JBC PeproTech; Our Business is Cytokines!

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M310156200 on September 26, 2003

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 50, 49920-49928, December 12, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/50/49920    most recent
M310156200v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wheeler, G. L.
Right arrow Articles by Grant, C. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wheeler, G. L.
Right arrow Articles by Grant, C. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Coupling of the Transcriptional Regulation of Glutathione Biosynthesis to the Availability of Glutathione and Methionine via the Met4 and Yap1 Transcription Factors*

Glen L. Wheeler, Eleanor W. Trotter, Ian W. Dawes{ddagger}, and Chris M. Grant§

From the Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester M60 1QD, United Kingdom and {ddagger}School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia

Received for publication, September 12, 2003 , and in revised form, September 26, 2003.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Depletion of the cellular pool of glutathione is detrimental to eukaryotic cells and in Saccharomyces cerevisiae leads to sensitivity to oxidants and xenobiotics and an eventual cell cycle arrest. Here, we show that the Yap1 and Met4 transcription factors regulate the expression of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase (GSH1), encoding the rate-limiting enzyme in glutathione biosynthesis to prevent the damaging effects of glutathione depletion. Transcriptional profiling of a gsh1 mutant indicates that glutathione depletion leads to a general activation of Yap1 target genes, but the expression of Met4-regulated genes remains unaltered. Glutathione depletion appears to result in Yap1 activation via oxidation of thioredoxins, which normally act to down-regulate the Yap1-mediated response. The requirement for Met4 in regulating GSH1 expression is lost in the absence of the centromere-binding protein Cbf1. In contrast, the Yap1-mediated effect is unaffected, indicating that Met4 acts via Cbf1 to regulate the Yap1-mediated induction of GSH1 expression in response to glutathione depletion. Furthermore, yeast cells exposed to the xenobiotic 1-chloro-2,4-dintrobenzene are rapidly depleted of glutathione, accumulate oxidized thioredoxins, and elicit the Yap1/Met4-dependent transcriptional response of GSH1. The addition of methionine, which promotes Met4 ubiquitination and inactivation, specifically represses GSH1 expression after 1-chloro-2,4-dintrobenzene exposure but does not affect Yap1 activation. These results indicate that the Yap1-dependant activation of GSH1 expression in response to glutathione depletion is regulated by the sulfur status of the cell through a specific Met4-dependant mechanism.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The ability to regulate biosynthetic pathways is a fundamental aspect of adaptation to life in a changing environment. In response to a stress, cells must be able to prioritize the allocation of resources to support the increased demand for defensive mechanisms. Understanding the mechanisms that facilitate stress-induced changes is important in determining how a cell co-ordinates different areas of metabolism.

An inducible stress response has been described for the biosynthesis of glutathione (GSH) in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. GSH is a tripeptide ({gamma}-L-glutamyl-L-cysteinylglycine) that plays an important role in protecting yeast cells against damage induced by oxidative stress (1–3). GSH counters the potentially damaging effect of reactive oxygen species through direct scavenging of free radicals and through the action of antioxidant enzymes such as the glutathione peroxidases (4). In addition GSH has other protective roles within the cell, such as the detoxification of xenobiotics and heavy metals through the formation of GSH conjugates and their subsequent export into the vacuole (5). The reversible binding of GSH to protein sulfhydryl groups can protect them from irreversible oxidative damage (6, 7). There are also requirements for GSH in methylglyoxal detoxification, as a cofactor for ribonucleotide reductase, in protein folding, and in amino acid transport (4, 8).

The first step in the synthesis of GSH is the conjugation of glutamate and cysteine by {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase, encoded by GSH1 (9, 10). This produces {gamma}-glutamylcysteine, to which glycine is added by glutathione synthetase, encoded by GSH2 (11, 12). Mutant strains lacking GSH1 are unable to grow in the absence of GSH, indicating that this metabolite is essential in S. cerevisiae (1, 13, 14). The rate-limiting step in the biosynthetic pathway is Gsh1, which is feedback-inhibited at the enzyme level by GSH (4). The rate of GSH1 expression is, therefore, very important in regulating the abundance of Gsh1 and determining the rate of GSH biosynthesis. In response to oxidative stress, GSH1 expression is increased in a Yap1-dependant manner (15–17). Yap1 is a redox-sensitive bZip-transcription factor that regulates the expression of many antioxidant genes (18–20). Upon exposure to H2O2, Yap1 accumulates in the nucleus due to the masking of a C-terminal nuclear export signal by an intramolecular disulfide bond (21, 22). It has recently been shown that the glutathione peroxidase like-enzyme, Gpx3, is required for the H2O2-dependent formation of the intramolecular disulfide bond (23). The pathway is turned off by thioredoxin, which reduces both Gpx3 and Yap1. There is a requirement for Yap1 in the response of GSH1 to oxidants such as H2O2, tert-butyl hydroperoxide, and menadione and also to other stresses such as heat shock and cadmium (16, 24, 25). Deleting the Yap1-responsive element (YRE)1 in the GSH1 promoter still permits H2O2-mediated induction, which may indicate that Yap1 only plays an indirect role in the response to H2O2 (17).

Cadmium-inducible expression of GSH1 also requires the presence of the Met4 transcription factor (26). Met4 is a bZip-transcriptional activator that regulates the assimilation of extracellular sulfate into the sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cysteine (27). Met4 will, therefore, have an indirect effect on GSH biosynthesis by regulating the supply of cysteine. Met4 lacks a DNA binding domain and is tethered to DNA in the form of a heteromeric complex involving the bZip protein, Met28, and the basic helix-loop-helix protein, Cbf1 (28, 29). Met4 may also be recruited to DNA in an alternative complex involving Met28 and one of the zinc finger proteins, Met31 or Met32 (30, 31). The Met4-regulated genes of the sulfate assimilation pathway have differing requirements for one or both of these complexes. The GSH1 promoter contains binding motifs for both Cbf1 and Met31/32 (26). The sulfate assimilation pathway is turned off upon exposure to methionine, which triggers the ubiquination of Met4 (32, 33). The nature of this regulation is complex because ubiquitination inhibits Met4 transcriptional activity through altered promoter recruitment or through Met4 degradation depending upon the media composition and environment of the individual promoters (34).

