|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M204123200 on May 20, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 31, 28143-28149, August 2, 2002
Mutations in the Yeast Mitochondrial RNA Polymerase Specificity
Factor, Mtf1, Verify an Essential Role in Promoter Utilization*
Mark A.
Karlok ,
Sei-Heon
Jang§¶, and
Judith A.
Jaehning
From the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular
Genetics and Program in Molecular Biology, University of Colorado
Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado 80262 and the
§ Department of Molecular Biology, Taegu University,
Taegu 712-714, Korea
Received for publication, April 29, 2002, and in revised form, May 14, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
The yeast mitochondrial RNA polymerase (RNAP) is
a two-subunit enzyme composed of a catalytic core (Rpo41) and a
specificity factor (Mtf1) encoded by nuclear genes. Neither subunit on
its own interacts with promoter DNA, but the combined holo-RNAP
recognizes and selectively initiates from promoters related to the
consensus sequence ATATAAGTA. To pursue the question of why Rpo41,
which resembles the single polypeptide RNAPs from bacteriophage T7 and T3, requires a separate specificity factor, we analyzed a collection of
Mtf1 point mutations that confer an in vivo petite
phenotype. These mutant proteins are able to interact with Rpo41 and
are capable of nearly wild type levels of initiation in
vitro with a consensus promoter-containing template (14 S rRNA).
However, the petite phenotype of two mutants can be explained by the
fact that they exhibit dramatic transcriptional defects on
non-consensus promoters. Y54F is incapable of transcribing the weak
tRNACys promoter, and C192F cannot transcribe either
tRNACys or the variant COX2 promoter from linear DNA
templates. Transcription of the tRNACys promoter by both
mutants was significantly corrected by addition of an initiating
dinucleotide primer or by supercoiling the DNA template. These
results establish the critical role of Mtf1 in promoter recognition
and initiation of transcription.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Transcription of the mitochondrial genome is performed by an RNA
polymerase (RNAP)1 distinct
from the three nuclear RNAPs (reviewed in Refs. 1 and 2). Although only
the yeast mitochondrial RNAP has been fully characterized in terms of
the composition and activity of the holo-RNAP, it appears to be a
relevant model for most, if not all, eukaryotic mitochondria. The yeast
mitochondrial RNAP is composed of two nuclear encoded subunits, a
single polypeptide core RNAP, Rpo41 (3), and a specificity factor, Mtf1
(4, 5). Rpo41 and Mtf1 interact in solution in the absence of DNA creating a holo-RNAP that can bind to the simple nonanucleotide promoter (consensus ATATAAGTA) and initiate transcription (6). Mtf1
remains associated with Rpo41 during initiation and in the early stages
of elongation; this association changes dramatically after a short RNA
chain is synthesized and Rpo41 enters into the elongation mode. At this
point Mtf1 is readily released from the elongating RNAP (6). In the
absence of Mtf1, Rpo41 can initiate transcription non-selectively from
a synthetic DNA polymer template poly[d(A-T)]. However, for
promoter recognition and selective initiation, Mtf1 is absolutely
required (5, 7, 8). Neither the core RNAP nor the specificity factor
alone interacts significantly with promoter containing DNA (6, 9).
Rpo41 is a 150-kDa protein with striking amino acid sequence similarity
to the T7 and T3 bacteriophage single polypeptide RNAPs (10). Several
genes encoding T7-like Rpo41 homologues have been identified in other
eukaryotes (reviewed in Ref. 2), and although there are only a few
cases where the gene product has been demonstrated to have RNAP
activity (11), or to be important for in vivo mitochondrial
function (12, 13), there is growing evidence that all higher eukaryotes
have an Rpo41-like core mitochondrial RNAP. It is intriguing that a
recombinant form of the human Rpo41 homologue is transcriptionally
active in vitro on synthetic polymeric templates (11) but
inactive on a human mitochondrial promoter and is presumed to be
missing an Mtf1-like specificity factor (14).
We are left with an important unanswered question: why do the single
polypeptide mitochondrial RNAPs differ from the bacteriophage RNAPs in
requiring a dissociable specificity factor? Early mitochondria used a
bacterial-like multisubunit RNAP and, presumably, a sigma-like specificity factor for transcription of promoters that still resembled those from bacteria (15). In this regard, it is interesting that Mtf1
has some amino acid sequence similarity to the family of bacterial
sigma factors (5), and the AT-rich yeast mitochondrial promoter is
recognized as a 10 promoter element by the bacterial RNAP (7). Some
of the amino acids shared by sigma factor and Mtf1 include residues
important for interactions with their respective core RNAPs (16). Like
sigma factors, Mtf1 is only required for initiation (6), and its
association with the core RNAP suppresses nonspecific interactions with
DNA (7, 9).
