|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M201841200 on April 5, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 24, 21440-21445, June 14, 2002
Multiple Factors Prevent Transcriptional Interference at the
Yeast ARO4-HIS7 Locus*
Oliver
Valerius,
Cornelia
Brendel,
Katrin
Düvel , and
Gerhard H.
Braus§
From the Institute of Microbiology and Genetics,
Georg-August-University, Grisebachstrasse 8, D-37077
Göttingen, Germany
Received for publication, February 25, 2002, and in revised form, April 4, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
Increased transcriptional activity may cause
transcriptional interference in organisms with compact genomes such as
the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Replacement of the
yeast ARO4 promoter by the stronger ACT1
promoter increases ARO4 transcription and simultaneously
reduces the basal transcription of the downstream HIS7
gene. The open reading frames of ARO4 and HIS7
are tandemly transcribed and are separated by 416 bp. In
wild-type cells, a nuclease-resistant site suggests that the two genes
are separated by a single positioned nucleosome. Transcriptional
interference correlates with Micrococcus nuclease
accessibility of this otherwise nuclease-resistant site.
Deletion analyses of the region between the two open reading frames
revealed that transcriptional interference increases upon removal of
either parts of the ARO4 3' end or HIS7 promoter sequences. The abolishment of the Abf1p-binding site within
the HIS7 promoter significantly enhances transcriptional interference, resulting in a histidine auxotrophic strain. Our data suggest that the yeast cell prevents transcriptional interference by the combined action of efficient ARO4 transcription
termination, the positioning of a fixed nucleosome, and transcription
factor binding to the HIS7 promoter.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The arrangement of tandemly transcribed RNA polymerase II genes
can jeopardize regulated transcription in a cell by a phenomenon called
transcriptional interference. As consequence of elevated transcription of the upstream gene, transcription of the adjacent downstream gene might be diminished or even abolished. Transcriptional interference is favored by close proximity of genes that are only separated by short intergenic regions between the corresponding open
reading frames (ORFs).1 It
was found in HeLa cells that two closely spaced -globin genes in an
artificial gene construct interfere with each other (1). In yeast, the
cryptic promoter within the intron of the ACT1 gene is
occluded by transcription from the actual ACT1 promoter at the 5' end of the gene (2). We have described previously (3) that
HIS7 transcription is reduced when the upstream-located
ARO4 gene is transcribed from the strong ACT1
promoter instead of its natural promoter.
Eukaryotic transcriptional interference is understood as the result of
RNA polymerase II complexes that initiate transcription at the promoter
of the upstream gene and subsequently read through the promoter of the
downstream gene. Therefore, the assembly of functional transcription
complexes at the downstream promoter is disturbed, resulting in
promoter occlusion. The extent to which the reading through of RNA
polymerase II complexes occurs critically depends on the efficiency of
transcription termination of the upstream gene (3-5). Deletions of
GAL10 poly(A) signals abolished any activity of the
downstream GAL7 gene, even when the GAL7 promoter was intact, resulting in a bicistronic read-through transcript. Therefore, in the case of GAL7, the promoter was completely
occluded. Polymerase profiles raised in transcription run-on
experiments for these poly(A) mutant strains confirmed the accumulation
of nonterminated polymerase II complexes within the GAL7
promoter (4). As a consequence of transcriptional interference, it was shown that various transcription factors are not able to bind to their
promoter sites any more. This was demonstrated for the tandem HIV-1
promoters integrated into the genome of HeLa cells, where promoter
occlusion of the downstream promoter correlated with reduced binding of
the transcription factor Sp1 (6). The binding of the Gal4p
transcriptional activator to the GAL7 promoter was reduced
in a similar fashion by read-through transcription initiated at the
upstream GAL10 promoter. Interestingly, Gal4p overexpression
can suppress this effect (7).
Eukaryotic transcription is affected by the DNA accessibility of
promoter sequences. Nucleosome structures in intergenic regions might
therefore play an important role in the prevention of transcriptional interference. An example for prevention of transcriptional interference by a positioned nucleosome was described in Drosophila
melanogaster. There, reconstituted chromatin with rDNA templates
resulted in a positioned upstream nucleosome that is recruited by
termination factor TTF-I. This nucleosome can act as barrier to
transcriptional interference of the downstream ribosomal RNA genes that
are transcribed by the RNA polymerase I complex (8).
