the molecular basis of RBP repression by testing DNA-binding activity, and RBP binding was known to whether the position of the RBP site immediately up- be required for repression, yet the molecular basis of stream of the TATA box was fortuitous or important in RBP-mediated repression was not known. repression. Our initial studies of the adenoviral pIX gene sug- The single RBP site was repositioned at several dis- gested that RBP-mediated repression does not involve tinct sites within the promoter region of the pIX gene. In competition between RBP and other transcription fac- each case, the wild-type RBP site was substituted with tors for promoter access (Dou et al. 1994). The pIX pro- linker sequence and the optimal distance between the moter is relatively simple, containing a single site for the Sp1 site and the TATA consensus was maintained (Fig. cellular transcription factor Sp1 and a consensus TATA 1a). In two cases, the RBP site was repositioned upstream box (Babiss and Vales 1991). The RBP-specific DNA- of the Sp1 site. RBP/20nt/Sp1 contains an RBP site 20 binding site lies between these two positions immedi- nucleotides upstream of the Sp1 site, whereas RBP/Sp1 ately upstream of the TATA box. However, RBP binding contains an RBP site immediately upstream of the Sp1 did not dislodge either Sp1 or TBP from their respective site, similar to its normal position immediately up- sites. With this as a basis, we pursued the molecular stream of the TATA box. In two other cases, the RBP site mechanism by which RBP successfully silences pIX tran- was maintained between Sp1 activator and TATA and scription. placed either immediately downstream of Sp1 (Sp1/RBP) Using a transcription assay reconstituted with recom- or centered between the two sites (RBP center). The re- binant factors and highly purified native factors, we es- positioned RBP site restores RBP-specific DNA-binding tablished conditions for Sp1-activated pIX transcription activity in each case (data not shown).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mutations and Altered Expression of SERPINF1 in Patients with Familial Otosclerosis Joanna L
    Human Molecular Genetics, 2016, Vol. 25, No. 12 2393–2403 doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddw106 Advance Access Publication Date: 7 April 2016 Original Article ORIGINAL ARTICLE Mutations and altered expression of SERPINF1 in patients with familial otosclerosis Joanna L. Ziff1, Michael Crompton1, Harry R.F. Powell2, Jeremy A. Lavy2, Christopher P. Aldren3, Karen P. Steel4,†, Shakeel R. Saeed1,2 and Sally J. Dawson1,* 1UCL Ear Institute, University College London, London WC1X 8EE, UK, 2Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, London WC1X 8EE, UK, 3Department of ENT Surgery, The Princess Margaret Hospital, Windsor SL4 3SJ, UK and 4Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton CB10 1SA, UK *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: þ44 2076798935; Email: [email protected] Abstract Otosclerosis is a relatively common heterogenous condition, characterized by abnormal bone remodelling in the otic capsule leading to fixation of the stapedial footplate and an associated conductive hearing loss. Although familial linkage and candidate gene association studies have been performed in recent years, little progress has been made in identifying disease- causing genes. Here, we used whole-exome sequencing in four families exhibiting dominantly inherited otosclerosis to identify 23 candidate variants (reduced to 9 after segregation analysis) for further investigation in a secondary cohort of 84 familial cases. Multiple mutations were found in the SERPINF1 (Serpin Peptidase Inhibitor, Clade F) gene which encodes PEDF (pigment epithelium-derived factor), a potent inhibitor of angiogenesis and known regulator of bone density. Six rare heterozygous SERPINF1 variants were found in seven patients in our familial otosclerosis cohort; three are missense mutations predicted to be deleterious to protein function.
