J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 34, 24220-24231, August 20, 1999
Recovery of the Yeast Cell Cycle from Heat Shock-induced
G1 Arrest Involves a Positive Regulation of G1
Cyclin Expression by the S Phase Cyclin Clb5*
Xiaorong
Li and
Mingjie
Cai
From the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, National
University of Singapore, 30 Medical Dr.,
Singapore 117609, Singapore
 |
ABSTRACT |
In the yeast Saccharomyces
cerevisiae, heat shock stress induces a variety of cellular
responses including a transient cell cycle arrest before
G1/S transition. Previous studies have suggested that this
G1 delay is probably attributable to a reduced level of the
G1 cyclin gene (CLN1 and CLN2)
transcripts. Here we report our finding that the G1 cyclin
Cln3 and the S cyclin Clb5 are the key factors required for recovery
from heat shock-induced G1 arrest. Heat shock treatment of
G1 cells lacking either CLN3 or
CLB5/CLB6 functions leads to prolonged cell
cycle arrest before the initiation of DNA synthesis, concomitant with a
severe deficiency in bud formation. The inability of the clb5
clb6 mutant to resume normal budding after heat shock treatment
is unanticipated, since the S phase cyclins are generally thought to be
required mainly for initiation of DNA synthesis and have no significant
roles in bud formation in the presence of functional G1
cyclins. Further studies reveal that the accumulation of G1
cyclin transcripts is markedly delayed in the clb5 clb6
mutant following heat shock treatment, indicating that the
CLN gene expression may require Clb5/Clb6 to attain a
threshold level for driving the cell cycle through G1/S
transition. Consistent with this assumption, overproduction of Clb5
greatly enhances the transcription of at least two G1 cyclin genes (CLN1 and CLN2) in heat-shocked
G1 cells. These results suggest that Clb5 may positively
regulate the expression of G1 cyclins during cellular
recovery from heat shock-induced G1 arrest. Additional
evidence is presented to support a role for Clb5 in maintaining the
synchrony between budding and DNA synthesis during normal cell division
as well.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Cells from various organisms are equipped through evolution with
the ability to react to an abrupt elevation of temperature in their
environment with what has been collectively termed heat shock response
to increase their chance of survival in such an environment (1-4).
Heat shock treatment of yeast cells, for instance, induces several
observable responses including a reprogramming of gene expression,
acquisition of thermotolerance, and a transient cell cycle arrest at
G1 (1, 5-7). The reprogramming of gene expression allows
biased synthesis of proteins and metabolites with protective functions
against the heat insult. An important group of proteins that are
induced to high levels immediately after heat exposure in yeast as well
as other organisms is known to be the heat shock proteins, which act as
molecular chaperones to help minimize the detrimental effects of
protein denaturation caused by heat shock treatment (3, 8-11). The
heat shock-induced reprogramming of gene expression also results in a
temporal reduction in the expression of proteins whose functions are
not in immediate need for thermotolerance acquisition. This
down-regulation of gene expression may be the reason behind the
transient cell cycle arrest at G1 in yeast cells, since two
G1 cyclin genes required for G1/S transition,
CLN1 and CLN2, are found to be repressed after
heat shock treatment (12). A stress-inducible protein, Xbp1, has been
proposed to function in the repression of gene expression following
heat shock treatment (13). Apart from down-regulating the expression of
many genes, heat shock stress is also believed to result in a
down-regulation of the cyclic AMP (cAMP)-Ras pathway (7, 14), which may
affect cell cycle progression through the G1 cyclin Cln3
(15).
The heat shock-induced G1 arrest in yeast lasts for a
period of approximately 1 h (7). Once the heat shock proteins are induced and thermotolerance is acquired, the normal cell cycle resumes.
Normal cell cycle progression in yeast relies on sequential activation
of the cyclin-dependent kinase Cdc28 by the cell cycle stage-specific cyclins (16-19). G1/S transition, often
referred to as START, is dependent on three G1 cyclins:
Cln1, Cln2, and Cln3 (16-19). Cln3 is particularly important, since it
controls the expression of other G1 cyclins, as well as
Clb5 and Clb6, two S phase cyclins required for initiation of DNA
synthesis (20, 21). By a yet unknown mechanism, Cln3 activates the
transcription factor SBF, which is composed of the Swi4 and Swi6
proteins (22-24). SBF in turn drives the transcription of a set of
genes including CLN1 and CLN2, leading to
execution of START and budding (22-24). In a parallel fashion, Cln3 is
also thought to activate another transcription factor MBF, consisting
of Mbp1 and Swi6, which then stimulates expression of the genes
involved in DNA synthesis including CLB5 and CLB6
(22, 23).
Thus, the cyclin cascade initiated by Cln3 sets in motion two parallel
cell cycle events downstream of START, i.e. budding and DNA
replication, each controlled by a pair of functionally overlapping
cyclins. Although G1 cyclin functions are sufficient for
passage of START and bud formation, the initiation of DNA replication
cannot properly take place without the functions of Clb5/Clb6. Loss of
Clb5/Clb6 functions results in a delay in initiation of DNA synthesis
but has no effects on the timing of bud emergence (25), suggesting that
Clb5/Clb6 are principally required for DNA synthesis control. Under
special conditions, however, Clb5 has been shown to be more versatile,
capable of performing some overlapping functions with the
G1 cyclins. Overproduction of Clb5, for example, can rescue
the lethality of the cln1 cln2 cln3 triple mutant (26).
Similarly, elevation of the Clb5 activity through inactivation of Sic1,
an inhibitor of the Clb5-Cdc28 kinase, also suppresses the START
deficiency in the cln1 cln2 cln3 triple mutant (27, 28).
These observations suggest that, although Clb5 normally is not required
for execution of START and budding, it is able to provide these
functions if its activity is sufficiently increased.
In the present study, the roles of various cyclins in the recovery of
cell cycle from heat shock-induced G1 arrest have been examined. Our results suggest that Clb5 is one of the key factors required for this process. Clb5 facilitates the cell cycle recovery following heat shock by promoting initiation of DNA replication on one
hand and positively regulating the expression of the G1 cyclin genes to promote budding on the other.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Strains, Media, and General Methods--
All yeast strains used
in this study were derived from the wild type strain W303 and are
listed in Table I. The rad24
and cln1 cln3 mutants were originally obtained from U. Surana and I. Herskowitz, respectively. YUS454 (cln1 cln2
cln3) contains the CLN3 gene under control of the
methionine-repressible MET3 promoter for viability. Yeast
extract-peptone, synthetic complete, and dropout media were prepared as
described by Rose et al. (29). Recombinant DNA methodology
was performed as described by Sambrook et al. (30). PCR was
performed with Vent polymerase (New England Biolabs) as recommended by
the manufacturer. Genetic manipulations were performed according to
standard methods (29). Cell morphology and DNA content analysis by
FACScan were performed as described previously (31).