ARO4 and HIS7 are adjacent genes of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae that are transcribed into the same
direction. The intergenic region between both ORFs consists of 416 bp.
Both genes encode amino acid biosynthetic enzymes required for the
formation of aromatic amino acids and histidine, respectively. Here, we
address the question of which parts of the entire ARO4-HIS7
intergenic region antagonize transcriptional interference. We show that
both ARO4 mRNA 3' end formation signals and specific
HIS7 promoter sequences diminish transcriptional
interference. Moreover, we present a correlation between
transcriptional interference and the intergenic chromatin structure.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Yeast Strains, Growth Conditions, and Plasmids--
Yeast
strains and genotypes used in this work are listed in Table
I. For all experiments described here,
strains were cultivated in minimal vitamin medium (9) supplemented with
the required amino acids according to Rose et al. (10). To
generate functional fusions of the ACT1 promoter with the
ARO4 ORF at the original ARO4 locus, a
SalI/BstEII 3.1-kb fragment from plasmid pME1429 (3) was transformed in the respective strains. The cassette consists of
the ACT1 promoter fused to the first half of the
ARO4 ORF. Upstream, the cassette carries the divergently
orientated URA3 auxotrophic marker gene, which is itself
preceded by the ARO4 5'-untranslated region for homologous
integration. Transformants that had replaced the wild-type
ARO4 locus by this cassette by homologous recombination were
selected by uracil prototrophy and confirmed in Northern hybridizations
by increased ARO4 mRNA levels and by PCR.
RNA Analysis--
Total RNA from S. cerevisiae was
isolated according to Cross and Tinkelenberg (11). For Northern
hybridization analysis, 20 µg of total RNAs were separated on a
formaldehyde-agarose gel and transferred to a positively charged nylon
membrane (Biodyne B; PALL) by capillary blotting. Hybridization
with specific DNA probes was performed after 32P labeling
with the Prime It II DNA Labeling Kit from Stratagene. One-kb PCR
fragments generated with the oligonucleotides ARO-OLV19 (5'-taccggatccagacgacagagttcttg-3') and ARO-OLV11
(5'-cctcaagacgtcttcagtagtttcccaacc-3'), HIS-OL1
(5'-gtggtaacctacagtcactaacc-3') and HIS-OL2
(5'-ccgatcgatactttatcagcacc-3'), and ACT-OL1
(5'-gctgctttggttattgataacgg-3') and ACT-OL2
(5'-cacttgtggtgaacgatagatgg-3') served as probes for the
ARO4, HIS7, and ACT1 genes,
respectively. In all cases, template was genomic DNA of strain RH1381.
Band intensities were visualized by autoradiography and quantified using a BAS-1500 phosphorimaging scanner (Fuji).
Genomic Chromatin Preparation and Nuclease Digestions--
These
methods have been described previously (12). Biodyne B nylon membranes
were used for Southern transfer. Probes were labeled by the random
primer method (13).
Indirect End Labeling--
Chromosomal DNA from the nuclease
digestion was digested with XbaI and MluI and
fractionated in 1.2% agarose gels. The fractionated DNA was blotted on
the nylon membrane by the alkaline blotting method and hybridized with
a radioactively labeled 250-bp PCR product generated with
oligonucleotides HIS7-CHR1 (5'-gagattaaagaaattgtcaga-3') and HIS7-CHR2
(5'-caagtattgagga gaaatggta-3'), annealing just downstream of the
XbaI site. A DNA ladder consisting of multiples of 256 bp
was used for size estimation (14).
