Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, September 2000, p. 6668-6676, Vol. 20, No. 18
0270-7306/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Preferential Accessibility of the Yeast his3 Promoter
Is Determined by a General Property of the DNA Sequence, Not
by Specific Elements
Xuhong
Mai,
Susanna
Chou, and
Kevin
Struhl*
Department of Biological Chemistry and
Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston,
Massachusetts 02115
Received 13 April 2000/Returned for modification 29 May
2000/Accepted 7 June 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
Yeast promoter regions are often more accessible to nuclear
proteins than are nonpromoter regions. As assayed by HinfI
endonuclease cleavage in living yeast cells, HinfI sites
located in the promoters of all seven genes tested were 5- to 20-fold
more accessible than sites in adjacent nonpromoter regions.
HinfI hypersensitivity within the his3 promoter
region is locally determined, since it was observed when this region
was translocated to the middle of the ade2 structural gene.
Detailed analysis of the his3 promoter indicated that
preferential accessibility is not determined by specific elements such
as the Gcn4 binding site, poly(dA-dT) sequences, TATA elements, or
initiator elements or by transcriptional activity. However, progressive
deletion of the promoter region in either direction resulted in a
progressive loss of HinfI accessibility. Preferential
accessibility is independent of the Swi-Snf chromatin remodeling
complex, Gcn5 histone acetylase complexes Ada and SAGA, and Rad6, which
ubiquitinates histone H2B. These results suggest that preferential
accessibility of the his3 (and presumably other) promoter
regions is determined by a general property of the DNA sequence (e.g.,
base composition or a related feature) rather than by defined sequence
elements. The organization of the compact yeast genome into inherently
distinct promoter and nonpromoter regions may ensure that transcription
factors bind preferentially to appropriate sites in promoters rather
than to the excess of irrelevant but equally high-affinity sites in
nonpromoter regions.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
In eukaryotic organisms,
nucleosomes restrict access of activator proteins, TATA-binding protein
(TBP), and the RNA polymerase II machinery to genomic DNA
(9, 43). For purposes of economy and specificity, it is
desirable for promoter regions to be preferentially accessible in
comparison to nonpromoter regions. For example, the yeast
genome contains approximately 6,000 Gcn4 binding sites, as defined
by sequences with no more than one deviation from the optimal
sequence RTGACTCAY (32), and they occur predominantly within structural genes. Because yeast cells contain considerably fewer
than 6,000 Gcn4 molecules, and because binding of Gcn4 to many
inappropriate sites is likely to be biologically catastrophic, the cell
must possess a mechanism by which transcriptionally irrelevant Gcn4
binding sites are made relatively inaccessible in comparison to sites in Gcn4-dependent promoters.
Chromatin structure can be modified by nucleosome-remodeling complexes
such as Swi-Snf and by histone acetylation (10, 49). Such
perturbations increase access of proteins to nucleosomal templates in
vitro, and they are important for transcription of many yeast genes. In
some cases, chromatin remodeling is an activator-dependent event that
is separate from the activation of transcription itself (1, 7, 29,
46). The Swi-Snf complex modifies the chromatin structure of the
SUC2 promoter region in a manner independent of
transcriptional activity of the gene (12). Individual Reb1 or Cpf1 binding sites can affect chromatin structure, even though they
support low levels of transcriptional activity (8, 18). Gcn4-dependent activation of the his3 promoter is associated
with localized histone acetylation mediated by Gcn5 histone acetylase (21), and targeted recruitment of the Sin3-Rpd3 histone
deacetylase complex causes a highly localized domain of repressed
chromatin structure (16, 17, 36). In these situations, it is
demonstrated or presumed that proteins binding to specific promoter
elements alter chromatin structure by recruiting nucleosome-modifying
activities (42).
Several observations strongly suggest that in addition to undergoing
chromatin changes mediated by DNA-binding activators and
repressors, promoter regions are generally more accessible to
nuclear proteins than are nonpromoter regions. First, yeast promoters
often contain transcription-independent regions of nuclease hypersensitivity (6, 7, 18, 23, 25, 27, 33, 39, 46). Second,
in several of these studies, micrococcal-nuclease mapping suggests that
hypersensitivity reflects "nucleosome-free" regions, although it is
unclear whether these regions are truly devoid of nucleosomes or have
an alternative structure. Third, the Ty1 retrotransposon preferentially
integrates in promoter regions rather than in protein coding
sequences (5, 31, 47). Expression-independent hypersensitive
sites in the GAL1,10 and HSP82 promoters
are not determined by activator binding sites or TATA elements
(23, 39), but the determinants that specify preferential
accessibility of promoter regions in chromatin are unknown.
One sequence element that might cause a predisposition to promoter
accessibility is poly(dA-dT), which is found broadly in yeast promoter
regions and is required for wild-type transcriptional levels of many
genes (40). Poly(dA-dT) is an unusual promoter element whose
function depends on its intrinsic structure, not its interaction with
activator proteins (15). Furthermore, poly(dA-dT) alters
chromatin structure and increases protein accessibility over a distance
that corresponds to an individual nucleosome (15, 50).