Plasmid Construction--
Plasmids used in this study are listed
in Table II. To generate the plasmids
pMC229-233, polymerase chain reaction-amplified coding regions of
CLN2, CLN3, CLB3, CLB5, and
CLB6 were cloned individually into a centromere vector under
control of the GAL1 promoter containing URA3 as a
selectable marker. The plasmids pMC234 and pMC235 were generated by
fusing the coding regions of CLN2 and CLN3 with
GAL1 in a centromere vector containing the LEU2
gene.
Gene Disruption--
Gene disruptions were performed using the
one-step replacement method (32). The CLN2 gene was
disrupted by replacing its 1.3-kb1
XhoI-NcoI fragment by URA3 in wild
type and a cln1 mutant to generate YMC432 and YMC434,
respectively. The CLB3 gene was disrupted by replacing the
1-kb HpaI-BglII fragment by HIS3, and
the CLB4 gene was disrupted by replacing the 0.5-kb
StuI-SpeI fragment by TRP1. YMC404
(clb3
::HIS3
clb4
::TRP1) was generated by two consecutive disruptions. Similarly, YMC406
(clb5
::URA3
clb6
::TRP1) was made by consecutive
disruptions of CLB5, whose 1-kb
PvuI-FokI fragment was replaced by
URA3, and CLB6, whose 0.9-kb
BstXI-XbaI fragment was replaced by
TRP1.
Synchronization and Heat Shock Treatment--
Overnight cultures
were diluted to an A600 of 0.1 and were allowed
to grow at 25 °C to an A600 of 0.3. At this
point,
-factor was added to a final concentration of 5 µg/ml. When
greater than 95% cells had been arrested in G1, the
cultures were divided into two halves, with one shifted to 42 °C for
30 min and another remaining at 25 °C. The cells were then washed by
filtration and resuspended in fresh medium at 25 °C. Samples taken
at intervals were used for analysis of cell morphology, DNA content,
and Northern blotting.
Gene Overexpression--
In experiments where the expression of
a gene was driven by the GAL1 promoter, the cells were first
grown in medium containing raffinose as the sole carbon source. The
cells were synchronized in G1 as described above. Galactose
was then added to 2% to induce the gene expression for 15 min at
25 °C before being subjected to heat shock treatment. After
-factor was removed by filtration, the cells were resuspended in
fresh medium containing raffinose and galactose and incubated at
25 °C. Samples were collected at intervals for further analysis.
In experiments showing that CLB5 overexpression overrides
-factor-induced G1 arrest, the G1-arrested
cells were split into two parts with galactose added to one of them,
and both cultures were continuously incubated with
-factor.
Northern Analysis--
Total RNA was isolated as described by
Cross and Tinkelenberg (33), and Northern blot analyses were performed
as described by Price et al. (34). To show RNA signals of
various genes on the same blot, the DNA probes used earlier on RNA blot
were stripped by heating at 80 °C for 30 min in a solution
containing 0.1% SDS, 1 µM EDTA, and 10 µM
Tris-HCl (pH 7.2). After washing briefly in H2O, the blot
was hybridized with another 32P-labeled probe. The RNA
levels were quantitated with a PhosphorImager (Molecular Dynamics,
Inc., Sunnyvale, CA).
 |
RESULTS |
Heat Shock Stress Causes a Transient Cell Cycle Arrest at
G1--
Previous studies on yeast cell cycle response to
heat shock treatment were performed with asynchronous cell populations
(12). To better assess the duration of the G1 arrest period
and the kinetics of the recovery, we used mating pheromone
(
-factor)-synchronized cells for examination of their response to
heat shock treatment. Wild type cells were synchronized by
-factor
and divided into two halves with one shifted to 42 °C for 30 min,
while another remained at 25 °C, followed by washing and
resuspension in fresh medium devoid of the mating pheromone. As shown
in Fig. 1, cells that had been exposed to
high temperature initiated DNA replication and budding at a later time
point than those that were not treated with heat shock. The delay was
about 60 min (Fig. 1). This result confirms the previous finding that
the cell cycle arrest induced by heat shock is prior to START, since
budding and DNA replication were both delayed (12).

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Heat shock induces a transient G1
arrest in wild type and DNA checkpoint mutants. Cells were
synchronized in G1 by -factor and divided into two
halves with one shifted to 42 °C for 30 min and another remaining at
25 °C. After washing, the cells were resuspended in fresh medium and
incubated at 25 °C. Samples taken at intervals were analyzed for DNA
content by FACScan and budding profiles. The heat-treated cultures are
shown on the right and the untreated ones on the
left. The strains were W303 (wild type), YMC309a
(rad9), and YMC431 (rad24). The percentage
of unbudded cells is presented with S.D. values. At least 200 cells
were counted for each sample.
|
|
It is well known that another type of stress, DNA damage, also induces
cell cycle arrest in yeast, which is mediated through a control
mechanism termed "checkpoint" (35, 36). The checkpoint genes such
as RAD9 and RAD24 have been shown to be required
for the transient cell cycle arrest at G1 caused by DNA
damage (37). To test whether the DNA damage checkpoint also functions
in the G1 arrest caused by heat shock treatment, we
examined the cell cycle response to heat shock stress in the
rad9 and rad24 mutants. As shown in Fig. 1, both
mutants exhibited a G1 arrest that lasted about 60 min,
similar to the wild type cells, suggesting that the cell cycle arrest
after heat shock is not mediated through DNA damage checkpoint genes.
Cln3 and Clb5/Clb6 Are Essential for Recovery from Heat
Shock-induced G1 Arrest--
Decrease in the
CLN1 and CLN2 transcript levels has been
suggested as a possible cause of the cell cycle arrest in heat
shock-treated cells (12). We therefore examined various cyclin mutants
for their response to heat shock treatment. Cells lacking
CLN2 responded to heat shock treatment with a G1
arrest and recovered 60 min later, as did wild type cells (Fig.
2). The cln1 mutant behaved similarly (data not shown). Deletion of both CLN1 and
CLN2 genes caused a further delay of 30 min (Fig. 2).