-Galactosidase Assay--
-Galactosidase activities were
determined by using permeabilized yeast cells and the fluorogenic
substrate 4-methylumbelliferyl- -D-galactoside as
described previously (15). Yeast cells were cultivated in minimal
vitamin medium overnight, diluted to an absorbance of ~0.5 at
546 nm, and cultivated for another 6 h before assay. One unit of
-galactosidase activity is defined as 1 nmol 4-methylumbelliferone h 1 ml 1
A . The values presented are
the means of at least four independent cultures, each of them measured three times. S.D.s were <20%.
 |
RESULTS |
PACT1-driven ARO4 Transcription Creates a
MNase-sensitive Site within Nucleosomal DNA That Separates the ARO4
Terminator from the HIS7 Promoter--
The replacement of the natural
promoter of the ARO4 gene by the stronger ACT1
promoter causes transcriptional interference with the downstream
HIS7 gene, reducing HIS7 transcription in comparison to wild-type expression (3). Because eukaryotic gene
expression and its tight regulation in terms of transcriptional initiation and termination processes must take place in the presence of
highly ordered chromatin structure, we wanted to know whether the
transcriptional interference between the ARO4 and
HIS7 gene is manifested in chromatin changes. Therefore, we
analyzed the chromatin structure of the ARO4-HIS7 intergenic
region in absence and presence of transcriptional interference.
The chromatin structure was investigated by MNase protection
experiments. Crude nuclear extracts from overnight cultures grown in
minimal vitamin medium from strains with the wild-type ARO4 promoter (RH1381) or the PACT1-ARO4 fusion (RH2642),
respectively, were partially digested with MNase and further treated as
described previously (12). In wild-type cells, the ARO4 3'
region immediately downstream of the ORF is sensitive to MNase (Fig.
1). This short sensitive region was
followed by a strongly protected region, which corresponds in length to
a positioned nucleosome. The HIS7 promoter further downstream was again sensitive to MNase. Although the mutant strain with the PACT1-ARO4 fusion gene showed a largely
similar chromatin pattern, an additional band within the protected
region between the ARO4 3'-end region and the
HIS7 promoter became obvious (Fig. 1, arrow 1).
This sensitive site already appeared at very low MNase concentrations (chromatin digest with 3 units of MNase for 6 min) and got more pronounced at 9 and 18 units of MNase. In contrast, this
MNase-sensitive site is faint in the ARO4 wild-type strain,
even for the digest with 18 units of MNase.

View larger version (76K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
MNase protection experiments of the
ARO4-HIS7 intergenic region. Strain RH1381
possesses the ARO4 gene with its natural promoter
(ARO4), whereas strain RH2642 has an ARO4 allele
driven by the ACT1 promoter (PACT1-ARO4).
Chromatin of RH1381 shown in the autoradiography was digested with 9 and 18 units of MNase, and chromatin of RH2642 was digested with 3, 9, and 18 units of MNase (all for 6 min). On the far left and
far right lanes, a size marker of 256 bp is shown
(M). The arrows indicate differences in chromatin
structure between both strains. Black ovals in the scheme on
the left reflect protected regions representing positioned
nucleosomes. ABS represents the binding site for
transcription factor Abf1p that was previously shown to bind the
HIS7 promoter, thereby supporting basal HIS7
expression (3).
|
|
A feasible consequence of enhanced ARO4 transcription could
be that nonterminated, still-transcribing RNA polymerase II complexes weaken the DNA histone interaction at the respective nucleosome, thereby drastically increasing this otherwise very weak MNase-sensitive site. In addition, a sensitive site at the end of the ORF of the wild-type ARO4 gene appears to be less sensitive in the case
of the PACT1-ARO4 fusion gene (Fig. 1, arrow
2). Apparently, the chromatin structure of the very 3' end of the
ARO4 ORF is also subjected to changes upon strong
ARO4 transcription. These changes of chromatin structures
may be directly related to the termination efficiency and
transcriptional interference.
Specific Deletions within the ARO4 3'-Untranslated Region or the
HIS7 Promoter Increase Interference between ARO4 and HIS7
Transcription--
The DNA in between the two ORFs of ARO4
and HIS7 possesses elements required for efficient 3'-end
formation of the ARO4 mRNA and others that promote
efficient HIS7 transcription (3). Here we intended to define
DNA regions between these ORFs whose loss enhances transcriptional
interference caused by increased ARO4 transcription. We
established a reporter system with the HIS7 gene replaced by
the quantifiable chimeric Phis7-lacZ gene, preceded
by the ARO4 gene driven from either its natural promoter
(Fig. 2, reporter-system I) or
the ACT1 promoter (Fig. 2, reporter-system II).