However, the increased protein accessibility due to poly(dA-dT) sequences is quantitatively subtle, suggesting that these sequences may
not be sufficient to distinguish promoter regions from
nonpromoter regions.
In previous work, we developed a novel probe of chromatin structure
involving the rapid induction of HinfI endonuclease in yeast
cells (15). In this approach, chromatin structure is
determined in living cells under physiological conditions, in contrast
to typical analyses that are performed on isolated nuclei. Moreover, because the endonuclease is expressed for only a short period of time
prior to harvesting of cells, the results provide a snapshot of
chromatin structure rather than an average steady-state structure as
occurs in assays involving constitutively expressed methylases (19). In the present study, we utilized HinfI
cleavage in vivo to analyze the chromatin structure of multiple
genomic regions, the DNA sequence determinants of selective
accessibility of the his3 promoter, and the effect of
chromatin-modifying activities on the preferential accessibility of the
his3 promoter. Our results strongly suggest a novel
mechanism of preferential accessibility that does not involve specific
sequence elements but rather an overall structural characteristic(s)
common to promoter regions.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
DNAs and strains.
The his3 alleles used in this
work (see Fig. 3) were subcloned as SphI-KpnI or
EcoRI-KpnI fragments into Sc7321, an allele lacking the sequence between nucleotides
447 and
105 and containing an optimal Gcn4 site flanked by EcoRI sites adjacent to a
short polylinker distal to the TATA region (14). These
alleles have been described previously as follows: internal deletions
of the his3-pet56 divergent promoter region (Sc2883, Sc2884,
Sc3121, Sc3110, Sc3621, Sc3268, and Sc3619) (reference
38 and unpublished data), derivatives lacking
his3 sequence between positions
447 and
105 and
containing perturbations of the his3 TATA region (14), and the his3-151 and his3-161
alleles, which contain modifications near the Gcn4 binding site
(11). The his3
p allele was derived from
his3-161 by replacing the SacI-KpnI
fragment with a PCR-amplified product that contains a SacI
site at nucleotide +30 (+6 relative to start codon). Additional
his3 alleles (see Fig. 5) were generated by subcloning the
desired SphI-EcoRI,
SphI-SacI, or SacI-KpnI fragments generated by PCR into the his3
p allele. Yeast
strains were generated by introducing the various his3
derivatives by gene replacement into the normal chromosomal locus of
ySH103 (his3-
200 ura3-52 trp1-
161 lys2-
202
leu2-
1::PET56 gcn4
1), a gcn4-
1 leu2-
1::PET56 derivative of FY833 (48).
The ade2::his3p allele, which contains
an insertion of the his3 promoter region (nucleotides
120
to +30) between nucleotides 900 and 901 relative to the ade2
start codon, was generated by subcloning three PCR fragments (an
EcoRI site was generated at the border of +900 of
ade2 and
120 of his3, and a SacI
site was generated at the border of +30 of his3 and +901 of
ade2). The resulting allele was introduced into the
ade2 chromosomal locus of strain ySH103 by two-step gene
replacement. The rad6
::LEU2 molecule was
generated by replacing the rad6 coding region (between EcoRI sites at nucleotides
49 and +2715 relative to the
start codon) with the leu2 gene. The
ahc1
::hisG allele, which replaces the entire
ahc1 coding region with the Escherichia coli hisG
gene, was generated by cloning two PCR fragments of ahc1 (a
XhoI-BamHI fragment containing nucleotides
655
to
100 relative to the start codon and a
SpeI-XbaI fragment containing nucleotides +1805
to +2504 of ahc1 downstream sequences) into the
corresponding sites of pBShisG (kindly provided by Jutta
Deckert). DNAs encoding the snf2
::LEU2 and
gcn5
::LEU2 alleles were kindly provided by Fred Winston. Strains containing the above-described rad6,
ahc1, snf2, and gcn5 alleles were
generated by gene replacement of strain BY105 (ura3-52
trp1-
161 lys2-
202 gcn4-
1), which was kindly provided by
Mark Benson.
To generate p
HinfI, the plasmid permitting copper-inducible
expression of
HinfI endonuclease, the
HinfI
coding sequence was
amplified by PCR (sequence information kindly
provided by Keith
Lunnen) and subcloned into a
URA3
centromeric plasmid under the
control of an Ace1-dependent
his3 promoter (
20). To overexpress
the copper
metallothionein gene for sequestration of trace cupric
ion, the
CUP1 coding sequence was amplified by PCR and subcloned
into
p424-
ADH1, a
TRP1 2µm plasmid containing the
strong
ADH1 promoter (
30), to generate
pSH212.
Induction of HinfI cleavage in vivo.
Yeast
strains containing pHinfI without pSH212 were grown in
synthetic complete medium lacking uracil to an
A600 of 0.3 to 0.6. HinfI expression
was induced by the addition of CuSO4 to a final
concentration of 1 mM. Strains containing pHinfI and pSH212 were generated by transforming the parent strains with pSH212, purifying colonies on selective synthetic complete medium, and then
freshly transforming them with pHinfI. Strains were freshly transformed with pHinfI and utilized immediately for each
experiment because pHinfI-containing strains grow slowly and
are prone to genetic alterations that eliminate endonuclease activity.