Nevertheless, the double mutant resumed cell cycle and divided normally
after the 90-min delay (Fig. 2 and data not shown).

View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
cln3 and clb5 clb6
cells are defective in recovery from heat shock-induced
G1 arrest. Cells were analyzed by the procedure
described in the legend to Fig. 1. The strains were YMC432
(cln2), YMC434 (cln1 cln2), YMC433
(cln3), YMC404 (clb3 clb4) and YMC406 (clb5
clb6). The heat-shocked cells are shown on the right
and the untreated cells on the left.
|
|
Remarkably, the cln3 mutant failed to recover from the heat
shock-induced G1 arrest for at least 5 h (Fig. 2). The
mutant cells showed no sign of DNA replication and virtually no bud
formation during the entire period of the experiment (Fig. 2). The
failure of the cln3 mutant to initiate DNA replication and
budding was not because the mutant was particularly sensitive to the
heat treatment, since the cln3 cell viability was not
significantly affected by the heat shock treatment (data not shown).
This result indicates that CLN3 is essential for cell
recovery from heat shock-induced G1 arrest. A similar
defect in recovery from the arrest was also observed in the clb5
clb6 double mutant except, in this case, the budding defect was
less pronounced than that of the cln3 cells (Fig. 2).
Nevertheless, the clb5 clb6 double mutant displayed a
conspicuous budding defect after heat shock. 2 h after release from synchronization, for example, only 26% of the double mutant cells
were budded, compared with over 50% in the populations of either the
wild type or any of the cln1, cln2,
clb5, and clb6 single mutants (Fig. 2, and data
not shown). Furthermore, the budded cell population of the double
mutant was limited to about 50% for at least 5 h (Fig. 2). It is
evident, therefore, that the clb5 clb6 mutant was unable to
recover from the heat shock-induced G1 arrest for a rather
prolonged period. Both cln3 and clb5 clb6 mutants
eventually resumed normal division without showing significant reductions in their viability (data not shown). In comparison, the
clb3 clb4 double mutant, defective in another pair of S
phase cyclins, Clb3/Clb4, (25, 38, 39), exhibited no defect in recovery
from the G1 arrest (Fig. 2).
Transcription of the CLN Genes Is Impaired in the clb5 clb6 Mutant
after Heat Shock--
The severe defect in recovery from heat
shock-induced G1 arrest exhibited by the cln3
mutant is, by and large, within expectations, since this cyclin is the
crucial factor in promoting the initiation of bud formation and DNA
replication. However, the inability of the clb5 clb6 double
mutant to resume normal budding was unexpected, because the Clb5/Clb6
cyclins are thought to be required mainly for DNA synthesis and not for
bud formation when functional G1 cyclins are present (25).
To seek an explanation for this finding, we tested whether the
CLN transcript levels were affected in the double mutant. As
shown in Fig. 3a, the
CLN1 and CLN2 transcripts in the
untreated wild type cells accumulated to a peak level 30 min after
release from synchronization, followed by periodic oscillations. In the
heat shock-treated wild type cells, the CLN1 and
CLN2 transcripts lagged 30-60 min before reaching the peak
levels (Fig. 3a). Similarly, the accumulation of the
CLB5 transcript was also delayed, albeit to a lesser extent
compared with that of CLN1 and CLN2 (Fig.
3a). The CLN3 transcript was present in
-factor-treated cells and appeared to be the least affected by heat
shock treatment (Fig. 3a). In contrast, the clb5
clb6 mutant displayed a marked reduction in all G1
cyclin transcripts after heat shock treatment (Fig. 3b). The
CLN1 and CLN2 transcripts in clb5 clb6
cells did not reach levels comparable with those in the untreated cells
until 180 min after release from G1 synchronization (Fig.
3b). The level of the CLN3 transcript was also
decreased significantly in the mutant after heat exposure (Fig.
3b). The clb5 clb6 mutant, nevertheless, produced
the ACT1 and SSA4 transcripts in a manner similar
to wild type cells after heat exposure, indicating that the mutant was
not defective in the general and heat shock-induced transcriptions (Fig. 3). These results together suggest that the Clb5/Clb6 cyclins are
involved in the recovery of CLN transcript abundance in
cells that have undergone heat shock treatment.

View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Accumulation of CLN and
CLB5 transcripts was delayed after heat shock
treatment. Cells were processed by the procedure described in the
legend to Fig. 1. Samples were taken at intervals for measuring
mRNA abundance. The transcript levels are shown in the
upper panels. The same blot was probed and
reprobed (after stripping) by labeled DNA fragments of the indicated
genes. ACT1 is the gene for yeast actin and serves as a
loading control. SSA4 is an HSP70 heat shock-inducible gene
and serves as a heat shock control (52). Quantitative presentations of
the RNA signals derived from PhosphorImager analysis are shown in the
lower panels. a, the wild type strain
(W303). b, the clb5 clb6 double mutant (YMC406).
HS, heat shock.
|
|
Overexpression of CLN and CLB5 Eliminates the Heat Shock-induced
G1 Arrest--
The observation that the CLN
transcript accumulation was delayed by heat shock treatment supports
the notion that the cell cycle arrest following heat shock is
attributable to the suboptimal level of G1 cyclin
expression. Indeed, overexpression of CLN2 is able to
abolish the G1 arrest induced by heat shock treatment in
asynchronous cells (12). To better understand the mechanisms of the
heat shock-induced G1 arrest, we examined the effects of overexpression of other cyclin genes on cell cycle response to heat
shock. The CLN2, CLN3, CLB5, and
CLB3 genes were each placed under control of
pGAL1, a strong inducible promoter, and introduced into wild
type cells. After synchronization in G1 by
-factor in a
raffinose-containing medium, galactose was added for 15 min to induce
the cyclin gene expression, followed by heat shock and release to fresh
medium containing galactose. As shown in Fig. 4, overexpression of each
CLN2, CLN3, and CLB5 completely
eliminated the G1 arrest. The cyclin-overproducing cells
displayed cell cycle kinetics after heat shock treatment comparable
with those of untreated wild type cells, as judged by the FACScan
pattern and budding profile (Fig. 4). In contrast, overexpression of
two other S phase cyclin genes, CLB3 and CLB4,
generated no effect on the G1 arrest after heat shock (Fig.
4, and data not shown), an observation in agreement with the results
presented in Fig. 2.