To determine regions in between both ORFs that counteract
transcriptional interference, specific -galactosidase activities for
various small intergenic deletions were measured. DNA elements that
diminish transcriptional interference were identified by comparison of
the read-outs of the two reporter systems for each deletion construct
(Fig. 3). To maintain the original
chromosomal context, the reporter system was established at the
authentic ARO4-HIS7 locus, with the separating nucleosome positioned approximately from -235 to -381 relative to the
HIS7 ATG start codon. Deletions were chosen to cover several
DNA motifs that fulfill different functions, including the
Zaret/Sherman element (Z/S) required for ARO4
mRNA 3'-end formation, three sites defining the actual poly(A)
addition sites, C+T- and A+T-rich regions, the Abf1p-protein binding
site (ABS), and both Gcn4p recognition elements
(GCRE1 and GCRE2) (Fig. 3).

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Scheme of the reporter systems used to
determine DNA regions that antagonize transcriptional
interference. The first line shows the wild-type
ARO4-HIS7 locus (wt-I). The second
line represents the ARO4 allele that is driven from the
ACT1 promoter (wt-II). Lines 3 and
4 represent the alleles corresponding to lines 1 and 2, but with his7-lacZ reporter fusions
instead of wild-type HIS7 (reporter systems I and II).
|
|

View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Effects of deletions of the
ARO4-HIS7 intergenic region on his7-lacZ
activity. The strains carry either the ARO4 gene
possessing its natural wild-type promoter (reporter system I) or the
more efficient ACT1 promoter (reporter system II).
-Galactosidase activities in units (measured as nmol
4-methylumbelliferone h 1 ml 1
A ) are indicated in the
chart on the right side for strains with various deletions
throughout the intergenic region. The scheme on the left
side visualizes the exact locations of the deletions according to
the translational start side (+1) and the DNA motifs at these
positions. Z/S stands for the Zaret/Sherman motif necessary
for correct ARO4 3'-end formation, p(A) stands
for the sites where the pol(A) tail is added to the ARO4
mRNA 3' end, and CT stands for a C+T-rich element. In
the HIS7 promoter, GCRE stands for Gcn4p
recognition element, ABS stands for Abf1p-binding site, and
AT stands for an A+T-rich sequence.
|
|
When measured in reporter system I, deletions that cover the
Zaret/Sherman element or poly(A) sites as elements of ARO4
mRNA 3'-end formation (RH1815, RH1816, and RH1818) did not affect
the Phis7-lacZ expression compared with that of the
wild-type intergenic region (RH1616). In reporter system II, however, a
52-bp deletion that eliminated the Zaret/Sherman element (RH2632)
reduced the specific -galactosidase activity to about 28% of
reporter system I (RH1815). Moreover, a 28-bp deletion that removed the
first poly(A) site strongly reduced Phis7-lacZ
expression if present in reporter system II (RH2633). Only about 22%
activity was left in comparison to reporter system I with this deletion
(RH1816). Further deletions of the second and third poly(A) site
(reporter system I, RH1818; reporter system II, RH2634), C+T-rich
(reporter system I, RH1819; reporter system II, RH2635) and A+T-rich
(reporter system I, RH1835; reporter system II, RH2638) stretches, or
the binding sites for Gcn4p (Gcn4p recognition elements; reporter
system I, RH1822/RH1826; reporter system II, RH2636/RH2639) did not
increase transcriptional interference. A 28-bp deletion that covered
the Abf1p-binding site in reporter system II (RH2637) displayed a
severe loss of specific -galactosidase activity and almost shut off
any his7-lacZ expression. In the background of reporter
system I, this deletion alone reduced his7-lacZ expression
to about one-third of the wild-type promoter.
In summary, the data obtained from our reporter system suggest that
Abf1p binding to the HIS7 promoter is an essential element that antagonizes transcriptional interference. Furthermore, the Zaret/Sherman element and the first poly(A) site, which together are
responsible for efficient ARO4 3'-end formation, obviously counteract transcriptional interference. Deletions within these regions
enhance transcriptional interference. No deletion has resulted in
higher -galactosidase activities in reporter system II compared with
reporter system I, suggesting that there are no cis-elements
that support transcriptional interference.