In this work we investigated how GSH biosynthesis is regulated in response to depletion of the GSH pool. We have previously determined that there is Met4-dependant induction of GSH1 expression after GSH depletion (35). Here, we identify a role for the stress-responsive transcription factor Yap1 in this response and propose a mechanism in which these two transcription factors combine to regulate GSH1 expression. In addition, we demonstrate that the regulation of GSH1 expression by this mechanism is important in defense against xenobiotics, which deplete cellular GSH concentrations.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Yeast Strains, Growth Conditions, and Plasmids—The S. cerevisiae strains used in this study are derivatives of CY4 (MATa ura3–52 leu2–3 leu2–112 trp1–1 his3–11 can1–100) (1). Strain CY197, which is deleted for GSH1, has been described previously (13) as have the yap1 mutant (36) and the met4 and gsh1 met4 mutants (35). Strain CY813, which is deleted for CBF1, was made by back-crossing CY4 with EUROSCARF strain Y16858 [GenBank] (MAT{alpha} his3D1 leu2D0 lys2D0 ura3D0 cbf1::kanMX4). These strains were used to construct the gsh1 yap1, gsh1 cbf1, met4 cbf1, yap1 cbf1, gsh1 met4 cbf1, and gsh1 yap1 cbf1 mutants using standard yeast genetic methods.

Strains were grown in rich YEPD medium (2% w/v glucose, 2% w/v Bacto-peptone, 1% w/v yeast extract) or minimal SD media (0.17% w/v yeast nitrogen base without amino acids, 5% w/v ammonium sulfate, 2% w/v glucose) supplemented with appropriate amino acids and bases (2 mM leucine, 0.3 mM histidine, 0.4 mM tryptophan, 1 mM lysine, 0.15 mM adenine, and 0.2 mM uracil). Media were solidified by the addition of 2% (w/v) agar. Where appropriate, media were further supplemented by a non-repressive concentration of methionine (0.05 mM) to overcome the methionine auxotrophy of cbf1 and/or met4 mutants. Sensitivity to 1-chloro-2,4-dintrobenzene (CDNB) was determined by growing cells to stationary phase (48 h growth) and spotting onto agar plates. The plasmids used in this study containing the GSH1::lacZ (pyDJ73 and pyDJ76 (26)) and YRE::lacZ (15) reporter constructs have been described previously.

Determination of Glutathione and Thioredoxin Redox States—Concentrations of free (GSH and GSSG) and protein-bound (GSSP) glutathione were determined as described previously (37). The redox state of thioredoxins was measured by covalent modification with the thiolreactive probe 4-acetamido-4'maleimidyldystilbene-2,2'-disulfonic acid (Molecular Probes) as described previously (38).

Western Blot Analysis—Protein extracts were subjected to electrophoresis on 18% SDS-PAGE minigels and electroblotted onto a poly(vinylidene difluoride) membrane (Amersham Biosciences). Blots were incubated in anti-thioredoxin antibody (1:1000 dilution) as described previously (39). Bound antibody was visualized by chemiluminescence (ECL, Amersham Biosciences) after incubation of the blot in donkey anti-rabbit immunoglobulin-horseradish peroxidase conjugate (Santa Cruz, CA).

{beta}-Galactosidase Assays—For the determination of {beta}-galactosidase activity, transformants were assayed essentially as described previously (40). Activity is expressed as nmol of o-nitrophenyl-{beta}-D-galacto-pyranoside hydrolyzed/min/µg of total protein (units). All {beta}-galactosidase experiments were repeated at least twice, and a representative plot is shown. Values shown are the means of at least two independent determinations. Error bars denote S.E.

Northern Blot Analysis—Yeast cells were grown to mid-exponential phase (A600 = 0.6–0.7) in minimal media in the presence of 1 mM methionine or 1 mM GSH where appropriate. Total RNA was prepared by Trizol extraction according to the manufacturer's specifications (Invitrogen). RNA (50 µg) was electrophoresed on 1.2% agarose-formaldehyde gels, blotted overnight onto a Nylon+ membrane, and hybridized with 32P-labeled DNA specific probes. DNA probes were synthesized by PCR using the following oligonucleotides: MET3 (MET3–1, 5'-GGGTCTCTCTCTGTCGTAACAGTTG-3'; MET3–2, 5'-TTGAGATGGGAGCATTTTATGACGA-3'); MET16 (MET16–1, 5'-CAAAGGTATCAACCCATAGCAACTC-3'; MET16–2, 5'-CGTACAGCGCGA ATTCTCCGCCAGC-3'); MET25 (MET25–1, 5'-CAATTCTATTACCCCCATCCATACA-3'; MET25–2, 5'-TAATTTTACAAC CATTACGCACAC-3'). Probes were labeled with the Megaprime kit (Amersham Biosciences). ACT1 was used as a control for RNA loading.