The limited amino acid sequence similarity with sigma factors may not
reflect a similar three-dimensional structure. The recent report of an
Mtf1 crystal structure has revealed clear similarity to the family of
RNA and DNA methyltransferases (17). Based on this similarity, Schubot
et al. (17) speculate that Mtf1 may not be a promoter
specificity factor but may instead bind to Rpo41, converting the enzyme
to a promoter recognizing form, or that Mtf1 may act to bind the
nascent RNA chain. In this work we have analyzed a collection of point
mutants in Mtf1 that are defective for in vivo function but
that retain the ability to form a stable complex with Rpo41 and to
suppress its nonspecific interactions with DNA. Among these mutants we
have identified two, Y54F and C192F, that are still capable of
directing transcription from a consensus promoter but that have lost
the ability to transcribe non-consensus variants. These results
strongly support the theory that Mtf1 itself, like sigma factor, plays
a central role in mitochondrial promoter recognition and the initiation
of transcription.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Purification of Recombinant Mtf1--
Plasmid DNAs containing
GST-Mtf1 fusion constructs (16) were transformed into Escherichia
coli BL21(DE3) codon plus RIL cells (Stratagene). Cells were grown
in a buffered YT medium containing 1.4% yeast extract, 0.8% Tryptone,
75 mM K2HPO4, 8.8 mM
KH2PO4, and 1% glucose. One-liter cultures
inoculated to an A600 of 0.1 were
incubated in a 20 °C shaking water bath for 6 h and induced for
11 h at 20 °C with 0.1 mM
isopropyl-1-thio- -D-galactopyranoside. Cultures were
harvested by centrifugation; cell pellets were washed with 100 mM Tris, pH 7.9, resuspended in 150 ml of T(50) (100 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 2 mM EDTA, 5% glycerol, 10 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM DTT, 50 mM KCl), and stored at 80 °C. To purify GST-Mtf1, the
cells were thawed and the buffer was adjusted to 2 mM DTT,
1 mg/ml lysozyme, and protease inhibitors (1 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 0.35 µg/ml bestatin, 0.4 µg/ml
pepstatin, 0.5 µg/ml leupeptin, and 20 µg/ml benzamidine). This
mixture was incubated on ice for 1 h then sonicated (Fisher 550 Sonic Dismembrator, large tip) with four 1-min pulses. Nonidet P-40 was
added to 0.5%, and the extract was centrifuged at 35,000 × g for 45 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was filtered
through a 0.22-µm PES filter and then incubated with 5 ml of
glutathione-agarose (Pierce) equilibrated with T(50) plus 2 mM DTT and protease inhibitors. This mixture was stirred in the cold for 1.5 h and then loaded into a 10-ml disposable column. The column was washed with 100 ml of T(50) plus 2 mM DTT
and protease inhibitors and then eluted with 50 ml of T(50) plus 2 mM DTT, protease inhibitors, and 10 mM reduced
glutathione. Peak protein containing fractions were pooled and dialyzed
against three 1-liter changes of T(50) containing 10% glycerol, 0.1 mM DTT, and protease inhibitors. Aliquots were frozen in
liquid nitrogen and stored at 80 °C. The purity of the samples was
assessed by electrophoresis on 4-12% Bis-Tris NuPAGE acrylamide gels (Invitrogen).
Purification of Recombinant Rpo41--
A 4078-bp
RPO41 fragment generated from yeast strain pJH22 (16) was
cloned into the baculovirus transfer vector pAcHLTA (BD PharMingen).
The primers used for this PCR reaction were: StuI,
5'-GAAGGCCTATGCTGAGACCGGCCTATAAATC and SacI,
5'-GCTCTAGAGAGCTCTCACGAGAAAAAATATTGAC. Transfection of Sf9
insect cells and growth of HIS-Rpo41-producing clones was carried out
by the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Tissue Culture
Core Facility. A cell pellet from a 500-ml culture of productively
infected Sf9 cells was processed to obtain the HIS-Rpo41
protein. Cells were lysed in 50 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 100 mM KCl, 1% Nonidet P-40, and protease inhibitors (see
previous section) by vortexing the cell suspension for eight 10-s
pulses. The resulting lysate was centrifuged at 3000 × g for 10 min at 4 °C, and the supernatant was combined
with 1.5 ml of charged nickel-nitrilotriacetic acid resin (Qiagen)
equilibrated with 20 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 500 mM
KCl, 10 mM B-mecaptoethanol, 10% glycerol, 0.5 mM imidazole, and protease inhibitors. This mixture was
incubated overnight at 4 °C then transferred to a 5-ml disposable
column. The resin was washed with 10 column volumes of 20 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 500 mM KCl, 2.5 mM
imidazole, 10% glycerol, and protease inhibitors and eluted with 10 column volumes of 20 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 100 mM
KCl, 40 mM imidazole, 10% glycerol, and protease
inhibitors. Non-selective in vitro transcription reactions
(18) were performed on these fractions to identify those containing
RNAP activity. Fractions containing peak activity were pooled and
dialyzed against M(0) buffer (20 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 5%
glycerol, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA, 0.5 mM DTT, and protease inhibitors). This dialyzed sample was
then bound to an Amersham Biosciences fast-protein liquid chromatography Mono Q column, the HIS-Rpo41 was eluted with a linear
gradient of M(0) to M(250) buffer (numbers in parenthesis indicate
millimolar amounts of KCl), and non-selective in vitro transcription reactions were performed on the eluted fractions to
identify those containing RNAP activity. Peak activity fractions were
pooled, bovine serum albumin was added to 50 µg/ml, and the pool was
dialyzed against T(50) storage buffer (30 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 2 mM EDTA, 5% glycerol, 10 mM
MgCl2, 0.1 mM DTT, protease inhibitors, and 50 mM KCl). Small aliquots were frozen in liquid nitrogen and
stored at 80 °C.
Template Preparation--
Promoter-containing templates were
generated by PCR from genomic sequences of yeast mitochondrial DNA.
Specific primers were used to create DNA fragments, which were then
cloned using a TA cloning kit with vector pCR 2.1 (Invitrogen).