    [Show full text]
  • An RBPJ-Drosophila Model Reveals Dependence of RBPJ Protein Stability on the Formation of Transcription–Regulator Complexes
    cells Article An RBPJ-Drosophila Model Reveals Dependence of RBPJ Protein Stability on the Formation of Transcription–Regulator Complexes Bernd M. Gahr 1,2, Franziska Brändle 1, Mirjam Zimmermann 1 and Anja C. Nagel 1,* 1 Institute of Genetics (240), University of Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 30, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany; [email protected] (B.M.G.); [email protected] (F.B.); [email protected] (M.Z.) 2 Present address: Molecular Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine II, University of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081 Ulm, Germany * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-711-45922210 Received: 23 August 2019; Accepted: 10 October 2019; Published: 14 October 2019 Abstract: Notch signaling activity governs widespread cellular differentiation in higher animals, including humans, and is involved in several congenital diseases and different forms of cancer. Notch signals are mediated by the transcriptional regulator RBPJ in a complex with activated Notch (NICD). Analysis of Notch pathway regulation in humans is hampered by a partial redundancy of the four Notch receptor copies, yet RBPJ is solitary, allowing its study in model systems. In Drosophila melanogaster, the RBPJ orthologue is encoded by Suppressor of Hairless [Su(H)]. Using genome engineering, we replaced Su(H) by murine RBPJ in order to study its function in the fly. In fact, RBPJ largely substitutes for Su(H)’s function, yet subtle phenotypes reflect increased Notch signaling activity. Accordingly, the binding of RBPJ to Hairless (H) protein, the general Notch antagonist in Drosophila, was considerably reduced compared to that of Su(H). An H-binding defective RBPJLLL mutant matched the respective Su(H)LLL allele: homozygotes were lethal due to extensive Notch hyperactivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 Function in Breast Cancer (Review)
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 57: 1085-1094, 2020 Polycomb repressor complex 2 function in breast cancer (Review) COURTNEY J. MARTIN and ROGER A. MOOREHEAD Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada Received July 10, 2020; Accepted September 7, 2020 DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2020.5122 Abstract. Epigenetic modifications are important contributors 1. Introduction to the regulation of genes within the chromatin. The poly- comb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) is a multi‑subunit protein Epigenetic modifications, including DNA methylation complex that is involved in silencing gene expression through and histone modifications, play an important role in gene the trimethylation of lysine 27 at histone 3 (H3K27me3). The regulation. The dysregulation of these modifications can dysregulation of this modification has been associated with result in pathogenicity, including tumorigenicity. Research tumorigenicity through the increased repression of tumour has indicated an important influence of the trimethylation suppressor genes via condensing DNA to reduce access to the modification at lysine 27 on histone H3 (H3K27me3) within transcription start site (TSS) within tumor suppressor gene chromatin. This methylation is involved in the repression promoters. In the present review, the core proteins of PRC2, as of multiple genes within the genome by condensing DNA well as key accessory proteins, will be described. In addition, to reduce access to the transcription start site (TSS) within mechanisms controlling the recruitment of the PRC2 complex gene promoter sequences (1). The recruitment of H1.2, an H1 to H3K27 will be outlined. Finally, literature identifying the histone subtype, by the H3K27me3 modification has been a role of PRC2 in breast cancer proliferation, apoptosis and suggested as a mechanism for mediating this compaction (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Rbpj-Dependent and -Independent Notch2 Signaling Regulates