Microarray Hybridizations and Data Analysis—Yeast cells were grown in triplicate to mid-exponential phase in minimal SD media. Growth conditions for the gsh1 mutant were predetermined to allow maximal GSH depletion in mid-exponential phase without a decrease in growth rate. Total depletion of the GSH pool in the gsh1 mutant leads to a cell cycle arrest. To examine the transcriptome in GSH-depleted cells that were still growing normally, cultures of the gsh1 mutant were inoculated with the lowest volume of a GSH-containing stationary phase culture that still allowed a normal growth rate to an A600 of 0.5–0.6. Preparation of RNA, probes, and hybridization to whole yeast genome microarrays (YG-S98, Affymetrix) was performed as described on the Consortium for Functional Genomics of Microbial Eukaryotes (COGEME) web site (www.cogeme.man.ac.uk). Data acquisition was performed using Affymetrix Microarray Suite Version 5.0 software and analyzed using dChip v1.1 software (41). The mean expression values from three independently grown yeast cultures were used for comparative analysis. Gene expression was deemed to be significantly different between strains if it fulfilled the following criteria; 1) the fold change of gene expression was greater than 2 at the 90% confidence level, 2) the mean expression values are significantly different using an unpaired t test (p < 0.05), 3) the mean expression values differ by greater than 50, 4) the gene is called present in greater than 60% of the arrays. For the comparison to other microarray data sets, data from the YAP1 overexpression and trr1 mutant analyses were downloaded from Stanford Genomic Resources web site (genome-www.stanford.edu/yeast_stress and genome-www.stanford.edu/trr1, respectively) (19, 20). Genes exhibiting a log2 expression ratio higher than 1.0 were compared with the data set obtained in the gsh1 mutant. The identification of prospective regulatory sequences within promoters was performed by RSAT (Regulatory Sequence Analysis Tools, rsat.ulb.ac.be/rsat).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The Regulation of the Sulfate Assimilation Pathway Is Not Affected by Cellular GSH Concentrations—The regulation of metabolic pathways is essential for cell adaptation to differing environmental conditions. In this paper we have investigated the mechanisms regulating the biosynthesis of the key antioxidant, GSH. Our previous work indicated that expression of GSH1 is strongly induced in response to GSH depletion and that this response is dependent on the presence of the Met4 transcription factor (35). To understand the mechanisms regulating GSH1 expression, we were particularly interested in the transcriptional responses of other Met4-dependent genes in response to GSH depletion. We, therefore, analyzed the global transcriptional response to GSH depletion in a gsh1 mutant. Microarray analysis revealed that there is a significant effect on the transcriptome, with 151 open reading frames significantly up-regulated and 38 down-regulated. Here we will only refer to the findings that are relevant to the regulation of GSH1 expression, since a detailed analysis of these data is beyond the scope of this paper and will be described elsewhere.2 The microarray analysis of the gsh1 mutant indicates that lower cellular GSH concentrations do not lead to a general induction of the sulfate assimilation pathway. There is no significant effect on the expression of genes involved in sulfur metabolism other than a 3.3-fold increase in STR3 transcripts. The STR3 gene encodes cystathionine {beta}-lyase, which catalyzes the conversion of cysteine to cystathionine and would, thus, prevent a toxic accumulation of cysteine in the gsh1 mutant (42).

To confirm the effect of GSH depletion on the regulation of the sulfate assimilation pathway, we analyzed the transcriptional response of MET3, MET16, and MET25 using Northern blot analysis (Fig. 1A). These genes have previously been shown to be controlled by the Met4 transcriptional activator protein (27). However, none of these genes was induced by GSH depletion in the gsh1 mutant nor were they repressed by the exogenous addition of 1 mM GSH. This is in strong contrast with the induction of GSH1 expression observed after GSH depletion (Fig. 1B). The addition of 1 mM methionine severely repressed the expression of all three sulfate assimilation genes and also repressed the GSH1 induction observed in the gsh1 mutant. Thus, although the expression of the GSH1 gene is regulated in response to GSH availability, the expression of other known Met4 target genes is unaffected under these conditions. This indicates that Met4 acts to specifically up-regulate GSH biosynthesis in response to GSH depletion. We, therefore, examined the microarray data generated from the gsh1 mutant for evidence that other transcription factors may contribute to this specificity.



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
The sulfate assimilation pathway is not regulated by GSH availability. A, Northern blot analysis of MET16, MET25, and MET3 was performed on exponential phase wild-type and gsh1 mutant cells grown in SD media in the presence of 1 mM methionine (Met), 1 mM GSH, or no addition (NA). ACT1 is shown as a loading control. B, GSH1 expression was determined using a GSH1::lacZ fusion in the wild-type (wt) and gsh1 mutant strains. {beta}-Galactosidase activity was determined for exponential phase cultures grown in minimal media with no addition (control), 1 mM GSH, or 1 mM methionine.

 
GSH Depletion Activates Yap1-regulated Genes—Examination of the microarray data revealed that a number of genes that are regulated by the Yap1 transcriptional activator protein are up-regulated in the gsh1 mutant (Table I). For example, mutant strains of yeast lacking thioredoxin reductase (trr1) exhibit a constitutive Yap1 response, indicating that the thioredoxin system is integral for the redox regulation of this transcription factor (19). Comparison of the whole-genome expression data identified 16 genes in the gsh1 mutant from a set of 35 genes in the trr1 mutant that are strongly induced (greater than 2-fold) in both mutants. The group of genes up-regulated in a gsh1 mutant also contains 25 genes that have previously been shown to be up-regulated (from a set of 118 genes) after the overexpression of plasmid-borne YAP1 in wild-type cells (20). Furthermore, analysis of the promoter regions of the genes up-regulated in the gsh1 mutant indicates that a significant proportion (43 of 151) contain a putative Yap1 binding site (TTAC/GTAA or TGACTAA).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE I
Comparison of gene expression profiles in a wild-type and gsh1 mutant identifies many genes that are regulated by Yap1

Genes included in this list fulfil one or more criteria (see footnotes).

 
To determine whether Yap1 oxidation in response to GSH depletion was due to an altered redox status, we performed microarray analysis on the glr1 mutant. Mutant strains lacking GLR1, encoding glutathione reductase, are unable to recycle oxidized GSSG back to GSH, and consequently, the redox status of the GSH pool is much more oxidized (36). However, oxidation of the GSH pool does not result in Yap1 activation because no target genes were up-regulated in the glr1 mutant (data not shown).