Primer sequences were: 14 S rRNA #365, 5'-GGACTAATTTAACTTTT; #366,
5'-CCTAATAAAATTACTCACG; COX2 #85, 5'-AAAAAGGTGGGGTTTGGTAA; #86,
5'-TTGGTACATCATTCATAATG; tRNACys #89,
5'-CTTAATATTTATTATCATTATTTC; and #28, 5'-CTCTTAATAAGTAGATTTGCAATC. Ligated products were transformed into E. coli DH5
cells. Constructs were confirmed by DNA sequencing by the UCHSC Cancer
Center Core Facility. One-liter cultures of strains containing promoter
clones were processed for plasmid DNA using a Qiagen GIGA kit. Strain identifications are: 14 S rRNA-pJJ1305, COX2-pJJ1109, and
tRNACys-pJJ1110. Plasmid DNA was linearized with
BamHI and then purified using Qiagen Q-500 tips.
In Vitro Selective Transcription Reactions--
The 20-µl
reactions contained 50 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 20 mM
MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 500 µM each of
ATP, CTP, and GTP, 100 µM UTP, [ -32P]UTP
(1000 cpm/pmol UTP), 20 µg/ml linearized template, 0.16-0.8 pmol of
GST-Mtf1, and 0.41 pmol of HIS-Rpo41. Enzyme samples were diluted with
T(50) containing 50 µg/ml bovine serum albumin and 1 mM
DTT immediately prior to use. Reactions were incubated at 30 °C for
10 min and stopped by adding 25 µl of formamide dye mix containing 50 mM EDTA, and the products were resolved on 7 M
urea, 8% polyacrylamide gels. For the minus CTP reactions to compare
activity on linear and supercoiled templates, conditions were as
described above except for the absence of CTP and an increase in the
specific activity of [ -32P]UTP to 2000 cpm/pmol.
Products were resolved on 7 M urea, 11% polyacrylamide
gels. For dinucleotide reactions, the appropriate (corresponding to +1
and+2 bases of the transcript) or inappropriate dinucleotides (Sigma
Chemical Co.) were present at 50 µM. Autoradiographs were
quantitated with Molecular Dynamics ImageQuaNT software, version
1.2.
 |
RESULTS |
In Vitro Transcription Analysis of Petite Mtf1 Point
Mutations--
We have previously described a collection of point
mutations in the yeast MTF1 gene produced by PCR mutagenesis
and identified as defective in mitochondrial function (petite
phenotype) by a plasmid shuffle protocol (16). The two-hybrid technique
was used to discriminate among these mutations those that had lost the
ability to interact with Rpo41 (16). The functional defects of the
remaining six mutations were not defined, but, based on both two-hybrid
interactions and in vitro protein/protein interaction assays
(summarized in Table I), all of these
mutants are correctly folded such that they are able to interact with
Rpo41 as well as does wild type Mtf1. Also included in Table I is
information on the L53H mutant, a non-interacting,
temperature-sensitive (ts) petite mutation of the amino acid that is
immediately adjacent to the interacting, but petite Y54F mutation; this
non-interacting mutation serves as a control in several of the
experiments below.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table I
MTF1 petite mutations
The in vivo phenotype and ability to interact with Rpo41 are
summarized from Cliften et al. (16) for
each of the MTF1 mutations used in this study.
|
|
To elucidate the defects in the interacting mutant proteins summarized
in Table I, we first used promoter-selective in vitro transcription reactions. These run-off transcription reactions use
templates that contain a yeast mitochondrial promoter sequence upstream
of a restriction enzyme cleavage site (Fig.
1A). Three yeast mitochondrial
promoters were used in these experiments: the 14 S rRNA promoter that
contains an exact match to the nonanucleotide consensus
ATATAAGTA (19), the variant COX2 promoter (20), and the weak
tRNACys promoter (21). Promoters like 14 S rRNA and COX2
with a purine at the +2 position are generally strong promoters
(22-24), as can be seen in the in vitro transcription
reaction using mitochondrial RNAP reconstituted from recombinant
His-tagged Rpo41 and GST-tagged wild type Mtf1 (Fig. 1B).
Substitution of a pyrimidine for the purine at position +2, as found in
the tRNACys promoter, results in a much weaker promoter
(25) (Fig. 1B).

View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
DNA templates and recombinant Mtf1 proteins
used for in vitro transcription reactions.
A, the promoter sequence and transcript length for each of
the yeast mitochondrial promoters used in this study. +1
indicates the start site of transcription; B indicates the
location of the BamHI site used to linearize the plasmid
template. Underlined nucleotides in the promoter sequences
indicate the position of differences from the 14 S rRNA promoter.
B, direct comparison of transcription activity by wild type
mitochondrial RNAP on the different promoters shown in A.
Transcripts from the indicated templates were analyzed by gel
electrophoresis as described under "Experimental Procedures." The
numbers below the lanes indicate relative transcript
abundance normalized to UMP content of the transcript. C,
the indicated point mutants of Mtf1 were purified as GST fusions and
analyzed by gel electrophoresis as described under "Experimental
Procedures."
|
|
Each of the Mtf1 mutations listed in Table I was expressed in E. coli as a GST fusion protein and purified using
glutathione-agarose chromatography (Fig. 1C). We have
previously demonstrated that addition of the GST tag to Mtf1 does not
interfere with the protein's ability to interact with Rpo41 or to
direct selective transcription (6). Equal amounts of the purified
proteins shown in Fig. 1C were used in the in
vitro transcription reactions with a purified baculovirus-expressed form of His-tagged Rpo41. Similar results were
obtained using untagged Rpo41 purified from yeast (data not shown).