View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Overexpression of CLN and
CLB5 eliminates heat-induced G1
arrest. Wild type cells containing each of the
GAL1-CLN2, GAL1-CLN3, GAL1-CLB5, or
GAL1-CLB3 constructs were grown in raffinose and
synchronized by -factor. The cells were proportioned equally into
three parts with galactose added to one of them. The three cultures
were incubated for another 15 min before subjecting two of them
including the one in galactose to heat shock treatment. After washing,
the cells were resuspended in fresh medium containing raffinose (for
the GAL cultures) or raffinose plus galactose (for the +GAL culture)
and incubated at 25 °C. Samples taken at intervals were analyzed for
DNA content and budding profiles. The percentage of unbudded cells is
presented with the S.D. values. HS, heat shock.
GAL, galactose.
|
|
Overexpression of CLB5 Enhances CLN Transcriptions--
It has
been suggested that the G1 cyclins are the rate-limiting
factors in G1 cells for passage of START (16). The finding that heat shock stress failed to result in cell cycle arrest in CLN overexpression cells suggests the same for the heat
shock-induced G1 arrest. Since the Clb5/Clb6 cyclins are
not rate-limiting factors for START (25), the ability of overexpressed
CLB5 to negate the heat shock-induced G1 arrest
is indicative of an indirect role for Clb5/Clb6 in START promotion,
possibly as stimulators of the CLN gene transcription. This
possibility was investigated by analyzing the CLN transcript
abundance in cells overexpressing CLB5. As shown in Fig.
5a, CLB5
overexpression reversed the delay of CLN1 and
CLN2 transcripts caused by heat shock, making them appear at
the same time as in the wild type cells that experienced no heat shock
stress (Fig. 5a). CLN3 transcript levels were not significantly affected by CLB5 overexpression (Fig.
5a). Overexpression of another B-type cyclin gene
(CLB3) had no effect on the CLN1 transcription at
all (Fig. 5b), consistent with the results described above,
namely that neither the mutations nor the overexpression of the
CLB3/CLB4 genes conferred any impact on heat
shock-induced G1 arrest. It is noteworthy that both
CLN1 and CLN2 transcripts retained a periodic
expression pattern throughout the cell cycle in the CLB5
overexpression cells.

View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Overexpression of CLB5
enhances transcription of CLN genes. Wild
type cells containing either the GAL-CLB5 or
GAL-CLB3 plasmids were processed by the procedure described
in the legend to Fig. 4. The transcript levels are shown in the
left panel. The same blot was probed, stripped
and reprobed with labeled DNA fragments of indicated genes.
Quantitative presentation of the RNA signals is shown in the
right panel using a PhosphorImager. a,
the cells containing GAL1-CLB5. b, the
cells containing GAL1-CLB3. HS, heat
shock. GAL, galactose.
|
|
CLB5 Overexpression Stimulates CLN1/CLN2 Transcription in the cln3
and swi4 Mutants--
The finding that CLB5 overexpression
stimulated CLN1/CLN2 gene transcription led us to
test whether an increase in Clb5 activity will bring about
G1/S transition in cln3 cells that had endured heat shock stress. In the absence of heat shock treatment,
CLB5 overexpression resulted in slight advancement in cell
cycle progression in cln3 cells (Fig.
6a). Heat shock treatment of
cln3 cells led to persistent cell cycle arrest at
G1, which could be effectively negated by CLB5
overexpression (Fig. 6a), suggesting that the defect of
heat-treated cln3 mutant in carrying out G1/S
transition is likely to be derived from insufficient CLN and
CLB5 transcriptions. This was ascertained by examining the
levels of CLN1, CLN2, and CLB5
transcripts in heat-treated cln3 cells. As shown in Fig. 6b, heat shock treatment strongly prevented the accumulation
of CLN1/CLN2/CLB5 transcripts, and no transcripts
were detected for these three cyclins until 180 min after release from
synchronization. Induction of CLB5 overexpression allowed
the appearance of the CLN1/CLN2 transcripts to be
advanced by 90 min in the heat-treated cln3 cells (Fig.
6b). This suggests that CLB5 overexpression can stimulate CLN1/CLN2 transcription in the absence
of the CLN3 function.


View larger version (103K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Overexpression of CLB5
enhances CLN1/2 transcription
and accelerates G1/S transition in the absence of
CLN3 and SWI4 genes. Mutant
cells containing GAL1-CLB5 were processed by the procedure
described in the legend to Fig. 4. Samples taken at intervals were
analyzed for DNA content, budding profiles, and mRNA abundance. The
percentage of unbudded cells was presented with S.D. values.
a and b, the cln3 null mutant
(YMC433). c and d, the swi4 null
mutant (YMC435). HS, heat shock. GAL,
galactose.
|
|
Since CLN1/CLN2 expression is mainly dependent on
the transcription factor SBF (22, 24), we therefore examined the
CLN1/CLN2 levels in the swi4 mutant,
which is defective in the DNA binding component of SBF (24). The
swi4 cells exhibited no defect in recovery from heat shock
treatment, since they responded to heat shock with a G1
arrest that lasted for about 60 min (Fig. 6c). CLB5 overexpression in swi4 cells completely
eliminated this G1 arrest (Fig. 6c). The
appearance of CLN1/CLN2 transcripts in
swi4 cells was delayed by heat shock treatment until 90 min
after release from synchronization, which was, again, greatly advanced
by the overexpression of CLB5 (Fig. 6d). These
results indicate that the stimulation of
CLN1/CLN2 transcription by Clb5 was achieved independently of SBF functions.
Overexpression of Clb5 Stimulates CLN1/CLN2 Transcription in the
Presence of Mating Factor--
The CLN1/CLN2
gene transcription is known to be inhibited by
-factor (40). The
data presented in Fig. 6 already showed that CLB5
overexpression could override the
-factor-dependent inhibition of CLN1/CLN2 transcription. To
further demonstrate this finding, the CLN1/CLN2
transcription was analyzed using samples derived from the cultures in
which
-factor was constantly present. In agreement with the previous
report (40), the transcription of CLN1 and CLN2,
but not CLN3, was strongly repressed in the presence of
-factor in wild type cells (Fig.
7a). No significant accumulation of the CLN1/CLN2
transcripts was observed until the end of the time course (240 min,
Fig. 7a). In a sharp contrast, the
CLN1/CLN2 transcription was markedly induced in
the CLB5 overexpression cells shortly after the addition of
galactose (Fig. 7a). This result demonstrates that
CLB5 overexpression can strongly stimulate the
CLN1/CLN2 transcription despite the presence of
-factor.