Given the elevated expression of Yap1 targets genes in the gsh1 mutant, we confirmed that Yap1 is activated in a gsh1 mutant using a YRE::lacZ reporter construct. This construct contains three YRE from the promoter of GSH1 fused upstream of the {beta}-galactosidase reporter gene (15). The gsh1 mutant strain exhibited a 5-fold increase in YRE::lacZ expression compared with the wild-type control (data not shown). These data indicate that GSH depletion leads to an activation of the Yap1 transcription factor, which has previously been shown to regulate GSH1 expression in response to oxidative stress (43). We, therefore, confirmed that Yap1 also regulates GSH1 expression after GSH depletion using a gsh1 yap1 double mutant. Deletion of YAP1 in a gsh1 mutant reduced the increase in GSH1 expression (Fig. 2A). In addition, mutation of the Yap1-responsive element in the GSH1 promoter prevented the GSH-mediated induction of expression, confirming the requirement for Yap1 (Fig. 2A). Thus, both Met4 and Yap1 are required for elevated GSH1 expression after GSH depletion.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
Yap1 and Met4 are required to regulate GSH1 expression in response to GSH depletion. A, expression of the GSH1::lacZ reporter construct was measured in wild-type (wt) and gsh1 mutant strains that had been deleted for MET4 or YAP1. The expression of a GSH1::lacZ reporter construct lacking the YRE was determined in wild-type and gsh1 strains. U, units. B, GSH1 expression was measured in wild-type and gsh1 mutant strains that had been deleted for CBF1, MET4, and CBF1 or YAP1 and CBF1. GSH1 expression was also determined in wild-type and gsh1 strains that had been deleted for CBF1 grown in the presence of 1 mM methionine.

 
Loss of CBF1 Removes the Requirement for Met4 in GSH Biosynthesis—To further examine the requirements for Met4 and Yap1 we investigated the role of Cbf1 in GSH biosynthesis. Met4 contains no DNA binding domain and interacts with promoters through a complex containing Met28 and either Cbf1 or Met31/32 (28, 31). As a consequence, many genes of the sulfate assimilation pathway are poorly expressed in a cbf1 mutant, leading to methionine auxotrophy (44, 45). In contrast, the expression of a GSH1::lacZ reporter is constitutively elevated in a cbf1 mutant, suggesting a repressive role for this protein in regulating GSH1 expression (26). We, therefore, constructed a series of mutants in which the CBF1 gene was deleted in combination with either MET4 or YAP1 (Fig. 2B). Our data demonstrate that the induction of GSH1 expression in response to GSH depletion is still observed in the cbf1 mutant. This indicates that the interaction between Cbf1 and Met4 is not required for the increase in GSH1 expression. The response to GSH depletion is even more pronounced in a met4 cbf1 gsh1 triple mutant, confirming that the requirement for Met4 is lost in a cbf1 background. A further indication that Met4 requires Cbf1 to regulate GSH1 expression was demonstrated by the inability of 1 mM methionine to prevent the induction of GSH1 expression in response to GSH depletion in the cbf1 mutant (Fig. 2B). In contrast, deleting YAP1 restored the basal levels of GSH1 expression in a cbf1 mutant and abrogated the induction of GSH1 expression normally seen in response to GSH depletion. This indicates that Yap1 is integral to the GSH depletion response regardless of the presence of Cbf1 and implies that Cbf1 normally acts to prevent the Yap1-dependent transcriptional activation of GSH1.

GSH Depletion Induced by Exposure to CDNB—We have demonstrated that GSH biosynthesis in yeast is regulated in response to GSH depletion by increased expression of GSH1. This response was initially identified in a gsh1 mutant, which is unable to synthesize GSH. We wished to confirm that a similar response occurs in wild-type cells, which have been depleted of GSH to ensure that the response is not specific to the gsh1 mutant. The GSH pool in wild-type cells may be depleted after exposure to xenobiotics such as CDNB, which are rapidly detoxified by GSH conjugation (46). Thus, the response to xenobiotic exposure is a closer representation of the physiological situations that yeast may encounter in their natural environment. We first examined the effects of CDNB on the cellular GSH pool and the requirements for Met4 and Cbf1 in maintaining GSH concentrations. Total GSH levels (both free and bound to proteins) are lower in a met4 mutant compared with wild-type cells, indicating that Met4 is important in maintaining the GSH pool during normal aerobic growth (Table II). An increase in total GSH levels was observed in both the cbf1 and met4 cbf1 mutants, consistent with their elevated basal expression of GSH1 (Fig. 2B). The addition of 0.08 mM CDNB for 2 h severely depleted total GSH concentrations in all strains, although the cbf1 and met4 cbf1 mutant strains still retained a significant concentration of cellular GSH. Importantly, CDNB did not increase GSH oxidation to GSSG in either the wild-type or met4 strains, confirming that CDNB selectively depletes the reduced GSH pool. However, there was a significant increase in GSSG in both cbf1 and met4 cbf1, suggesting CDNB increases GSH oxidation in these mutants.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE II
The pool of cellular glutathione is depleted after CDNB exposure

 
Met4 and Yap1 Regulate GSH Biosynthesis in Response to Exposure to CDNB—The results described above indicate that CDNB treatment effectively depletes the pool of GSH in yeast cells. We, therefore, investigated whether the transcriptional response to GSH depletion by CDNB mirrors which was caused by deletion of the GSH1 gene. Exposure to 0.08 mM CDNB for 2 h resulted in an increased expression of GSH1::lacZ (Fig. 3A). This response was dependent on both the Yap1 and Met4 transcription factors because GSH1 induction did not occur in either mutant. The requirement for Met4 was lost in a cbf1 background, confirming that Met4 is only required for the transcriptional response to GSH depletion in the presence of Cbf1. The regulation of GSH1 expression after GSH depletion induced by exposure to CDNB is, therefore, very similar to that seen in the gsh1 mutant.