We were surprised to discover that all of the petite and ts petite Mtf1
mutants were capable of transcription from the consensus 14 S rRNA
promoter at levels very similar to that observed for wild type Mtf1
(Fig. 2, A and B).
Notice that the non-interacting L53H mutation was completely incapable
of directing promoter selective transcription by Rpo41. This
non-interacting mutation also does not suppress the nonspecific
transcription of the DNA template visible as a faint background smear
of nucleotide incorporation in this experiment (Fig. 2A; see
also below). With transcription by wild type Mtf1 set to 100%, the
activity of the mutant Mtf1s ranged from just over 50% to 150%. The
less than 2-fold reductions observed with the S81N and C192F mutations
seem unlikely to account for the petite and ts petite phenotypes of
these mutations.

View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
All interacting Mtf1 mutants retain the
ability to transcribe the consensus 14 S rRNA promoter.
A, 245 nucleotide in vitro transcription products
from run-off reactions containing the indicated form of Mtf1, Rpo41,
and the 14 S rRNA promoter template were analyzed by gel
electrophoresis as described under "Experimental Procedures."
B, signal intensities from replicate reactions were
determined. The solid bars correspond to the average of two
reactions; the lines indicate the range.
|
|
The C192F Mutation Is Defective for Transcription of the Variant
COX2 Promoter--
All of the interacting Mtf1 mutations can
transcribe the consensus 14 S rRNA promoter. However, the yeast
mitochondrial genome has multiple promoters with both consensus and
non-consensus sequences driving the expression of many RNA and protein
coding genes (reviewed in Refs. 26-29). To determine whether any of
the mutant Mtf1s had selectively lost the ability to recognize variant
mitochondrial promoters, we carried out in vitro
transcription reactions using the COX2 promoter. As seen in Fig.
1A, the COX2 promoter varies from the consensus, and the 14 S rRNA promoter, in three positions: T instead of A at 8; A instead
of T at 5; and G instead of A at +2. None of these substitutions has
a major affect on the ability of this sequence to be recognized as a
promoter by the wild type mitochondrial holo-RNAP (20, 23), as shown in
a direct comparison with transcription from the 14 S rRNA promoter
(Fig. 1B). Most of the interacting mutants were capable of
nearly wild type levels of transcription with the COX2 promoter (Fig.
3). However, Mtf1 carrying the C192F
mutation was incapable of transcription from this variant promoter
(Fig. 3). Note that the C192F mutation is still capable of suppressing
Rpo41's nonspecific interaction with DNA (compare transcription by
L53H to C192F in Fig. 3A), even though promoter specific
transcription is reduced over 10-fold relative to wild type Mtf1 (Fig.
3B).

View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
The C192F mutation has lost the ability to
transcribe the variant COX2 promoter. A, 146 nucleotide
in vitro transcription products from run-off reactions
containing the indicated form of Mtf1, Rpo41, and the COX2
promoter-containing template were analyzed by gel electrophoresis as
described under "Experimental Procedures." B, signal
intensities from replicate reactions were determined. The solid
bars correspond to the average of two reactions; the
lines indicate the range.
|
|
Both the Y54F and the C192F Mutations Are Defective for
Transcription of the Weak tRNACys Promoter--
In
addition to the strong COX2 promoter, we also tested the Mtf1 mutations
on the weak tRNACys promoter (21). This promoter varies
from the consensus and the 14 S rRNA promoter at two positions: T
instead of A at 8 and T instead of A at +2 (Fig. 1A). The
substitution of a pyrimidine for a purine at +2 makes the
tRNACys promoter "weak" (30), resulting in 3-fold lower
transcription from this template by wild type RNAP than from the strong
14 S rRNA and COX2 promoters (Fig. 1B). We found that most
of the mutant Mtf1s were still capable of transcribing the
tRNACys promoter at levels indistinguishable from wild type
(Fig. 4, A and B).
However, the C192F mutation, previously shown to be defective on the
COX2 promoter, was also completely defective for transcription from the
tRNACys promoter, with transcript abundance reduced below
the limits of detection (Fig. 4B). In addition, the Y54F
mutation also demonstrated a significant reduction in transcription,
with levels 4- to 5-fold lower than wild type Mtf1 (Fig.
4B). Again, note the ability of both the Y54F and C192F
mutations to reduce nonspecific interactions of Rpo41 with DNA relative
to the non-interacting mutant L53H (Fig. 4A).

View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Y54F and C192F both have defects in
transcription from the weak tRNACys promoter.
A, 105 nucleotide in vitro transcription products
from run-off reactions containing the indicated form of Mtf1, Rpo41,
and the tRNACys promoter-containing template were analyzed by
gel electrophoresis as described under "Experimental Procedures."
B, signal intensities from replicate reactions were
determined. The solid bars correspond to the average of two
reactions; the lines indicate the range.
|
|
Transcription Defects on the tRNACys Promoter Can Be
Corrected by Dinucleotide Priming or by Supercoiling of the
Template DNA--
The inability of the Mtf1 mutations to
transcribe the variant promoters could be due to defects in DNA
binding, promoter melting, open complex formation, nucleotide binding,
first bond formation, or promoter escape (31). We first asked whether
the defect was at the level of first bond formation by testing the
response to addition of dinucleotide primers to the transcription
reactions. Biswas (24, 25) has shown that transcription from weak
promoters such as tRNACys is significantly improved when a
dinucleotide corresponding to the +1 and +2 positions is provided,
whereas transcription from promoter variants with sequence alterations
toward the 5'-end is unaffected by the addition of dinucleotides.