View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Overexpression of CLB5
promotes CLN1/2 transcription and cell cycle
progression in the presence of -factor.
Wild type as well as various mutant cells carrying GAL1-CLB5
were grown in raffinose and arrested in G1 by -factor at
25 °C for 2 h. The cultures were then divided into two halves
with galactose added to one of them and were further incubated at
25 °C with -factor. Samples taken at intervals were analyzed for
DNA content, budding profiles, and mRNA abundance. a,
the CLN transcript levels in -factor-treated wild type
cells with or without CLB5 overexpression. b,
FACScan analyses and budding profiles of wild type (W303), cln1
cln2 (YMC434), cln1 cln3 (YMC436), and swi4
(YMC435) cells with or without CLB5 overexpression.
GAL, galactose.
|
|
CLB5 overexpression in wild type cells not only stimulated
the CLN1/CLN2 expression, but also promoted
budding and DNA replication, in the presence of
-factor (Fig.
7b). Similar results were also observed in
-factor-treated cells of the cln1 cln2, cln1
cln3, and swi4 mutants (Fig. 7b).
CLB5 May Coordinate between Budding and DNA Replication--
It is
important to note that the CLB5-promoted cell cycle
progression in the presence of
-factor retained a good synchrony between budding and DNA replication (Fig. 7b). This raised
an interesting possibility that the Clb5 regulation of CLN
gene expression may not be limited to cell cycle response to heat shock
stress and could conceivably be important in coordination of budding and DNA synthesis. To examine this hypothesis, we followed the timing
of budding relative to DNA synthesis in the Clb5-overproducing cells in
the absence of functional Cln cyclins. If Clb5 is important for
coordination between DNA synthesis and budding by positively regulating
G1 cyclin gene expression, an increase in Clb5 levels will
promote the two processes simultaneously only in the presence of at
least one CLN gene, as is the case in the experiment
presented in Fig. 7b. Wild type cells, as shown in Fig.
8, exhibited good coordination of budding
and DNA synthesis during the cell cycle after release from
-factor
synchronization. At the time, for example, when nearly half of the
population had replicated DNA, as judged by the size of the 2N peak in
FACScan (93 min after release), 52% of the cells remained unbudded.
Wild type cells overexpressing CLB5 initiated DNA synthesis
earlier, generating half of the population in S phase at 79 min after
release. Importantly, the budding process was similarly advanced in
these cells, showing 53% of the unbudded population at this time
point. This suggests, therefore, that, although Clb5 is thought to be
much more efficient in promoting DNA synthesis than in promoting bud
formation (16, 17, 25, 41, 42), its overproduction in the presence of one or more functional G1 cyclin genes maintains the
coordination between budding and DNA synthesis. In contrast, in cells
lacking all three G1 cyclin genes (the cln1 cln2
cln3 triple mutant), an uncoupling of the two processes was
observed. While CLB5 overexpression allowed the triple
mutant to bud as well as to replicate DNA after release from
-factor
synchronization, the budding process was significantly delayed in
relation to DNA synthesis. At the time when half of the population had
replicated DNA (79 min), 94% of the population still remained unbudded
(Fig. 8). These results confirm the anticipation that an increase in
Clb5 activity will advance both processes of DNA synthesis and budding
simultaneously only in the presence of functional G1 cyclin
genes.

View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Coordination of budding and DNA replication
by CLB5. Wild type cells containing
GAL-CLB5 were synchronized in G1 by -factor
in raffinose. The culture was divided into two parts, galactose was
added to one part, and the culture incubated for another 15 min. After
washing, the cells were released into fresh medium containing raffinose
(left) or raffinose plus galactose (middle). The
cln1 cln2 cln3 mutant (YUS454) containing
GAL-CLB5 (right) was grown in raffinose in the
absence of methionine and synchronized in G1 by -factor
in medium containing methionine. The cells were then released into
fresh raffinose medium containing galactose and methionine. Aliquots of
cells were taken at intervals for analysis of DNA content and budding
profiles.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Heat Shock-induced G1 Arrest Is Unlikely to Be Caused
by Checkpoint-like Mechanisms--
Like many other organisms, yeast
cells react to heat shock stress with a reprogramming of cellular
activities to increase their ability to survive in the stressful
environment. One of the consequences of this reaction is the transient
cell cycle arrest at G1. Since another type of stress
signal, DNA damage, causes a similar G1 delay, which is
dependent on the so-called checkpoint functions (37), it is reasonable
to ask whether the heat shock-induced G1 delay is also a
result of active inhibition of the cell cycle by a mechanism similar to
the DNA damage checkpoint. It has been reported that a putative
transcriptional repressor, Xbp1, is induced by various stress signals
including heat shock (13). Overexpression of XBP1 leads to
down-regulation of transcription of an extensive array of genes
including CLN1/CLN2/CLN3 (13). However, the role of Xbp1 in the repression of CLN gene
expression and the cell cycle delay in response to heat shock treatment
has remained unclear, as the xbp1 null mutation does not
affect the CLN gene repression after stress treatment (13).
Our present study shows that the heat shock-induced G1
delay does not involve the functions of some of the DNA damage
checkpoint genes. In addition, we also found that elimination of the
G1 delay in heat-treated cells by artificially forcing the
passage of START has no discernible effect on cell viability (data not
shown). Together with the earlier observation that the heat
stress-induced cell cycle arrest is not required for acquisition of
thermotolerance (5), these results suggest that the G1
arrest after heat shock is unlikely to be a manifestation of a
checkpoint-like control mechanism. Instead, it may be a result of
insufficient START-promoting G1 cyclins caused by the
selective gene expression employed by the cell to gain thermotolerance.
The Roles of G1 Cyclins in Recovery from Heat
Shock-induced G1 Arrest--
The G1 cyclins
are probably the only proteins limiting for START execution, since
cells overproducing G1 cyclins can pass through START
immediately after cytokinesis (16). Rowley et al. (12) have
attributed the heat shock-induced G1 arrest to low levels
of CLN1 and CLN2, but not CLN3,
transcripts. We have confirmed their observation using
G1-synchronized cells. We show that, in wild type cells,
the accumulation of the CLN1/CLN2 transcripts is
strongly suppressed by heat shock for at least 30 min, while that of
CLN3 is less affected. However, a significant reduction in
the CLN3 transcript level is observed in the clb5
clb6 mutant, suggesting that heat shock stress exerts an adverse
impact on the expression of all three G1 cyclin genes,
particularly in the absence of CLB5/CLB6 functions.