View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
Met4 and Yap1 regulate GSH biosynthesis in response to GSH-depletion induced by exposure to CDNB. A, expression of the GSH1::lacZ reporter construct was measured in wild-type (wt), yap1, met4, cbf1, and met4 cbf1 strains after treatment with 0.08 mM CDNB for 2h. B, sensitivity to CDNB was determined by spotting strains onto SD plates containing 0.02 or 0.03 mM CDNB. Cultures of wild-type, met4c cbf1, and met4 cbf1 strains were grown into stationary phase and adjusted to A600 1.0, 0.1, and 0.01 before spotting onto plates. Growth was monitored after 3 days. U, units.

 
GSH conjugation is very important in countering the toxicity of CDNB. Given that the met4 mutant is unable to increase the transcription of GSH1 after CDNB exposure, we examined whether this response is required in protecting yeast cells. Strains lacking MET4 were very sensitive to growth on CDNB compared with wild-type cells (Fig. 3B). However, a met4 cbf1 double mutant in which GSH1 expression is responsive to CDNB was not sensitive. These data indicate that the ability to up-regulate GSH biosynthesis is necessary for resistance to GSH-depleting agents.

Exposure to CDNB Causes Thioredoxin Oxidation and Yap1 Activation—Given that GSH depletion in a gsh1 mutant causes Yap1 activation, we tested whether exposure to CDNB has a similar effect. Expression of the YRE::lacZ reporter construct was elevated 8-fold upon CDNB treatment, indicating that Yap1 is strongly activated after exposure to this xenobiotic (Fig. 4A). In addition, CDNB exposure did not increase GSH1 expression in a construct containing a mutated Yap1-responsive element, confirming that Yap1 directly regulates GSH1 transcription in response to CDNB. Thus, GSH depletion, brought about by deletion of GSH1 or through exposure to a xenobiotic, activates Yap1, which induces the expression of GSH1 to increase GSH biosynthesis.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
CDNB activates Yap1 and oxidizes thioredoxins. A, the expression of GSH1::lacZ, GSH1::lacZ minus the YRE, and YRE::lacZ reporter constructs was measured in exponentially grown wild-type treated with 0.08 mM CDNB for 2 h. B, to measure the redox state of thioredoxins, proteins were precipitated with trichloroacetic acid, and free thiols were modified by reaction with 4-acetamido-4'maleimidyldystilbene-2,2'-disulfonic acid. Samples were separated using 18% SDS-PAGE, and thioredoxins (TRX) detected by Western blot analysis. Fully oxidized (OX.) and fully reduced (RED.) proteins are indicated. Wild-type cells were grown into exponential phase in SD media and treated with 2 mM diamide or 2 mM CDNB. U, units.

 
GSH is the major redox buffer in yeast, and its depletion would be expected to influence other redox systems such as the thioredoxin system. We have previously shown that a severe starvation for GSH, brought about by incubating the gsh1 mutant in media lacking GSH, results in oxidation of thioredoxins (Trx1 and Trx2) (39). We therefore examined whether the more physiological GSH depletion that occurs after exposure to CDNB could also affect the redox status of thioredoxins. Thioredoxin are predominately present in the reduced form in wild-type cells but are shifted to a more oxidized form after treatment with CDNB (Fig. 4B). In contrast, treatment with the thiol oxidizing agent diamide did not cause any thioredoxin oxidation. Diamide readily oxidizes glutathione but does not affect the total cellular concentrations of GSH (47), indicating that the oxidation of thioredoxins is specific for GSH depletion rather than any change in the glutathione redox state. Given that thioredoxins are required for Yap1 deactivation (22), we propose that thioredoxin oxidation resulting from GSH depletion is responsible for the activation of Yap1 and leads to the increased biosynthesis of GSH.

Met4 Couples Yap1-mediated GSH1 Expression to the Availability of Methionine—The co-regulation of GSH1 by both Yap1 and Met4 in response to GSH depletion suggests that there is a need to balance GSH biosynthesis with the sulfur requirements of the cell. From the data presented above, Yap1 appears to play a direct role as the transcriptional activator of GSH1 expression, and Met4 most likely plays a secondary regulatory role. We, therefore, attempted to determine whether Met4 acts to couple GSH biosynthesis to the cell demand for sulfate assimilation. The addition of methionine strongly represses the transcription of genes required for sulfate assimilation through the inactivation of Met4. Similarly, methionine addition was found to abrogate the normal induction of GSH1 expression induced by CDNB treatment (Fig. 5, left panel). This effect was specific to GSH1 expression since the addition of methionine did not affect the induction of a YRE::lacZ reporter construct in response to CDNB (Fig. 5, right panel). Thus, CDNB causes Yap1 activation regardless of the presence of methionine but only induces GSH biosynthesis when methionine is absent.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
Addition of methionine represses GSH1 expression, but not Yap1 activation, in response to CDNB. The expression of the GSH1::lacZ and YRE::lacZ reporter constructs was determined in wild-type cells grown to exponential phase with or without the presence of 1 mM methionine. Cells were treated with 0.08 mM CDNB for 2 h to deplete the cellular GSH pool. U, units.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Glutathione is an abundant and ubiquitous low molecular weight tripeptide whose biological importance is dependent upon its redox-active free sulfhydryl moiety. Many roles have been proposed for GSH in a variety of cellular processes including amino acid transport, synthesis of nucleic acids and proteins, modulation of enzyme activity, and metabolism of carcinogens, xenobiotics, and reactive oxygen species (4, 48–51). Not surprisingly, therefore, GSH is an essential metabolite in eukaryotes. For example, mice that are deficient in GSH due to a targeted disruption of the gene encoding the first step in its synthesis die rapidly (52), and drug-induced GSH depletion results in many tissue pathologies including hemolysis and defective brain function, cataract formation, and oxidative damage to renal, hepatic, and brain tissues (53–56). Similarly, loss of GSH from yeast results in a G1 phase cell cycle arrest followed by a loss of viability after 3–4 days (14). We examined the transcriptional regulation of the GSH1 gene to identify the mechanisms to which cells have evolved to prevent such GSH depletion. GSH1 expression was found to be increased in response to GSH depletion in a response that is co-regulated by the Yap1 and Met4 transcription factors.