Single Nucleotide Exchanges within the Abf1p-binding Site Increase
Transcriptional Interference--
The results obtained thus far with
the deletion constructs suggested an important contribution of Abf1p
binding in the prevention of transcriptional interference at the
wild-type ARO4-HIS7 locus under conditions where
ACT1-driven transcription also weakens the DNA-protein
interaction of the separating nucleosome. We investigated whether it
has been the broader context of the deleted 28-bp promoter region or
solely the abolished binding of Abf1p itself that antagonized transcriptional interference. Therefore, we investigated the
Phis7-lacZ expression of a mutant strain with two
single nucleotide exchanges within the Abf1p-binding site that were
previously shown to abolish binding of Abf1p (16, 17).
In the background of wild-type ARO4 expression in reporter
system I (RH1830), single nucleotide exchanges within the Abf1p-binding site by themselves reduced Phis7-lacZ expression to
about 35% of that of wild-type. Integrated in reporter system II
(RH2640), these nucleotide exchanges caused a further strong reduction
in -galactosidase activity to about 9% of wild-type
Phis7-lacZ expression. This result demonstrated that
it was in fact the binding of Abf1p to its binding site within the
HIS7 promoter, and not a broader promoter context, that
antagonized transcriptional interference at the ARO4-HIS7
locus. It is possible that binding of Abf1p to its
cis-element competes with the transcription of a
nonterminated polymerase II complex and thus blocks transcriptional interference.
Transcriptional Interference Causes Histidine Auxotrophy for a HIS7
Promoter Mutant without Abf1p-binding Site by Prevention of Its
Transcription--
The data of the reporter systems that derived from
a lacZ reporter gene have shown that the Abf1p-binding site
and elements required for efficient ARO4 mRNA 3'-end
formation are important to prevent transcriptional interference. We
then investigated whether the increased transcriptional interference of
these deletion mutants gave rise to malfunctions in cells that harbor
the wild-type HIS7 gene. Therefore, the growth rates of
these strains were determined in medium without histidine.
When the ARO4 gene was driven from its own promoter, the
wild-type's growth rate of about 0.28 h 1 was not changed
in strains with deletions in the ARO4 3'-end region (strains
RH1833, RH1834, and RH1836 in Fig.
4A). The growth rate nearly
halved with the deletion of the Abf1p-binding site in the
HIS7 promoter (0.18 h 1, RH1781). The
combination of a deleted first poly(A) site with an induced
ARO4 expression (RH2644) also significantly reduced the
growth rate in comparison to the wild-type (0.20 h 1).
Deletion of the Abf1p-binding site in combination with the ACT1-ARO4 fusion gene (RH2646) was so deleterious
for the cell that it resulted in a histidine auxotrophic growth
phenotype (Fig. 4, A and B).

View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Transcriptional interference causes histidine
auxotrophy for a HIS7 promoter deletion that
eliminates the Abf1p-binding site. The growth of yeast strains was
tested on minimal vitamin medium lacking histidine. Strains RH1781 and
RH1834 possess the ARO4 gene with its natural promoter and
carry deletions in either the HIS7 promoter ( ABS) or the
ARO4 3'-end region ( 1st p(A)). Strains RH2646 and RH2644
have the natural promoter of the ARO4 gene replaced by the
ACT1 promoter and carry either the HIS7 promoter
deletion ABS or the ARO4 3'-end deletion 1st
p(A).
|
|
We compared the effects of the transcriptional interference as
obtained by the his7-lacZ chimeric genes and the growth
tests with the quantified HIS7 mRNA steady-state levels
determined by Northern hybridizations (Fig.
5). The fusion of the ACT1
promoter to the ARO4 gene increases ARO4 mRNA
levels ~4-fold (Fig. 5). Enhanced ARO4 transcription
in the background of the wild-type HIS7 gene with the
wild-type ARO4-HIS7 intergenic region (RH2642) resulted in HIS7 mRNA levels of about 60% in comparison
to wild-type ARO4 (RH1381). Deletion of the
Zaret/Sherman element as ARO4 3'-end formation signal in the
background of increased ARO4 transcription (RH2643) reduced
the HIS7 mRNA levels to ~40% in comparison to the
natural ARO4 promoter (RH1833). When the first
ARO4 poly(A) site was deleted, the reduction of
HIS7 transcript levels as a consequence of enhanced
ARO4 transcription was even more pronounced (RH2644),
namely, 30% of the respective strain with wild-type ARO4
expression (RH1834). In contrast, the deletion covering the second and
third ARO4 poly(A) addition site did not show obvious differences in HIS7 transcript levels caused by
transcriptional interference.