Consistent with these observations, we found little or no effect of
dinucleotide addition on transcription of the COX2 promoter by either
wild type or mutant Mtf1 (Fig.
5A). In contrast, we found
that addition of the appropriate initiating dinucleotide, AU, to
tRNACys reactions significantly improved transcription both
by wild type Mtf1 and by the Y54F, S81N, and C192F mutations (Fig.
5B). Transcription by Y54F was restored to levels
indistinguishable from wild type, and although the signal from the
C192F transcription reactions was still much lower than wild type, it
was now detectable. Addition of an inappropriate dinucleotide, AA, had
no effect on transcription. These experiments establish that the Y54F
and C192F Mtf1 mutations have specific defects in initiation from a
weak mitochondrial promoter that can be partially or fully corrected by
the addition of an appropriate dinucleotide.

View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Supercoiling and addition of dinucleotide
primers can correct the defects seen with the tRNACys
promoter. Transcription reactions were performed as described
under "Experimental Procedures." A, reactions contained
the indicated forms of Mtf1, Rpo41, and the COX2 promoter template in
the absence ( ) or presence of inappropriate (AA) or
appropriate (AG) dinucleotide primers. B,
reactions contained the indicated forms of Mtf1, Rpo41, and the
tRNACys promoter template, in the absence ( ) or presence
of inappropriate (AA) or appropriate (AU)
dinucleotide primers. C, reactions contained the indicated
forms of Mtf1, Rpo41, and linear or supercoiled forms of the
tRNACys template in the absence of CTP, resulting in 38 nucleotide transcripts.
|
|
We also asked whether the mutant specificity factors had defects in
promoter melting by comparing transcription from linear templates to
that from supercoiled templates, because supercoiling reduces the
energy needed for open promoter complex formation (reviewed in Refs. 32
and 33). For these experiments we took advantage of the sequences
downstream of the tRNACys promoter. The first C residue in
the tRNACys transcript is not encountered until the
transcript is 38 bases long, so omission of CTP from the reactions
produces a 38-nucleotide transcript from both linear and supercoiled
circular templates for direct comparison. We found that transcription
by wild type Mtf1 and the S81N mutant was relatively unaffected by the
template topology, whereas transcription by both the Y54F and the C192F mutations was dramatically increased when the supercoiled template was
used (Fig. 5C). These results indicate that both of these mutant proteins have defects in creating or maintaining an open promoter complex that can be corrected by DNA supercoiling.
 |
DISCUSSION |
Mtf1 was designated a "specificity factor" for the yeast
mitochondrial RNAP based on the fact that it is required, in
combination with the Rpo41 core RNAP, for selective transcription of
promoter-containing templates (5). However, whether promoter
recognition was actually a function of Mtf1 or if instead Mtf1 acted to
convert Rpo41 into a form competent for promoter recognition was not
elucidated in prior studies. By analyzing mutants in Mtf1 that are
defective for in vivo function, we have identified specific
amino acids required for the utilization of nonconsensus yeast
mitochondrial promoters. The Y54F and C192F mutations do not alter the
folded structure of Mtf1; proteins bearing these mutations can still associate with Rpo41 and direct normal levels of transcription from the
strong 14 S rRNA promoter (Fig. 2). The defects in these mutations are
only revealed when the promoter sequence is altered from the consensus
of ATATAAGTA ( 8 to +1). The C192F mutation dramatically impairs
initiation from the strong, but variant COX2 promoter (Fig. 3), and
both the C192F and the Y54F mutation are defective for transcription of
the weak tRNACys promoter (Fig. 4).
The existence of "strong" and "weak" promoters for the yeast
mitochondrial RNAP in large part determines the final steady-state abundance of the many yeast mitochondrial transcripts (34). The yeast
mitochondrial genome encodes at least 16 different polygenic transcription units, each with an independent promoter (reviewed in
Refs. 27 and 29). Promoters for the abundant rRNAs are strong, perfect
consensus sequences (19), whereas weaker promoter variants drive
expression of some of the less abundant tRNAs and protein-coding
mRNAs (21, 35, 36). In an extensive analysis of yeast mitochondrial
promoters, Biswas (23, 30) determined that a critical determinant of
promoter strength is the nucleotide in the +2 position. Strong
promoters like 14 S rRNA and COX2 have a purine at +2, whereas the weak
tRNACys promoter has a pyrimidine at +2. Biswas (25) has
also shown that promoters that are weak due to a +2 pyrimidine can be
corrected in vitro by addition of a dinucleotide
corresponding to the +1 and +2 nucleotides of the transcript. Weak
promoters that vary from the consensus at positions farther upstream
cannot be corrected by dinucleotide addition, possibly due to defects
in the initial binding of the RNAP. Biswas (24, 25) has speculated that
addition of the dinucleotide either bypasses an energy barrier for
first bond formation or stabilizes the initiation complex.