Previous reports indicate that Yap1 activity is regulated by the thioredoxin but not the glutathione redox state (19, 22, 57). Our data are the first to show that Yap1 activity is regulated by the GSH system. We have previously shown that starvation for GSH results in oxidation of thioredoxins (39), and in this present study we show that GSH depletion induced by exposure to CDNB has a similar effect. This may account for the activation of Yap1 because Yap1 is normally deactivated via thioredoxin-mediated reduction of an intramolecular disulfide bond (22). Oxidation of the GSH pool in the glr1 mutant did not cause any activation of Yap1 target genes, in agreement with the observation that thioredoxin redox status is unaltered in a glr1 mutant (39). Thus, the Yap1-mediated increase in GSH1 expression only occurs when GSH depletion leads to thioredoxin oxidation. Although this would appear to be a relatively coarse control for regulating GSH homeostasis, GSH biosynthesis is also tightly regulated by feedback inhibition at the enzyme level. Thus, a minor decrease in the GSH pool would lessen feedback inhibition of Gsh1, leading to increased GSH synthesis. In the case of severe GSH depletion, the hugely increased demand for GSH biosynthesis requires an increase in the levels of Gsh1, and therefore, GSH1 expression is increased via Yap1 activation.

The role of Met4 in regulating GSH homeostasis is less apparent. In a gsh1 mutant there is no induction of other Met4 target genes, indicating that there is not a general activation of Met4 and the sulfate assimilation pathway. Met4 is also known to regulate the response of GSH1 to cadmium stress, which additionally requires Yap1 (26). However, the cellular response to cadmium is different from the response to GSH depletion, since cadmium strongly induces the sulfate assimilation path-way (58, 59). The transcriptional activation activity of Met4 is known to be regulated by ubiquitination, which affects its degradation and/or promoter recruitment (34). Specificity exists in this system, since for example, in rich media oligoubiquitinated Met4 is recruited to the promoters of genes required for S-adenosylmethionine biosynthesis but not to those of the sulfate assimilation pathway. The specificity of Met4 in GSH1 regulation could be explained by a similar mechanism in which Met4 is recruited to GSH1, whereas there is a selective repression of the other Met4-dependent genes. However, GSH1 can still be induced by GSH depletion in a met4 cbf1 mutant, indicating that Met4 plays an indirect role in the transcriptional activation of GSH1.

The GSH1 promoter contains two consensus Cbf1 binding sites, one of which (–367 to –362) is extremely close to the Yap1 binding site (–384 to –378) (15, 26). The proximity of the Cbf1 and Yap1 binding sites indicates that promoter occupancy may be dependent on the presence of each factor. In support of this, GSH1 expression is strongly elevated in a cbf1 mutant but returns to basal levels in a cbf1 yap1 double mutant, indicating that Cbf1 may play a repressive role in the binding of Yap1 to GSH1. We propose that Met4 interacts with Cbf1 to overcome this inhibition. Thus, in a met4 mutant, Cbf1 repression cannot be overcome, and there is no induction of GSH1 expression after GSH depletion. When CBF1 is deleted, GSH1 can respond, regardless of the presence of Met4. A repressive role for Cbf1 in regulating transcription through promoter occupancy has been described previously in the response of QCR8, encoding a subunit of mitochondrial ubiquinol-cytochrome c oxidoreductase, to growth on a non-fermentable carbon source (60). The general DNA-binding protein Abf1 is required for QCR8 induction after an increased demand for mitochondrial biogenesis. Cbf1 and Abf1 have overlapping binding sites on the QCR8 promoter, and therefore, Cbf1 represses QCR8 transcription directly by preventing the binding of Abf1. An alternative to the promoter occupancy model is the possibility that Cbf1 regulates GSH1 expression through chromatin remodeling. Moreau et al. (61) recently demonstrated that Cbf1 is able to bind the Isw1 chromatin remodeling complex and target it to the promoters of PHO8 and PHO84. This leads to the displacement of the TBP (TATA-binding protein) and repression of the target gene. It is conceivable that Cbf1 plays a similar role in GSH1 expression and that an interaction with Met4 acts to overcome this. We are currently investigating the interactions between Cbf1 and Met4 at the level of the GSH1 promoter to understand how Cbf1 acts to repress its expression.

The requirement for Met4 allows the cell to couple Yap1-mediated GSH1 expression to the availability of both GSH and methionine (Fig. 6). Thus, upon GSH depletion, Met4 interacts with Cbf1 to allow Yap1-mediated activation of GSH1 expression. However, in the presence of methionine, Met4 becomes ubiquitinated, and Cbf1 represses Yap1 activation of GSH1 in a manner similar to that seen in the met4 mutant. Methionine does not prevent Yap1 activation after exposure to CDNB, indicating that it specifically acts to repress GSH1 expression. Similarly, methionine did not repress expression in a cbf1 mutant, indicating repression occurs via Cbf1. This mechanism is distinct from the oxidative stress response of GSH1, which is independent of Met4 (62). It is not known how Yap1 overcomes Cbf1-mediated repression in the oxidative stress response, but the observation that the YRE is not required for GSH1 induction after H2O2 exposure (17) indicates that there may be differing requirements for Yap1 binding in the two responses.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
Model for the co-regulation of glutathione biosynthesis by Yap1 and Met4 after glutathione depletion. Met4 couples Yap1-mediated GSH1 expression to the availability of GSH and methionine. Thus, when methionine concentrations are low (B) Yap1 will up-regulate GSH1 expression in response to GSH depletion. In contrast, high concentrations of methionine (A) will result in the inactivation of Met4, preventing the Yap1-regulated induction of GSH1 expression (other Yap1-controlled genes will be unaffected). This model is based on the idea that Cbf1 normally acts to repress GSH1 expression and GSH depletion signals Met4 to overcome this inhibition.