    RBPJ-DEPENDENT AND -INDEPENDENT NOTCH2 SIGNALING REGULATES CILIARY BODY DEVELOPMENT IN THE MOUSE EYE By Yi Zhou B.S., Tsinghua University, 2010 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Anatomy and Cell Biology and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ________________________________ Ting Xie, Ph.D., Co-Chair ________________________________ William Kinsey, Ph.D., Co-Chair ________________________________ Dale Abrahamson, Ph.D. ________________________________ Peter Smith, Ph.D. ________________________________ Jerry Workman, Ph.D. Date Defended: Jan 6th, 2016 The Dissertation Committee for Yi Zhou certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: RBPJ-DEPENDENT AND -INDEPENDENT NOTCH2 SIGNALING REGULATES CILIARY BODY DEVELOPMENT IN THE MOUSE EYE ________________________________ Ting Xie, Ph.D., Co-Chair ________________________________ William Kinsey, Ph.D., Co-Chair Date Approved: Jan 15th, 2016 ii ABSTRACT The ciliary body (CB) is a two-layered structure in the anterior eye, which is composed of the pigmented outer ciliary epithelium (OCE) and the non-pigmented inner ciliary epithelium (ICE). It is responsible for aqueous humor secretion and lens accommodation. Despite the important roles in maintaining normal eye functions, its development still remains poorly understood. The Notch signaling pathway is an evolutionarily conserved pathway that has diverse functions during tissue development and homeostasis. Canonical Notch signaling is mediated through the recombination signal binding protein for immunoglobulin kappa J region (RBPJ)-dependent transcription activation and repression. In this study, I have demonstrated that Notch2 and RBPJ are important regulators of CB development by conditionally deleting them in the developing CB.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Article a Database and Functional Annotation of NF-Κb Target Genes
    Int J Clin Exp Med 2016;9(5):7986-7995 www.ijcem.com /ISSN:1940-5901/IJCEM0019172 Original Article A database and functional annotation of NF-κB target genes Yang Yang, Jian Wu, Jinke Wang The State Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, People’s Republic of China Received November 4, 2015; Accepted February 10, 2016; Epub May 15, 2016; Published May 30, 2016 Abstract: Backgrounds: The previous studies show that the transcription factor NF-κB always be induced by many inducers, and can regulate the expressions of many genes. The aim of the present study is to explore the database and functional annotation of NF-κB target genes. Methods: In this study, we manually collected the most complete listing of all NF-κB target genes identified to date, including the NF-κB microRNA target genes and built the database of NF-κB target genes with the detailed information of each target gene and annotated it by DAVID tools. Results: The NF-κB target genes database was established (http://tfdb.seu.edu.cn/nfkb/). The collected data confirmed that NF-κB maintains multitudinous biological functions and possesses the considerable complexity and diversity in regulation the expression of corresponding target genes set. The data showed that the NF-κB was a central regula- tor of the stress response, immune response and cellular metabolic processes. NF-κB involved in bone disease, immunological disease and cardiovascular disease, various cancers and nervous disease. NF-κB can modulate the expression activity of other transcriptional factors. Inhibition of IKK and IκBα phosphorylation, the decrease of nuclear translocation of p65 and the reduction of intracellular glutathione level determined the up-regulation or down-regulation of expression of NF-κB target genes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Inhibitors of Differentiation Proteins ID1 and ID3 in Breast Cancer Metastasis
    The role of Inhibitors of Differentiation proteins ID1 and ID3 in breast cancer metastasis Wee Siang Teo A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy St Vincent’s Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine The University of New South Wales Cancer Research Program The Garvan Institute of Medical Research Sydney, Australia March, 2014 THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname or Family name: Teo First name: Wee Siang Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD (Medicine) School: St Vincent’s Clinical School Faculty: Faculty of Medicine Title: The role of Inhibitors of Differentiation proteins ID1 and ID3 in breast cancer metastasis Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in women. While locally-confined breast cancer is generally curable, the survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer is very poor. Treatment for metastatic breast cancer is palliative not curative due to the lack of targeted therapies. Metastasis is a complex process that still remains poorly understood, thus a detailed understanding of the biological complexity that underlies breast cancer metastasis is essential in reducing the lethality of this disease. The Inhibitor of Differentiation proteins 1 and 3 (ID1/3) are transcriptional regulators that control many cell fate and developmental processes and are often deregulated in cancer. ID1/3 are required and sufficient for the metastasis of breast cancer in experimental models. However, the mechanisms by which ID1/3 mediate metastasis in breast cancer remain to be determined. Little is known about pathways regulated by ID1/3 in breast cancer as well as their functional role in the multiple steps of metastatic progression.