Failure to transcribe even one of the yeast mitochondrial promoters
results in a petite phenotype, because every mitochondrially encoded
gene product is essential for functional respiration (37). Therefore,
the failure of the Y54F mutation to transcribe the tRNACys
promoter, driving expression of both tRNACys and
tRNAHis, and the decreased ability of the C192F mutation to
transcribe either the tRNACys or the COX2 promoter, can
account for the in vivo petite phenotypes of these Mtf1
mutations. However, the in vitro results do not exactly
mimic the in vivo phenotypes. C192F is a ts petite, capable of sustaining mitochondrial function at 30° C but not 37° C
(16); whereas in vitro it demonstrates drastically
reduced function on the variant promoters even at 30° C. In
addition, the Y54F mutation has a more severe phenotype in
vivo than does C192F; it is petite even at 30° C, but it is
less impaired in the in vitro transcription assays. Clearly
our optimized in vitro reaction conditions are still not a
perfect recreation of the situation inside the mitochondrion, a fact
that may also explain why we have not yet identified the defects
associated with the remaining petite mutations, S81N, E114V, Q219R, and
L228S. Although we have tested a variety of variables, including pH,
salt concentration, and temperature (data not shown), we have not
uncovered in vitro defects for these mutations consistent
with their in vivo phenotypes. They may be deficient in
import into the mitochondrion (the mechanism for import of Mtf1, which
lacks a conventional import signal, is still not known (38)), they may
have defects on another untested variant promoter, or they may possess
defects only revealed by some particular characteristic of the
mitochondrial environment.
Another aspect of the mitochondrial milieu probably not replicated in
our in vitro reactions is the state of the DNA.
We found that template supercoiling helps to correct both Y54F and
C192F on the tRNACys promoter (Fig. 5). Although the
genetic map of yeast mitochondrial DNA is circular, the physical state
of the DNA is probably linear (39, 40). However, yeast mitochondrial
DNA is packaged with DNA binding proteins that include the abundant
HMG factor Abf2 (41, 42), and it may be tethered to the
inner mitochondrial membrane through protein/protein interactions (43).
These associations may create a constrained DNA topology inside the
mitochondrion. In an earlier study of site-directed mutations in Mtf1,
Shadel and Clayton (44) found several mutations that were functional in vivo but not functional in vitro on linear
templates containing the 14 S rRNA promoter. Two of the five mutations
with these properties were corrected by supercoiling the DNA template.
It is interesting that these two supercoiling-sensitive mutations
(R178A/K179A and H187A/R189A) are located near the C192F mutation that
we have analyzed in this work. These mutations all lie in the region
between the amino acids predicted to be similar to regions 2 and 3 of the bacterial sigma factors (see Fig.
6A). It may be that this region plays an important role in open complex formation by the mitochondrial RNAP.

View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Location of Mtf1 mutations.
A, positions of the mutations analyzed in this work
are shown above the linear map of Mtf1, left to
right, N- to C-terminal; the Y54F and C192F mutations are
indicated in red. Positions of mutations that are defective
in Rpo41 interaction (16) are shown below the linear map,
the L53H mutation is indicated in blue, and the shaded
boxes denote regions of amino acid sequence similarity to the
bacterial sigma factors (5). B, positions of the Y54F and
C192F mutations are indicated in red on the
three-dimensional structure of Mtf1 as determined by Schubot et
al. (17).
|
|
The amino acids used by bacterial sigma factors for open complex
formation have been studied in some detail (reviewed in Refs. 32 and
33). Several aromatic residues in sigma factor region 2.3 are thought
to play a critical role in melting the DNA and stabilizing the
single-strand region. Based on the alignment proposed by Jang and
Jaehning (5, 28), Mtf1 shares several of these critical amino acids,
which, when mutated in sigma factor lead to a requirement for
supercoiled templates in vitro (33, 45). One of these
positions in Mtf1 (Y108) is essential for in vivo and
in vitro function (44). In addition, amino acids in
region 1 of sigma factor are also important for open complex formation (46); amino acids similar to this region of sigma factor are not shared
with Mtf1.
Based on our observation that the Y54F and C192F mutations, and
additional mutations near C192F (44), lead to a requirement for a
supercoiled template, we propose that Mtf1 plays an important role in
open complex formation by the mitochondrial RNAP. Although Y54F and
C192F have some similar properties, their relatively distant position
from each other on the Mtf1 crystal structure determined by Schubot
et al. (17) (see Fig. 6B), makes it unlikely that
they define a single region important for promoter opening. It is
however possible that, when Mtf1 is in a complex with Rpo41, the
relative positions of these amino acids could change significantly, as
has been observed for sigma factor when it forms a complex with core
RNAP (47, 48).
What contribution does the core RNAP make to this process? The single
polypeptide phage RNAPs recognize and open promoter DNA without an
accessory factor. Analysis of the crystal structure of T7 RNAP in an
initiation complex revealed that two regions of the RNAP are involved
in stabilizing contacts with single-strand DNA (49). First, the amino
acids of the specificity loop make base specific contacts with
single-strand DNA that define the promoter specificity of the T7 RNAP.
In addition, a -hairpin near the N terminus inserts Val-237
into the duplex DNA at the double-strand/single-strand junction
stabilizing the open form. The importance of Val-237 and this
-hairpin region for promoter melting has been confirmed by recent
site-directed mutagenesis studies (50).
Although Rpo41 shares significant amino acid similarity with T7 RNAP
(10), there is little conservation of the amino acids in either of
these promoter melting regions (2), and in fact, these regions in Rpo41
are used as sites of interaction with Mtf1 (51). It is interesting to
note that the Mtf1 Y54F mutation identified in this work as critical
for promoter recognition is immediately adjacent to the L53H mutation
(Fig. 6A) that abolishes interactions with Rpo41 (16).