 
The ability of methionine to repress GSH1 expression after GSH depletion is unexpected. This is particularly true since methionine and other sulfur-containing compounds are unable to substitute for the essential function of GSH in cells (1, 14). Upon exposure to a xenobiotic such as CDNB, which depletes GSH, there would clearly be an increased demand for GSH. One would expect that the addition of methionine would allow a ready supply of sulfur for GSH biosynthesis and, therefore, would stimulate rather than inhibit the synthesis of this sulfur storage compound. Presumably it must be unfavorable to synthesize more GSH in a sulfur-rich but GSH-depleted environment. This suggests that cells have a different strategy to cope with GSH depletion in a sulfur-rich environment. One possibility is that the glutathione, which has been utilized in the GSH conjugation/detoxification pathway, is recovered from the extracellular media. Thus, during sulfur-rich conditions, GSH would be recovered from outside the cell rather than via de novo biosynthesis. To further understand this complex phenotype we have examined the gsh1 microarray data for any genes that may be regulated in a similar manner. Genes were identified that were up-regulated in a gsh1 mutant and contained both Yap1 and Cbf1 binding sites in their promoters. We identified four genes, three of which were also identified as up-regulated during microarray analysis of a cbf1 mutant (microarray data are to be published elsewhere). We are currently investigating the mechanisms underlying the transcriptional regulation of these genes and their contribution to defense against GSH depletion. The co-regulation of GSH biosynthesis by Yap1 and Met4 represents a mechanism through which the cells can co-ordinate the assimilation of sulfate with the demands for defense against oxidants and xenobiotics. The identification of further targets for co-regulation will help us understand how different biological systems interact to protect the cells against environmental stresses.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by The Wellcome Trust Grant 060786 (to G. L. W.) and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Grant 36/G13234 (E. W. T.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

§ To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Biomolecular Sciences, UMIST, P. O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK. Tel.: 161-200-4192; Fax: 161-236-0409; E-mail: chris.grant{at}umist.ac.uk.