View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Effects of deletions of the
ARO-HIS7 intergenic region on HIS7
transcript levels. Northern hybridization experiments of
selected yeast strains with deletions in either the ARO4
3'-untranslated region (Z/S, p(A)) or the HIS7
promoter covering the Abf1p-binding site (ABS) were
performed. Quantifications were performed by phosphorimaging analyses
and are presented as the averages of at least two hybridizations with
total RNAs from three independent cultures. Quantifications of the
ARO4 mRNA amounts revealed a 4-fold increase in average
if the gene is transcribed from the ACT1 promoter.
|
|
The deletion within the HIS7 promoter that covers the
Abf1p-binding site in the wild-type ARO4 background (RH1781)
already reduced HIS7 mRNA levels to 40% in comparison
to the wild-type HIS7 promoter. However, in combination with
high ARO4 transcription from the ACT1 promoter
(RH2646), HIS7 transcripts were no longer detectable. This
result confirmed the transcriptional interference as detected before in
both the reporter system with the his7-lacZ reporter gene
and the growth defect on histidine-deficient medium.
We have also investigated whether the single nucleotide exchanges
within the Abf1p-binding site alone can change the chromatin structure
of the intergenic region without ACT1-driven overexpression of ARO4. However, no changes in comparison to the wild-type
intergenic region have been detected (data not shown). Therefore, we
suggest that it is the DNA binding of the Abf1 protein itself that
somehow blocked the transcribing polymerase II complex, rather than a reorganization of the nucleosomal structure by Abf1p that
subsequently prevents transcriptional interference.
Taken together, these results imply that binding of the ubiquitous
transcription factor Abf1p to the HIS7 promoter counteracts transcriptional interference caused by enhanced ARO4
expression, which is itself accompanied by nucleosomal changes.
ARO4 3'-end formation signals also prevented transcriptional
interference, although less efficiently than Abf1p binding. By name,
these were the ARO4 mRNA 3'-processing motif, originally
described by Zaret and Sherman for CYC1 (18), and the major
site where the ARO4 mRNA transcript is finally cleaved
and processed.
 |
DISCUSSION |
Cells have developed mechanisms that enable individually regulated
expression of adjacent genes that are located in close proximity
without influencing one another. One essential parameter to prevent
read-through transcription is the efficient termination of
transcription of the upstream gene. In eukaryotic cells, this process
is characterized by the combination of events that generate the
mRNA 3' end, followed by its polyadenylation and the actual termination of transcription (that is, the release of the elongation complex from the DNA template). To initiate transcription at the downstream promoter, an efficient recruitment of the transcriptional preinitiation complex at the initiation site is necessary. In addition
to this recruitment, regulated gene expression requires efficient
binding of gene-specific transcriptional activators to the promoter
upstream of the transcriptional initiation site. The efficiency of both
the 3'-end formation/termination and the initiation of transcription at
the downstream gene must be adjusted to the "strength" of the two
adjacent genes for their different levels of expression. Otherwise,
transcriptional interference reduces or even abolishes the expression
of the downstream gene by promoter occlusion. Because the eukaryotic
DNA is closely associated with histone proteins, these processes must
take place in the context of a highly ordered chromatin structure. Here
we show that a nucleosome is strictly localized in such a position
between two tandemly arranged yeast genes that it may guard the more
downstream gene from transcriptional interference under normal
circumstances. This assumption is corroborated through the finding that
increased transcription of the more upstream gene weakens this nucleosome.
We determined additional elements located in between the ORFs of the
two yeast genes that contribute to antagonizing transcriptional interference (Fig. 6). Elements were
identified that are necessary to separate transcription of the two
adjacent genes. mRNA 3'-end formation signals such as the
Zaret/Sherman element as well as the site where the nascent transcript
is cleaved and the poly(A) tail is added represent borders that belong
to the preceding ARO4 gene. The removal of these elements
significantly increased transcriptional interference at that locus.