Of the three G1 cyclins, Cln3 is the most important in that
it determines the expression of the other two, as well as the expression of the Clb5 and Clb6 cyclins (16, 17, 19). Cln3 as such,
however, is not believed to be directly involved in DNA replication and
budding (25). Our studies indicate that Cln3 is required for cellular
recovery from heat shock-induced G1 arrest. Neither the
cln1 nor cln2 mutants exhibited a discernible
defect in the recovery, and the cln1 cln2 double mutant only
showed a 30-min delay in the recovery compared with the wild type (and either of the single mutants). In contrast, the cln3 mutant
could not recover from the arrest during the entire 5-h observation. Therefore, although CLN1/CLN2 transcripts are
most apparently inhibited from accumulation by heat shock stress among
all the cyclin genes investigated, they are nonessential for the
process of cell cycle recovery. This is probably due to the presence of Clb5 function, which is capable of carrying out START execution in
place of G1 cyclins. In the absence of Cln3, the expression of all three cyclin genes (CLN1/CLN2 and
CLB5) is greatly reduced after heat shock. This explains why
cln3 mutant is unable to recover from the heat shock-induced
G1 arrest for a prolonged time.
The Role of Clb5/Clb6 in Cell Cycle Recovery from Heat
Shock-induced G1 Arrest--
The Clb5/Clb6 cyclins are
thought to be required mainly for normal S phase promotion. In the
clb5 clb6 double mutant, initiation of S phase is greatly
delayed (25). The double mutant, however, buds properly under normal
growth conditions (25). This has led to the conclusion that the
Clb5/Clb6 cyclins exercise no functions in bud formation (25). This
view may now need modification, since we have found that the clb5
clb6 double mutant displayed a severe defect in resumption of
normal budding after heat shock treatment for a prolonged period of
time. In fact, the clb5 clb6 mutant is even less competent
in bud formation than the cln1 cln2 mutant after heat shock
treatment (Fig. 2).
Clb5, and possibly Clb6, may exert a double effect on the cell cycle
recovery from heat shock-induced G1 arrest. First,
Clb5/Clb6 function as promoters of DNA replication. In the absence of
Clb5/Clb6, the DNA replication is impaired but not blocked, due to the
activities of G1 cyclins, which can take over parts of
Clb5/Clb6 functions. This has been the explanation for the lethality
and permanent arrest before S phase of the cln1 cln2 clb5
clb6 quadruple mutant (25). Heat shock stress leads to a decline
in CLN gene transcript and hence a frailty of G1
cyclins to compensate for the Clb5/Clb6 function in initiation of DNA
replication. Second, Clb5/Clb6 indirectly participate in
G1/S transition and bud formation through the positive regulation of the G1 cyclin gene expression. The
observation that clb5 clb6 cells are more deficient than
cln1 cln2 cells in bud formation following heat shock
suggests, once again, that all three CLN genes require
Clb5/Clb6 for optimal expression in heat-shocked cells. Therefore, the
substantial delay of CLN1/CLN2/CLN3
transcript accumulation in clb5 clb6 cells after heat shock
treatment explains the budding defect of the double mutant.
Clb5 is also thought to perform some overlapping functions later in the
cell cycle with another two S phase cyclins, Clb3/Clb4, since it is
required for spindle formation in the absence of
CLB3/CLB4 genes (25). We have shown that the
Clb3/Clb4 cyclins are not involved in cell cycle recovery from heat
shock-induced G1 arrest, and overexpression of
CLB3 genes has no effect on CLN gene transcription.
Positive Regulation of CLN Gene Expression by Clb5--
It is
clear that the transcription of at least two G1 cyclin
genes, CLN1 and CLN2, can be strongly stimulated
by Clb5 overproduction. In heat shock-treated cells, for instance,
galactose induction of CLB5 completely negated the delay of
CLN1/CLN2 transcript accumulation. The fact that
the transcription of CLN3 is not as dramatically enhanced as
CLN1/CLN2 is probably due to the fact that it is
already near an optimal level. Overexpression of CLB3 in the
same way as CLB5 made no difference to CLN
transcription, indicating that CLB3 plays no roles in cell
cycle recovery from the G1 arrest. CLB5
overexpression also remarkably stimulates the CLN1/CLN2
transcription in the heat shock-treated cln3 and
swi4 mutant cells. In the cln3 mutant, the
appearance of CLN1/CLN2 transcripts is advanced
by 90 min by Clb5 after heat shock treatment. There is at least 60-min advancement of CLN transcription in the heat shock-treated
swi4 mutant as well. In addition, the transcription of the
CLN1 and CLN2 genes, which is normally repressed
by the mating pheromone
-factor, can be greatly stimulated by
CLB5 overexpression in the presence of
-factor.
Therefore, Clb5 is able to stimulate CLN1/CLN2 gene
transcription when its activity is sufficiently elevated.
In fact, the effect of artificially elevated Clb5 activity on
CLN gene expression has been investigated previously using
small daughter cells isolated by centrifugal elutriation (25). Although the accumulation of the CLN1 transcript was noticeably
advanced by Clb5 overproduction, it was not sufficient to prompt the
authors to draw the conclusion that Clb5 is able to stimulate the
CLN gene expression (25). The discrepancy in the degree of
CLN activation by Clb5 in their observation and ours can be
attributed to the fact that these authors used small early
G1 cells, whereas we employed late G1 cells. It
is likely that the accumulation of certain factors, such as those for
gene transcription and mRNA translation, only reach a functional
level for Clb5-stimulated CLN gene expression around late
G1. Thus, overproduction of Clb5 alone in the early
G1 cells is not expected to accomplish the task of
activating CLN gene expression. Indeed, using late
G1 cells, these authors observed strong induction of
PCL1 and RNR1, two genes regulated by SBF and
MBF, respectively, by Clb5 overproduction in the absence of three
G1 cyclin genes (25).