1 The abbreviations used are: YRE, Yap1-responsive element; CDNB, 1-chloro-2,4-dintrobenzene. Back

2 G. L. Wheeler and C. M. Grant, manuscript in preparation. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We are grateful to Dr. D. Jamieson and Dr. S. Moye-Rowley for donating plasmids and to Dr. D. Thomas for the gift of the met4 mutant. We also thank the staff at the Consortium for Functional Genomics of Microbial Eukaryotes facility in Manchester University, UK, in particular Professor S. Oliver and Dr. A. Hayes, for help with microarray analysis.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Grant, C. M., MacIver, F. H., and Dawes, I. W. (1996) Curr. Genet. 29, 511–515[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Stephan, D. W. S., and Jamieson, D. J. (1996) FEMS Lett. 141, 207–212
  3. Izawa, S., Inoue, Y., and Kimura, A. (1995) FEBS Lett. 368, 73–76[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Meister, A., and Anderson, M. E. (1983) Ann. Rev. Biochem. 52, 711–760[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Li, Z.-S., Lu, Y.-P., Zhen, R.-G., Szczypka, M., Thiele, D. J., and Rea, P. A. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 42–47[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Cotgreave, I. A., and Gerdes, R. G. (1998) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 242, 1–9[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Thomas, J. A., Poland, B., and Honzatko, R. (1995) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 319, 1–9[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Inoue, Y., Tsujimoto, Y., and Kimura, A. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 2977–2983[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Ohtake, Y., and Yabuuchi, S. (1991) Yeast 7, 953–961[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Lisowsky, T. (1993) Curr. Genet. 23, 408–413[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Grant, C. M., MacIver, F. H., and Dawes, I. W. (1997) Mol. Biol. Cell 8, 1699–1707[Abstract]
  12. Inoue, Y., Sugiyama, K.-I., Izawa, S., and Kimura, A. (1998) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1395, 315–320[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Lee, J.-C., Straffon, M. J., Jang, T.-Y., Grant, C. M., and Dawes, I. W. (2000) FEMS Yeast Res. 1, 57–65[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Spector, D., Labarre, J., and Toledano, M. B. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 7011–7016[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Wu, A., and Moye-Rowley, W. S. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 5832–5839[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Stephen, D. W. S., and Jamieson, D. J. (1997) Mol. Microbiol. 23, 203–210[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Dormer, U. H., Westwater, J., Stephen, D. W., and Jamieson, D. J. (2002) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1576, 23–29[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Lee, J., Godon, C., Lagniel, G., Spector, D., Garin, J., Labarre, J., and Toledano, M. B. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 16040–16046[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Carmel-Hare, O., Stearman, R., Gasch, A. P., Botstein, D., Brown, P. O., and Storz, G. (2001) Mol. Microbiol. 39, 595–605[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Gasch, A. P., Spellman, P. T., Kao, C. M., Carmel-Harel, O., Eisen, M. B., Storz, G., Botstein, D., and Brown, P. O. (2000) Mol. Biol. Cell 11, 4241–4257[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Kuge, S., Jones, N., and Nomoto, A. (1997) EMBO J. 16, 1710–1720[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Delaunay, A., Isnard, A.-D., and Toledano, M. B. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 5157–5166[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Delaunay, A., Pflieger, D., Barrault, M. B., Vinh, J., and Toledano, M. B. (2002) Cell 111, 471–481[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Takeuchi, T., Miyahara, K., Hirata, D., and Miyakawa, T. (1997) FEBS Lett. 416, 339–343[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Sugiyama, K.-I., Izawa, S., and Inoue, Y. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 15535–15540[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Dormer, U. H., Westwater, J., McLaren, N. F., Kent, N. A., Mellor, J., and Jamieson, D. J. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 32611–32616[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Thomas, D., and Surdin-Kerjan, Y. (1997) Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 61, 503–532[Abstract]
  28. Kuras, L., Barbey, R., and Thomas, D. (1997) EMBO J. 16, 2441–2451[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Kuras, L., Cherest, H., Surdin-Kerjan, Y., and Thomas, D. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 2519–2529[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Blaiseau, P. L., Isnard, A. D., Surdin-Kerjan, Y., and Thomas, D. (1997) Mol. Cell Biol. 17, 3640–3648[Abstract]
  31. Blaiseau, P. L., and Thomas, D. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 6327–6336[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Kaiser, P., Flick, K., Wittenberg, C., and Reed, S. I. (2000) Cell 102, 303–314[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Rouillon, A., Barbey, R., Patton, E. E., Tyers, M., and Thomas, D. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 282–294[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Kuras, L., Rouillon, A., Lee, T., Barbey, R., Tyers, M., and Thomas, D. (2002) Mol. Cell 10, 69–80[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Wheeler, G. L., Quinn, K. A., Perrone, G., Dawes, I. W., and Grant, C. M. (2002) Mol. Microbiol. 46, 545–556[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Grant, C. M., Collinson, L. P., Roe, J.-H., and Dawes, I. W. (1996) Molec. Microbiol. 21, 171–179[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Grant, C. M., Perrone, G., and Dawes, I. W. (1998) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 253, 893–898[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Frand, A. R., and Kaiser, C. A. (1999) Mol. Cell 4, 469–477[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Trotter, E. W., and Grant, C. M. (2003) EMBO Rep. 4, 184–189[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Rose, M., and Botstein, D. (1983) Methods Enzymol. 101, 167–180[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Li, C., and Wong, W. H. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 31–36[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Hansen, J., and Johannesen, P. F. (2000) Mol. Gen. Genet. 263, 535–542[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Stephen, D. W. S., Rivers, S. L., and Jamieson, D. J. (1995) Mol. Micro. 16, 415–423[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Kuras, L., and Thomas, D. (1995) FEBS Lett. 367, 15–18[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. O'Connell, K. F., Surdin-Kerjan, Y., and Baker, R. E. (1995) Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 1879–1888[Abstract]
  46. Sheehan, D., Meade, G., Foley, V. M., and Dowd, C. A. (2001) Biochem. J. 360, 1–16[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Shenton, D., Perrone, G., Quinn, K. A., Dawes, I. W., and Grant, C. M. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 16853–16859[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Douglas, K., T. (1987) Adv. Enzymol. Relat. Areas Mol. Biol. 59, 103–167[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Meister, A. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 17205–17208[Free Full Text]
  50. Sies, H. (1993) Eur. J. Biochem. 215, 213–219[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Grant, C. M., and Dawes, I. W. (1996) Redox Rep. 2, 223–229
  52. Shi, Z. Z.,., J., O.-F., Kala, G., Kala, S. V., Barrios, R. J., Habib, G. M., Lukin, D. J., Danney, C. M., Matzuk, M. M., and Lieberman, M. W. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 5101–5106[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Hardings, C. O., Williams, P., Wagner, E., Chang, D. S., Wild, K., Colwell, R. E., and Wolff, J. A. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 12560–12567[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Jain, A., Martensson, J., Einar, E., Auld, P. A. M., and Meister, A. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 1913–1917[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Larsson, A. (1990) in Glutathione: Metabolism and Physiological Functions (Vina, J., ed) pp. 359–366, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL
  56. Mårtensson, J., Jain, A., Stole, E., Frayer, W., and Auld, P. A. M. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 9360–9364[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Izawa, S., Maeda, K., Sugiyama, K.-I., Mano, J., Inoue, Y., and Kimura, A. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 28459–28565[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Vido, K., Spector, D., Lagniel, G., Lopez, S., Toledano, M. B., and Labarre, J. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 8469–8474[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Fauchon, M., Lagniel, G., Aude, J., Lombardia, L., Soularue, P., Petat, C., Marguerie, G., Sentenac, A., Werner, M., and Labarre, J. (2002) Mol. Cell 9, 713–723[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. de Winde, J. H., and Grivell, L. A. (1992) Mol. Cell Biol. 12, 2872–2883[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Moreau, J. L., Lee, M., Mahachi, N., Vary, J., Mellor, J., Tsukiyama, T., and Goding, C. R. (2003) Mol. Cell 11, 1609–1620[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  62. Westwater, J., McLaren, N. F., Dormer, U. H., and Jamieson, D. J. (2002) Yeast 19, 233–239[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Physiol. GenomicsHome page
M. Thorsen, G. Lagniel, E. Kristiansson, C. Junot, O. Nerman, J. Labarre, and M. J. Tamas
Quantitative transcriptome, proteome, and sulfur metabolite profiling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae response to arsenite
Physiol Genomics, June 19, 2007; 30(1): 35 - 43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
J. Kaur and A. K. Bachhawat
Yct1p, a Novel, High-Affinity, Cysteine-Specific Transporter From the Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Genetics, June 1, 2007; 176(2): 877 - 890.
[Abstract] [Full Text]