Clearly, amino acids in both RNAP subunits important for
protein/protein interactions are in close juxtaposition to those
important for DNA contacts. The fact that similar observations have
been made for the bacterial RNAP (52, 53) is additional evidence for a
conserved mechanism of promoter recognition and transcriptional
initiation by mitochondrial and bacterial RNAPs.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
Michio Matsunaga is gratefully acknowledged
for development of the baculovirus expression construct and for details
of recombinant Rpo41 purification. We thank C. McHenry for advice on
expression of recombinant proteins, the UCHSC Tissue Culture Core
Facility for production of the baculovirus construct, C. Korch of the
UCHSC Cancer Center Core DNA Sequencing Facility for analysis of many clones, and M. Matsunaga, J. Betz, and E. Amiott for comments on the
manuscript. B. Davis participated in the early stages of these studies.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported in part by Grant GM36692 from the
National Institutes of Health (to J. A. J.).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.
¶
Supported by Taegu University Research Grant 2002.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of
Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics and Program in Molecular Biology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, B121, 4200 E. Ninth Ave., Denver, CO 80262. Tel.: 303-315-3004; Fax: 303-315-3326; E-mail:
Judith.Jaehning@UCHSC.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, May 20, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M204123200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
RNAP, RNA
polymerase;
GST, glutathione S-transferase;
DTT, dithiothreitol;
UCHSC, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center;
Bis-Tris, 2-[bis(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol;
ts, temperature-sensitive.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Jaehning, J. A.
(1993)
Mol. Microbiol.
8,
1-4[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Cermakian, N.,
Ikeda, T. M.,
Miramontes, P.,
Lang, B. F.,
Gray, M. W.,
and Cedergren, R.
(1997)
J. Mol. Evol.
45,
671-681[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Kelly, J. L.,
Greenleaf, A. L.,
and Lehman, I. R.
(1986)
J. Biol. Chem.
261,
10348-10351[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Lisowsky, T.,
and Michaelis, G.
(1988)
Mol. Gen. Genet.
214,
218-223[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 5.
|
Jang, S. H.,
and Jaehning, J. A.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
22671-22677[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Mangus, D. A.,
Jang, S. H.,
and Jaehning, J. A.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
26568-26574[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Winkley, C. S.,
Keller, M. J.,
and Jaehning, J. A.
(1985)
J. Biol. Chem.
260,
14214-14223[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Schinkel, A. H.,
Groot Koerkamp, M. J.,
and Tabak, H. F.
(1988)
EMBO J.
7,
3255-3262[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Schinkel, A. H.,
Koerkamp, M. J.,
Touw, E. P.,
and Tabak, H. F.
(1987)
J. Biol. Chem.
262,
12785-12791[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 10.
|
Masters, B. S.,
Stohl, L. L.,
and Clayton, D. A.
(1987)
Cell
51,
89-99[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Nam, S. C.,
and Kang, C.
(2001)
Protein Expr. Purif.
21,
485-491[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 12.
|
Chang, C. C.,
Sheen, J.,
Bligny, M.,
Niwa, Y.,
Lerbs-Mache, S.,
and Stern, D. B.
(1999)
Plant Cell
11,
911-926[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Grams, J.,
Morris, J. C.,
Drew, M. E.,
Wang, Z.,
Englund, P. T.,
and Hadjuk, S. L.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
16952-16959[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
Prieto-Martin, A.,
Montoya, J.,
and Martinez-Azorin, F.
(2001)
FEBS Lett.
503,
51-55[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 15.
|
Lang, B. F.,
Burger, G.,
O'Kelly, C. J.,
Cedergren, R.,
Golding, G. B.,
Lemieux, C.,
Sankoff, D.,
Turmel, M.,
and Gray, M. W.
(1997)
Nature
387,
493-497[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 16.
|
Cliften, P. F.,
Park, J. Y.,
Davis, B. P.,
Jang, S. H.,
and Jaehning, J. A.
(1997)
Genes Dev.
11,
2897-2909[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Schubot, F. D.,
Chen, C. J.,
Rose, J. P.,
Dailey, T. A.,
Dailey, H. A.,
and Wang, B. C.
(2001)
Prot. Sci.
10,
1980-1988[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 18.
|
Mangus, D. A.,
and Jaehning, J. A.
(1996)
Methods Enzymol.
264,
57-66[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 19.
|
Osinga, K. A., De,
Haan, M.,
Christianson, T.,
and Tabak, H. F.
(1982)
Nucleic Acids Res.
10,
7993-8006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Cameron, V. L.,
Fox, T. D.,
and Poyton, R. O.
(1989)
J. Biol. Chem.
264,
13391-13394[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 21.
|
Wettstein-Edwards, J.,
Ticho, B. S.,
Martin, N. C.,
Najarian, D.,
and Getz, G. S.
(1986)
J. Biol. Chem.
261,
2905-2911[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 22.
|
Biswas, T. K.
(1996)
Gene (Amst.)
170,
23-30[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 23.
|
Biswas, T. K.,
Ticho, B.,
and Getz, G. S.
(1987)
J. Biol. Chem.
262,
13690-13696[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 24.
|
Biswas, T. K.,
and Getz, G. S.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
19053-19059[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 25.
|
Biswas, T. K.