Termination of transcription by RNA polymerase II and its release from
the DNA template were previously shown to be linked to mRNA 3'-end
processing (4). Destruction of poly(A) signals probably results in
reduced termination events, leading to increased transcription far
beyond the poly(A) site of a gene and thereby impairing the activity of
downstream promoters (3, 19). However, future transcription run-on
experiments for this locus should confirm transcribing RNA polymerase
II complexes driven from the upstream promoter into the ORF of the
downstream HIS7 gene.

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Summary of the ARO4-HIS7
intergenic elements that antagonize transcriptional
interference. The ARO4 gene is highly transcribed by
RNA polymerase II complexes (pol II) driven from the
ACT1 promoter. For reinitiation of a functional RNA
polymerase II complex at the initiation site of the HIS7
promoter (IT), the transcription of upstream
ARO4 has to be efficiently terminated. Elements blocking
read-through RNA polymerase II complexes are the Zaret/Sherman element
(Z/S) and the major poly(A) site (pA) within the
ARO4 terminator and the Abf1p binding at the HIS7
promoter. Moreover, the positioned nucleosome seems to be a barrier to
transcriptional interference.
|
|
Another border marked by the downstream HIS7 gene is the
presence of the general DNA-binding factor Abf1p in its promoter. Besides its role as an activator of HIS7 transcription, it
seems to have the additional function of forming a protective barrier against read-through transcription initiated at the upstream
ARO4 gene. This roadblock function of Abf1p is supported by
the observation that deletion/mutation of the Abf1p-binding site had
different effects in both the wild-type and the
PACT1-ARO4 systems on his7-lacZ
expression (Fig. 3). Recent investigations focusing on the
GAL10-GAL7 locus in yeast or the tandem HIV-1 promoters
integrated in HeLa cells also support such a link between termination
and promoter activity (6, 7). By in vivo footprinting, it
was demonstrated that reduced 3'-end processing activity of the
GAL10 gene directly weakens the binding of the transcription factor Gal4p to the adjacent GAL7 promoter and thereby
reduces its transcription. In the GAL10-GAL7 system,
overexpression of Gal4p seems to counteract some of the transcriptional
interference. Because Abf1p is an abundant protein in the yeast cell
and it also binds the HIS7 promoter consistently during
inactivated HIS7 transcription, testing its
overexpression in terms of lowering transcriptional interference
does not seem promising. The binding of transcription factor Sp1 to the
downstream promoter of tandemly localized HIV-1 promoters is
significantly increased by insertion of an efficient transcriptional
termination element upstream of the occluded promoter. A recent report
stated that efficient termination enabled by the murine transcript
release factor PTRF augments downstream ribosomal gene transcription by
enhancing reinitiation at the ribosomal DNA promoters (20). Although
previous reports demonstrated an influence of Abf1p binding on the
local chromatin structure of promoters of the QCR8 and
RPS28A genes (21, 22), we could not detect any changes in
nucleosome distribution at the ARO4-HIS7 locus upon
destruction of the Abf1p-binding site (data not shown). Possibly, in
common with other promoters of typical housekeeping genes, the
HIS7 promoter has a pre-set accessible chromatin structure
that is not directly dependent on the presence or absence of Abf1p.
The different factors that in concert seem to prevent transcriptional
interference are outlined in Fig. 6. Because there is also an
alteration of the nucleosomal structure at the 3' end of the ARO4
open reading frame upon high ARO4 transcription,
efficient termination of transcription might require a defined
chromatin structure at the very end of a gene. A link between the
positioning of an upstream nucleosome, transcriptional initiation at
downstream promoters, and transcriptional interference was not yet
described for an RNA polymerase II-transcribed gene. For genes encoding ribosomal RNA, it was shown that the positioning of a nucleosome at an
upstream terminator element is required to allow transcription from the
downstream promoter. To position this nucleosome, the DNA-binding
termination factor TTF-I, homologous to the yeast Reb1p, was shown to
be necessary (8).
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Sven Krappmann for his impact in the
initial phase of our work relating to ABF1 and his critical
reading of the manuscript and Meike Andermann for excellent technical
assistance during the last period of this work.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by grants from the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Volkswagenstiftung, and Fonds der
Chemischen Industrie.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.