In view of the previous findings that Clb5 overproduction can perform
START functions and promote transcription of the SBF- and
MBF-dependent genes in the cln1 cln2 cln3 triple
mutant (25, 26), our new observation of CLN gene activation
by Clb5 may be, after all, not completely unexpected. However, the
important question remaining to be answered is whether Clb5 actually
performs these functions under normal physiological conditions, as it
did under those artificial ones. We now provide evidence to suggest that Clb5 is indeed required for optimal expression of CLN
genes in vivo. First, the clb5 clb6 mutant is
defective in resumption of normal budding after heat shock treatment
despite the presence of all three CLN genes. Wild type
G1 cells recover from heat shock-induced arrest after about
1 h. At this point, both budding and DNA replication have
progressed approximately halfway (Fig. 1). Under the same conditions,
however, the clb5 clb6 mutant is completely defective in
initiation of DNA replication, and severely defective in bud formation,
during the entire time course of 5 h (Fig. 2). Therefore, a
physiological situation has been identified under which Clb5 and Clb6
are essential for proper bud formation. Second, transcription of all
three CLN genes becomes impaired in the clb5 clb6
mutant after heat shock. Heat shock treatment of wild type cells delays appearance of the peak level CLN1/CLN2
transcripts for 30-60 min. However, attainment of peak levels of the
CLN1/CLN2 transcripts is delayed for at least 150 min by heat shock stress in the double mutant. The accumulation of the
CLN3 transcript is also significantly delayed in the double
mutant. This indicates that the accumulation of the CLN
transcripts to peak levels, crucial for promoting G1/S transition, requires the activity of the Clb5/Clb6 cyclins in heat
shock-treated cells. These results obtained under physiological conditions clearly advocate a role for Clb5/Clb6 in positive regulation of CLN gene expression in vivo.
Clb5 is normally under the negative control by Sic1, which binds to,
and inhibits the activity of, the Clb5-Cdc28 kinase (42). Phosphorylation of Sic1 by Cln-associated Cdc28 kinase and its subsequent ubiquitination by the Cdc4-Skp1-Cdc53 complex triggers the
proteolytic inactivation of Sic1 (43-46). The ability of Clb5 to
promote expression of Cln1/Cln2 suggests the existence of a regulatory
circuit that can rapidly disable the inhibitory effect of Sic1 when
Clb5 levels are elevated.
How Clb5 regulates the expression of the CLN genes in
vivo is still open to speculation. One possibility is that Clb5
may mimic the function of Cln3, since it can strongly activate
CLN1/CLN2, as well as other genes regulated by
SBF and MBF (25), in the absence of Cln3. This possibility is made
unlikely by the fact that the CLN3 gene itself, whose
transcription is independent of SBF and MBF (24), may require Clb5 for
activation in heat shock-treated cells (Fig. 3). In addition, Clb5 can
also stimulate CLN gene expression in the absence of
Swi4, a component of SBF. It is therefore possible that Clb5 may
promote CLN expression independently of Cln3 and SBF. This
proposal is also consistent with the previous finding that persistent
overexpression of SWI4 did not prevent the heat
shock-induced decrease in CLN1/CLN2 transcript abundance (12). Cln3 and SBF are not the only activators of CLN1/CLN2 transcription, since
CLN/CLN2 transcription still occurs, albeit less
efficiently, in either the cln3 or the swi4 null
mutants. A number of other factors, such as Bck2, Rem1, Bry1, and Sit4, have been implicated in the regulation of transcription of the CLN1/CLN2 genes independent of the Cln3/SBF
pathway (47-50). Interestingly, overproduction of Bck2, like that of
Clb5, can strongly induce CLN1/CLN2
transcription (47). Whether the CLN1/CLN2
gene regulation by Clb5 involves these factors has not been investigated.
The Potential Role for Clb5 in Coordination between DNA Replication
and Budding--
The positive regulation of CLN gene
transcription by Clb5 has been shown to be important in cell recovery
from heat shock-induced G1 arrest. However, it is unlikely
to be the only function of this regulation. The hypothesis that Clb5
may also play an important role in maintaining the synchrony between
budding and DNA replication has been investigated by analyzing the
effect of CLB5 overexpression on the timing of bud emergence
relative to that of DNA replication in the presence or absence of
functional Cln cyclins. The ability of CLB5 to promote both
DNA replication and bud formation in a coordinated manner is evident in
the cells carrying at least one G1 cyclin gene. First,
CLB5 overexpression is found to be able to promote
G1/S transition in
-factor-arrested cells. This
phenomenon is probably independent of the Clb5-activated
CLN1/CLN2 transcription, because it occurs even
in cells lacking all G1 cyclin genes (51). Nonetheless, the
important point is that DNA replication and budding are promoted
simultaneously by Clb5 in cells carrying one or more G1
cyclin genes (Fig. 7b). Examination of synchronized cell
cycle progression further supports this notion. In the presence of
CLN genes, initiation of DNA replication and bud formation
are equally advanced by CLB5 overexpression (Fig. 8).
However, in the absence of CLN genes, the synchrony between
DNA replication and bud formation is lost (Fig. 8). Therefore, although
Clb5 is intrinsically a poor promoter for bud emergence (16, 17, 25,
41, 42), its overproduction maintains the coordination between the two processes as long as at least one CLN gene is present. The
dependence of Clb5-driven synchronous progression of cell cycle on the
presence of CLN suggests that Clb5 promotes bud formation
indirectly through increasing the activity of Cln cyclins, or the
expression of the CLN genes.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank I. Herskowitz and U. Surana for
yeast strains and C. Pallen and Y. Kimhi for critical readings of the
manuscript. J. Wang is thanked for general technical assistance, and
members of Cai laboratory are thanked for helpful discussions.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by the Singapore National Science
and Technology Board.The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Institute of
Molecular and Cell Biology, National University of Singapore, 30 Medical Dr., Singapore 117609, Singapore. Tel.: 65-8743382; Fax: 65-7791117; E-mail: mcbcaimj@imcb.nus.edu.sg.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviation used is:
kb, kilobase pair(s).
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Craig, E. A.
(1992)
in
The Molecular and Cellular Biology of the Yeast Saccharomyces: Gene Expression
(Jones, E. W.
, Pringle, J. R.
, and Broach, J. R., eds)
, pp. 501-537, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
|
| 2.
|
Lindquist, S.
(1986)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
55,
1151-1191[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Lindquist, S.
(1992)
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
2,
748-755[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 4.
|
Schoffl, F.,
Prandl, R.,
and Reindl, A.
(1998)
Plant Physiol.
117,
1135-1141[Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
Barnes, C. A.,
Johnston, G. C.,
and Singer, R. A.
(1990)
J. Bacteriol.
172,
4352-4358[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Finkelstein, D. B.,
Strausberg, S.,
and McAlister, L.
(1982)
J. Biol. Chem.
257,
8405-8411[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Shin, D. Y.,
Matsumoto, K.,
Iida, H.,
Uno, I.,
and Ishikawa, T.
(1987)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
7,
244-250[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Georgopoulos, C.,
and Welch, W. J.
(1993)
Annu. Rev. Cell Biol.