(1990)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
87,
9338-9342[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 26.
|
Costanzo, M. C.,
and Fox, T. D.
(1990)
Annu. Rev. Genet.
24,
91-113[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Dieckmann, C. L.,
and Staples, R. R.
(1994)
Int. Rev. Cytol.
152,
145-181[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 28.
|
Jang, S.-H.,
and Jaehning, J. A.
(1994)
in
Transcription: Mechanisms and Regulation
(Conaway, R. C.
, and Conaway, J. W., eds)
, pp. 171-184, Raven Press, Ltd., New York
|
| 29.
|
Biswas, T. K.
(1998)
Gene (Amst.)
212,
305-314[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Biswas, T. K.,
and Getz, G. S.
(1986)
J. Biol. Chem.
261,
3927-3930[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 31.
|
McClure, W. R.
(1980)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
77,
5634-5638[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 32.
|
deHaseth, P. L.,
and Helmann, J. D.
(1995)
Mol. Microbiol.
16,
817-824[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Helmann, J. D.,
and deHaseth, P. L.
(1999)
Biochemistry
38,
5959-5967[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Mueller, D. M.,
and Getz, G. S.
(1986)
J. Biol. Chem.
261,
11816-11822[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 35.
|
Christianson, T.,
and Rabinowitz, M.
(1983)
J. Biol. Chem.
258,
14025-14033[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 36.
|
Osinga, K. A., De,
Vries, E.,
Van der Horst, G. T.,
and Tabak, H. F.
(1984)
Nucleic Acids Res.
12,
1889-1900[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 37.
|
Attardi, G.,
and Schatz, G.
(1988)
Annu. Rev. Cell Biol.
4,
289-333[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 38.
|
Sanyal, A.,
and Getz, G. S.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
11970-11976[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 39.
|
Jacobs, M. A.,
Payne, S. R.,
and Bendich, A. J.
(1996)
Curr. Genet.
30,
3-11[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 40.
|
Bendich, A. J.
(1996)
J. Mol. Biol.
255,
564-588[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Diffley, J. F.,
and Stillman, B.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
3368-3374[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 42.
|
Newman, S. M.,
Zelenaya-Troitskaya, O.,
Perlman, P. S.,
and Butow, R. A.
(1996)
Nucleic Acids Res.
24,
386-393[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 43.
|
Cho, J. H., Ha, S. J.,
Kao, L. R.,
Megraw, T. L.,
and Chae, C. B.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18,
5712-5723[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 44.
|
Shadel, G. S.,
and Clayton, D. A.
(1995)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15,
2101-2108[Abstract]
|
| 45.
|
Juang, Y. L.,
and Helmann, J. D.
(1994)
J. Mol. Biol.
235,
1470-1488[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 46.
|
Wilson, C.,
and Dombroski, A. J.
(1997)
J. Mol. Biol.
267,
60-74[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 47.
|
Callaci, S.,
Heyduk, E.,
and Heyduk, T.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
32995-33001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 48.
|
Callaci, S.,
Heyduk, E.,
and Heyduk, T.
(1999)
Mol. Cell.
3,
229-238[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 49.
|
Cheetham, G. M.,
Jeruzalmi, D.,
and Steitz, T. A.
(1999)
Nature
399,
80-83[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 50.
|
Stano, N. M.,
and Patel, S. S.
(2002)
J. Mol. Biol.
315,
1009-1025[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 51.
|
Cliften, P. F.,
Jang, S. H.,
and Jaehning, J. A.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
7013-7023[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 52.
|
Gross, C. A.,
Chan, C.,
Dombroski, A.,
Gruber, T.,
Sharp, M.,
Tupy, J.,
and Young, B.
(1998)
Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.
63,
141-155[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 53.
|
Gruber, T. M.,
Markov, D.,
Sharp, M. M.,
Young, B. A., Lu, C. Z.,
Zhong, H. J.,
Artsimovitch, I.,
Geszvain, K. M.,
Arthur, T. M.,
Burgess, R. R.,
Landick, R.,
Severinov, K.,
and Gross, C. A.
(2001)
Mol. Cell
8,
21-31[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:

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. C. Scarpulla
Transcriptional Paradigms in Mammalian Mitochondrial Biogenesis and Function
Physiol Rev,
April 1, 2008;
88(2):
611 - 638.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. A. Amiott and J. A. Jaehning
Sensitivity of the Yeast Mitochondrial RNA Polymerase to +1 and +2 Initiating Nucleotides
J. Biol. Chem.,
November 17, 2006;
281(46):
34982 - 34988.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. T. Rogowska, O. Puchta, A. M. Czarnecka, A. Kaniak, P. P. Stepien, and P. Golik
Balance between Transcription and RNA Degradation Is Vital for Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mitochondria: Reduced Transcription Rescues the Phenotype of Deficient RNA Degradation
Mol. Biol. Cell,
March 1, 2006;
17(3):
1184 - 1193.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Matsunaga and J. A. Jaehning
Intrinsic Promoter Recognition by a "Core" RNA Polymerase
J. Biol. Chem.,
October 22, 2004;
279(43):
44239 - 44242.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Garrido, L. Griparic, E. Jokitalo, J. Wartiovaara, A. M. van der Bliek, and J. N. Spelbrink
Composition and Dynamics of Human Mitochondrial Nucleoids
Mol. Biol. Cell,
April 1, 2003;
14(4):
1583 - 1596.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|