MCB
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
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 Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Buermeyer, A B
Right arrow Articles by Farnham, P J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Buermeyer, A B
Right arrow Articles by Farnham, P J
Mol Cell Biol. 1992 May; 12(5): 2250-2259

The HIP1 initiator element plays a role in determining the in vitro requirement of the dihydrofolate reductase gene promoter for the C-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II.

A B Buermeyer, N E Thompson, L A Strasheim, R R Burgess and P J Farnham

McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706.

ABSTRACT

We examined the ability of purified RNA polymerase (RNAP) II lacking the carboxy-terminal heptapeptide repeat domain (CTD), called RNAP IIB, to transcribe a variety of promoters in HeLa extracts in which endogenous RNAP II activity was inhibited with anti-CTD monoclonal antibodies. Not all promoters were efficiently transcribed by RNAP IIB, and transcription did not correlate with the in vitro strength of the promoter or with the presence of a consensus TATA box. This was best illustrated by the GC-rich, non-TATA box promoters of the bidirectional dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR)-REP-encoding locus. Whereas the REP promoter was transcribed by RNAP IIB, the DHFR promoter remained inactive after addition of RNAP IIB to the antibody-inhibited reactions. However, both promoters were efficiently transcribed when purified RNAP with an intact CTD was added. We analyzed a series of promoter deletions to identify which cis elements determine the requirement for the CTD of RNAP II. All of the promoter deletions of both DHFR and REP retained the characteristics of their respective full-length promoters, suggesting that the information necessary to specify the requirement for the CTD is contained within approximately 65 bp near the initiation site. Furthermore, a synthetic minimal promoter of DHFR, consisting of a single binding site for Sp1 and a binding site for the HIP1 initiator cloned into a bacterial vector sequence, required RNAP II with an intact CTD for activity in vitro. Since the synthetic minimal promoter of DHFR and the smallest REP promoter deletion are both activated by Sp1, the differential response in this assay does not result from upstream activators. However, the sequences around the start sites of DHFR and REP are not similar and our data suggest that they bind different proteins. Therefore, we propose that specific initiator elements are important for determination of the requirement of some promoters for the CTD.


Mol Cell Biol. 1992 May; 12(5): 2250-2259




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. J. Virol. Eukaryot. Cell
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1992 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.