9,
601-634[CrossRef]
|
| 9.
|
Hendricks, J. P.,
and Hartl, F. U.
(1993)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
62,
349-384[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Parsell, D. A.,
and Lindquist, S.
(1993)
Annu. Rev. Genet.
27,
437-496[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Parsell, D. A.,
Kowal, A. S.,
Singer, M. A.,
and Lindquist, S.
(1994)
Nature
372,
475-478[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 12.
|
Rowley, A.,
Johnston, G. C.,
Butler, B.,
Werner-Washburne, M.,
and Singer, R. A.
(1993)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13,
1034-1041[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Mai, B.,
and Breeden, L.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
6491-6501[Abstract]
|
| 14.
|
Attfield, P. V.
(1997)
Nat. Biotech.
15,
1351-1357[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 15.
|
Hall, D. D.,
Markwardt, D. D.,
Parviz, F.,
and Heideman, W.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
4370-4378[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 16.
|
Futcher, B.
(1996)
Yeast
12,
1635-1646[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 17.
|
Lew, D. J.,
Weinert, T.,
and Pringle, J. R.
(1997)
in
The Molecular and Cellular Biology of the Yeast Saccharomyces: Cell Cycle and Cell Biology
(Pringle, J. R.
, Broach, J. R.
, and Jones, E. W., eds)
, pp. 607-695, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
|
| 18.
|
Mendenhall, M. D.,
and Hodge, A. E.
(1998)
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
62,
1191-1243[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Nasmyth, K.
(1996)
Trends Genet.
12,
405-412[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 20.
|
Stuart, D.,
and Wittenberg, C.
(1995)
Genes Dev.
9,
2780-2794[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 21.
|
Tyers, M.,
Tokiwa, G.,
and Futcher, B.
(1993)
EMBO J.
12,
1955-1968[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Dirick, L.,
Bohm, T.,
and Nasmyth, K.
(1995)
EMBO J.
14,
4803-4813[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 23.
|
Koch, C.,
Moll, T.,
Neuberg, M.,
Ahorn, H.,
and Nasmyth, K.
(1993)
Science
261,
1551-1557[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 24.
|
Nasmyth, K.,
and Dirick, L.
(1991)
Cell
66,
995-1013[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Schwob, E.,
and Nasmyth, K.
(1993)
Genes Dev.
7,
1160-1175[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 26.
|
Epstein, C. B.,
and Cross, F. R.
(1992)
Genes Dev.
6,
1695-1706[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 27.
|
Schneider, B. L.,
Yang, Q. H.,
and Futcher, A. B.
(1996)
Science
272,
560-562[Abstract]
|
| 28.
|
Tyers, M.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
7772-7776[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 29.
|
Rose, M. D.,
Winston, F.,
and Hieter, P.
(1990)
Methods in Yeast Genetics: A Laboratory Course Manual
, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
|
| 30.
|
Sambrook, J.,
Fritsch, E. F.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1989)
Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual
, 2nd Ed.
, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
|
| 31.
|
Li, X.,
and Cai, M.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
2723-2734[Abstract]
|
| 32.
|
Rothstein, R.
(1991)
Methods Enzymol.
194,
281-301[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Cross, F. R.,
and Tinkelenberg, A. H.
(1991)
Cell
65,
875-883[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Price, C.,
Nasmyth, K.,
and Schuster, T.
(1991)
J. Mol. Biol.
218,
543-556[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 35.
|
Hartwell, L. H.,
and Weinert, T. A.
(1989)
Science
246,
629-634[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 36.
|
Hartwell, L. H.,
and Kastan, M. B.
(1994)
Science
266,
1821-1828[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 37.
|
Siede, W.,
Friedberg, A. S.,
Dianova, I.,
and Friedberg, E. C.
(1994)
Genetics
138,
271-281[Abstract]
|
| 38.
|
Fitch, I.,
Dahmann, C.,
Surana, U.,
Amon, A.,
Goetsch, L.,
Byers, B.,
and Futcher, B.
(1992)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
3,
805-818
|
| 39.
|
Richardson, H. E.,
Lew, D. J.,
Henze, M.,
Sugimoto, K.,
and Reed, S. I.
(1992)
Genes Dev.
6,
2021-2034[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 40.
|
Wittenberg, C.,
Sugimoto, K.,
and Reed, S. I.
(1990)
Cell
62,
225-237[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Piatti, S.,
Bohm, T.,
Cocker, J. H.,
Diffley, J. F.,
and Nasmyth, K.
(1996)
Genes Dev.
15,
1516-1531
|
| 42.
|
Schwob, E.,
Bohm, T.,
Mendenhall, M. D.,
and Nasmyth, K.
(1994)
Cell.
79,
233-244[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 43.
|
Feldman, R. M. R.,
Correll, C. C.,
Kaplan, K. B.,
and Deshaies, R. J.
(1997)
Cell
91,
221-230[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 44.
|
Verma, R.,
Annan, R. S.,
Huddleston, M. J.,
Carr, S. A.,
Reynard, G.,
and Deshaies, R. J.
(1997)
Science
278,
455-460[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 45.
|
Verma, R.,
Feldman, R. M. R.,
and Deshaies, R. J.
(1997)
Mol. Biol. Cell
8,
1427-1437[Abstract]
|
| 46.
|
Nishizawa, M.,
Kawasumi, M.,
Fujino, M.,
and Toh-e, A.
(1998)
Mol. Biol. Cell
9,
2393-2405[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 47.
|
Di Como, C. J.,
Chang, H.,
and Arndt, K. T.
(1995)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15,
1835-1846[Abstract]
|
| 48.
|
Fernanadez-Sarabia, M. J.,
Sutton, A.,
Zhong, T.,
and Arndt, K. T.
(1992)
Genes Dev.
6,
2417-2428[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 49.
|
Morgan, B. A.,
Bouquin, N.,
Merrill, G. F.,
and Johnston, L. H.
(1995)
EMBO J.
14,
5679-5689[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 50.
|
Toone, W. M.,
Johnson, A. L.,
Banks, G. R.,
Toyn, J. H.,
Stuart, D.,
Wittenberg, C.,
and Johnston, L. H.
(1995)
EMBO J.
14,
5824-5832[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 51.
|
Oehlen, L. J. W. M.,
Jeoung, D. I.,
and Cross, F. R.
(1998)
Mol. Gen. Genet.
258,
183-198[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 52.
|
Boorstein, W. R.,
and Craig, E. A.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
18912-18921[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

Cite