Present address: Dept. of Molecular Biology, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544.
§
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 49-551-39-3771;
Fax: 49-551-39-3820; E-mail: gbraus@gwdg.de.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, April 5, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M201841200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
ORF, open reading
frame;
HIV, human immunodeficiency virus;
MNase, Micrococcus
nuclease.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Proudfoot, N. J.
(1986)
Nature
322,
562-565[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Irniger, S.,
Egli, C. M.,
and Braus, G. H.
(1991)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
11,
3060-3069[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 3.
|
Springer, C.,
Valerius, O.,
Strittmatter, A.,
and Braus, G. H.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
26318-26324[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Greger, I. H.,
and Proudfoot, N. J.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
4771-4779[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 5.
|
Puig, S.,
Perez-Ortin, J. E.,
and Matallana, E.
(1999)
Curr. Microbiol.
39,
369-373[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Greger, I. H.,
Demarchi, F.,
Giacca, M.,
and Proudfoot, N. J.
(1998)
Nucleic Acids Res.
26,
1294-1301[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Greger, I. H.,
Aranda, A.,
and Proudfoot, N. J.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
8415-8420[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Längst, G.,
Blank, T. A.,
Becker, P. B.,
and Grummt, I.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
760-768[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Miozzari, G.,
Niederberger, P.,
and Hütter, R.
(1978)
J. Bacteriol.
134,
48-59[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 10.
|
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
|
| 11.
|
Cross, F. R.,
and Tinkelenberg, A. H.
(1991)
Cell
65,
875-883[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 12.
|
Thoma, F.
(1996)
Methods Enzymol.
274,
197-214[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 13.
|
Feinberg, A. P.,
and Vogelstein, B.
(1983)
Anal. Biochem.
132,
6-13[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 14.
|
Thoma, F.,
Bergman, L. W.,
and Simpson, R. T.
(1984)
J. Mol. Biol.
177,
715-733[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 15.
|
Künzler, M.,
Balmelli, T.,
Egli, C. M.,
Paravicini, G.,
and Braus, G. H.
(1993)
J. Bacteriol.
175,
5548-5558[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Dorsman, J. C.,
van Heeswijk, W. C.,
and Grivell, L. A.
(1990)
Nucleic Acids Res.
18,
2769-2776[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Springer, C.,
Krappmann, S.,
Künzler, M.,
Zmasek, C.,
and Braus, G. H.
(1997)
Mol. Gen. Genet.
256,
136-146[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 18.
|
Zaret, K. S.,
and Sherman, F.
(1982)
Cell
28,
563-573[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 19.
|
Proudfoot, N. J.
(1989)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
14,
105-110[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 20.
|
Jansa, P.,
Burek, C.,
Sander, E. E.,
and Grummt, I.
(2001)
Nucleic Acids Res.
29,
423-429[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 21.
|
De Winde, J. H.,
van Leeuwen, H. C.,
and Grivell, L. A.
(1993)
Yeast
9,
847-857[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Lascaris, R. F.,
Groot, E.,
Hoen, P. B.,
Mager, W. H.,
and Planta, R. J.
(2000)
Nucleic Acids Res.
28,
1390-1396[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Paravicini, G.,
Braus, G.,
and Hütter, R.
(1988)
Mol. Gen. Genet.
214,
165-169[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
Copyright © 2002 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
O. Valerius, C. Brendel, C. Wagner, S. Krappmann, F. Thoma, and G. H. Braus
Nucleosome Position-Dependent and -Independent Activation of HIS7 Expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Different Transcriptional Activators
Eukaryot. Cell,
October 1, 2003;
2(5):
876 - 885.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
I. J. Orozco, S. J. Kim, and H. G. Martinson
The Poly(A) Signal, without the Assistance of Any Downstream Element, Directs RNA Polymerase II to Pause in Vivo and Then to Release Stochastically from the Template
J. Biol. Chem.,
November 1, 2002;
277(45):
42899 - 42911.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. Fourel, T. Miyake, P.-A. Defossez, R. Li, and E. Gilson
General Regulatory Factors (GRFs) as Genome Partitioners
J. Biol. Chem.,
October 25, 2002;
277(44):
41736 - 41743.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|