    [Show full text]
  • LSD1 Dual Function in Mediating Epigenetic Corruption of the Vitamin
    Battaglia et al. Clinical Epigenetics (2017) 9:82 DOI 10.1186/s13148-017-0382-y RESEARCH Open Access LSD1 dual function in mediating epigenetic corruption of the vitamin D signaling in prostate cancer Sebastiano Battaglia1*, Ellen Karasik2, Bryan Gillard2, Jennifer Williams2, Trisha Winchester3, Michael T. Moser2, Dominic J Smiraglia3 and Barbara A. Foster2* Abstract Background: Lysine-specific demethylase 1A (LSD1) is a key regulator of the androgen (AR) and estrogen receptors (ER), and LSD1 levels correlate with tumor aggressiveness. Here, we demonstrate that LSD1 regulates vitamin D receptor (VDR) activity and is a mediator of 1,25(OH)2-D3 (vitamin D) action in prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Athymic nude mice were xenografted with CWR22 cells and monitored weekly after testosterone pellet removal. Expression of LSD1 and VDR (IHC) were correlated with tumor growth using log-rank test. TRAMP tumors and prostates from wild-type (WT) mice were used to evaluate VDR and LSD1 expression via IHC and western blotting. The presence of VDR and LSD1 in the same transcriptional complex was evaluated via immunoprecipitation (IP) using nuclear cell lysate. The effect of LSD1 and 1,25(OH)2-D3 on cell viability was evaluated in C4-2 and BC1A cells via trypanblueexclusion.TheroleofLSD1inVDR-mediatedgenetranscriptionwasevaluatedforCdkn1a, E2f1, Cyp24a1,andS100g via qRT-PCR-TaqMan and via chromatin immunoprecipitation assay. Methylation of Cdkn1a TSS was measured via bisulfite sequencing, and methylation of a panel of cancer-related genes was quantified using methyl arrays. The Cancer Genome Atlas data were retrieved to identify genes whose status correlates with LSD1 and DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1).
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamics and Function of DNA Methylation in Plants
    REVIEWS Dynamics and function of DNA methylation in plants Huiming Zhang1,2*, Zhaobo Lang1,2 and Jian- Kang Zhu 1,2,3* Abstract | DNA methylation is a conserved epigenetic modification that is important for gene regulation and genome stability. Aberrant patterns of DNA methylation can lead to plant developmental abnormalities. A specific DNA methylation state is an outcome of dynamic regulation by de novo methylation, maintenance of methylation and active demethylation, which are catalysed by various enzymes that are targeted by distinct regulatory pathways. In this Review, we discuss DNA methylation in plants, including methylating and demethylating enzymes and regulatory factors, and the coordination of methylation and demethylation activities by a so- called methylstat mechanism; the functions of DNA methylation in regulating transposon silencing, gene expression and chromosome interactions; the roles of DNA methylation in plant development; and the involvement of DNA methylation in plant responses to biotic and abiotic stress conditions. DNA methylation at the 5ʹ position of cytosine contrib- and regulatory factors are generally not lethal. However, utes to the epigenetic regulation of nuclear gene expres- DNA methylation appears to be more crucial for devel- sion and to genome stability1,2. Epigenetic changes, opment and environmental- stress responses in plants including DNA methylation, histone modifications and that have more complex genomes. Recent findings histone variants and some non- coding RNA (ncRNA) have uncovered important
    [Show full text]
  • I = Chpt 15. Positive and Negative Transcriptional Control at Lac BMB
    BMB 400 Part Four - I = Chpt 15. Positive and Negative Transcriptional Control at lac B M B 400 Part Four: Gene Regulation Section I = Chapter 15 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CONTROL SHOWN BY THE lac OPERON OF E. COLI A. Definitions and general comments 1. Operons An operon is a cluster of coordinately regulated genes. It includes structural genes (generally encoding enzymes), regulatory genes (encoding, e.g. activators or repressors) and regulatory sites (such as promoters and operators). 2. Negative versus positive control a. The type of control is defined by the response of the operon when no regulatory protein is present. b. In the case of negative control, the genes in the operon are expressed unless they are switched off by a repressor protein. Thus the operon will be turned on constitutively (the genes will be expressed) when the repressor in inactivated. c. In the case of positive control, the genes are expressed only when an active regulator protein, e.g. an activator, is present. Thus the operon will be turned off when the positive regulatory protein is absent or inactivated. Table 4.1.1. Positive vs. negative control BMB 400 Part Four - I = Chpt 15. Positive and Negative Transcriptional Control at lac 3. Catabolic versus biosynthetic operons a. Catabolic pathways catalyze the breakdown of nutrients (the substrate for the pathway) to generate energy, or more precisely ATP, the energy currency of the cell. In the absence of the substrate, there is no reason for the catabolic enzymes to be present, and the operon encoding them is repressed. In the presence of the substrate, when the enzymes are needed, the operon is induced or de-repressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Tnlo-Encoded Tet Repressor Can Regulate an Operator-Containing
    Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 85, pp. 1394-1397, March 1988 Biochemistry TnlO-encoded tet repressor can regulate an operator-containing plant promoter (cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter/electroporation/transient chloramphenicol acetyltransferase assays) CHRISTIANE GATZ* AND PETER H. QUAILt Departments of Botany and Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 Communicated by Folke Skoog, October 26, 1987 (receivedfor review July S, 1987) ABSTRACT The TnlO-encoded tet repressor-operator The TnlO-encoded tet repressor regulates the expression system was used to regulate transcription from the cauliflower of the Tc resistance operon by binding to nearly identical mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter. Expression was moni- operator sequences that overlap with three divergent pro- tored in a transient assay system by using electric field- moters (14, 15). The genes of the tet operon are only mediated gene transfer ("electroporation") into tobacco pro- transcribed in the presence of the inducer Tc, which pre- toplasts. The tet repressor, being expressed in the plant cells vents the repressor from binding to its operator sequences. under the control of eukaryotic transcription signals, blocks The tet repressor was chosen for regulating a plant promoter transcription of a CaMV 35S promoter chloramphenicol ace- for two reasons. (i) With a native molecular mass of 48 kDa, tyltransferase (cat) fusion gene when the two tet operators diffusion into the nucleus seemed likely (16). (ii) The high flank the "TATA" box. In the presence of the inducer equilibrium association constant of the repressor-inducer tetracycline, expression is restored to full activity. Location of complex ensures efficient induction at sublethal Tc concen- the operators 21 base pairs downstream of the transcription trations (17), thus making the system useful as an on/off start site does not significantly affect transcription in the switch for the specific regulation of transferred genes.
    [Show full text]
  • In Vitro Targeting of Transcription Factors to Control the Cytokine Release Syndrome in 2 COVID-19 3
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.29.424728; this version posted December 30, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 1 In vitro Targeting of Transcription Factors to Control the Cytokine Release Syndrome in 2 COVID-19 3 4 Clarissa S. Santoso1, Zhaorong Li2, Jaice T. Rottenberg1, Xing Liu1, Vivian X. Shen1, Juan I. 5 Fuxman Bass1,2 6 7 1Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA; 2Bioinformatics Program, 8 Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA 9 10 Corresponding author: 11 Juan I. Fuxman Bass 12 Boston University 13 5 Cummington Mall 14 Boston, MA 02215 15 Email: [email protected] 16 Phone: 617-353-2448 17 18 Classification: Biological Sciences 19 20 Keywords: COVID-19, cytokine release syndrome, cytokine storm, drug repurposing, 21 transcriptional regulators 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.29.424728; this version posted December 30, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 22 Abstract 23 Treatment of the cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has become an important part of rescuing 24 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Here, we systematically explored the transcriptional regulators 25 of inflammatory cytokines involved in the COVID-19 CRS to identify candidate transcription 26 factors (TFs) for therapeutic targeting using approved drugs.
    [Show full text]
  • The General Transcription Factors of RNA Polymerase II
    Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on October 7, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press REVIEW The general transcription factors of RNA polymerase II George Orphanides, Thierry Lagrange, and Danny Reinberg 1 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Biochemistry, Division of Nucleic Acid Enzymology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-5635 USA Messenger RNA (mRNA) synthesis occurs in distinct unique functions and the observation that they can as- mechanistic phases, beginning with the binding of a semble at a promoter in a specific order in vitro sug- DNA-dependent RNA polymerase to the promoter re- gested that a preinitiation complex must be built in a gion of a gene and culminating in the formation of an stepwise fashion, with the binding of each factor promot- RNA transcript. The initiation of mRNA transcription is ing association of the next. The concept of ordered as- a key stage in the regulation of gene expression. In eu- sembly recently has been challenged, however, with the karyotes, genes encoding mRNAs and certain small nu- discovery that a subset of the GTFs exists in a large com- clear RNAs are transcribed by RNA polymerase II (pol II). plex with pol II and other novel transcription factors. However, early attempts to reproduce mRNA transcrip- The existence of this pol II holoenzyme suggests an al- tion in vitro established that purified pol II alone was not ternative to the paradigm of sequential GTF assembly capable of specific initiation (Roeder 1976; Weil et al. (for review, see Koleske and Young 1995).
    [Show full text]