The doubly transformed strains were grown in synthetic complete medium lacking uracil and tryptophan to an A600 of 0.3 to 0.6, and HinfI expression was induced by the addition of
CuSO4 to a final concentration of 1.5 mM. The increased
level of CuSO4 was based on the difference in copper
sensitivity observed between pHinfI-bearing strains with and
without pSH212. In both cases, 50-ml aliquots of cells were harvested
for preparation of genomic DNA at various time points (up to 90 min) after induction of HinfI expression with copper.
Southern blot analysis.
Genomic DNAs (2 µg, as estimated
by agarose gel electrophoresis) from copper-induced cells were digested
to completion with KpnI, EcoRV, or
PshAI. Southern blot analysis was performed by standard
procedures, with fractionation of DNA on a 1.5% agarose gel and
hybridization to randomly primed 32P-labeled probes.
Control genomic DNAs were also isolated from the isogenic
strains lacking the pHinfI plasmid; digested to completion with KpnI, EcoRV, or PshAI; and then
partially digested with HinfI (2 U for 5 min at 37°C). The
extent of relative HinfI cleavage at various sites was
quantitated by phosphorimager analysis using ImageGauge software
(Fujix) and normalized to HinfI cleavage in adjacent
genomic sites or the rRNA gene (rDNA) locus. The efficiency of
HinfI cleavage in vivo at the Gcn4 binding site within the his3 promoter (i.e., the hypersensitive site) was 1%. DNA
probes were generated by PCR amplification or restriction enzyme
digestion of the following gene fragments (relative to ATG):
CPA1 (nucleotides
1336 to
1144 for the KpnI
blot), CPA2 (+475 to +373 for the EcoRV blot),
HIS3 (+495 to +305 for the KpnI blot),
ILS1 (
758 to
576 for the EcoRV blot),
LYS2 (+1141 to +774 for the EcoRV blot), rDNA
(+1378 to +948 for the KpnI blot), YOR205C (+1084 to +1429
for the KpnI blot), and ADE2 (+901 to +1302 for
the PshAI blot).
 |
RESULTS |
The Gcn4 binding site in the his3 promoter is
hypersensitive to HinfI cleavage in vivo.
The
HinfI recognition sequence, GANTC, is contained within the
core of the consensus Gcn4 binding site (RTGACTCAY) (11, 32). Thus, Gcn4 binding sites in promoter and nonpromoter
regions are a subset of all HinfI sites, and the extent to
which they are cleaved provides an assay of their relative
accessibility in vivo. The parent yeast strain for all strains used in
these experiments contained a gcn4 deletion so that effects
of Gcn4 binding would not confound the analysis.
Yeast cells transformed with the inducible
HinfI expression
plasmid grew normally on medium lacking copper, but they displayed
a
slow-growth phenotype on medium containing 250 µM CuSO
4
and
were inviable on medium containing 500 µM CuSO
4 (Fig.
1A), presumably
due to increased
HinfI activity. Southern blot analysis of
genomic
DNA isolated after induction of early-log-phase cells
with 1 mM
CuSO
4 (Fig.
1B) showed
HinfI
hypersensitivity of the Gcn4 binding
site in the
his3
promoter, as noted previously (
15). However,
in this strain
background, there was significant
HinfI cleavage
prior to
induction by copper (this was also observed to some extent
in the
strain previously tested). This problem could be minimized
by
overexpressing the
CUP1 metallothionein gene in order
to chelate
trace amounts of copper and suppress
HinfI
expression in the absence
of exogenous copper. The resulting strain
grew slowly in the presence
of 750 µM CuSO
4 and became
inviable in medium containing 1 mM
CuSO
4, and
genomic analysis revealed that there was little
HinfI
cleavage prior to addition of copper. To amplify
HinfI cleavage,
cells were induced with 1.5 mM
CuSO
4, which enhanced the signal
without qualitatively
changing the cleavage pattern (see Fig.
2).

View larger version (65K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Growth phenotypes and HinfI cleavage in vivo
in yeast strains containing pHinfI. (A) Strain ySH104
transformed with the indicated plasmids was grown on synthetic complete
solid medium lacking uracil and tryptophan and containing the indicated
concentrations of CuSO4. (B) Southern blots of
genomic DNAs from strain ySH104, transformed with
pHinfI and either vector or the
CUP1-overexpressing plasmid pSH212, grown in selective
liquid medium, and induced with 1 mM CuSO4 for the
indicated time periods. As a control, genomic DNA from
untransformed ySH104 cells was also partially digested with
HinfI in vitro (N). Open boxes indicate coding regions,
arrows indicate the 5'-to-3' orientation of genes, long transecting
lines indicate Gcn4 consensus or near-consensus binding sites, and
short lines indicate other HinfI restriction sites. Relative
HinfI cleavage at the numbered genomic sites was
calculated based on quantitation of band intensity by using ImageGauge
(Fujimax) and normalized to the lowest-intensity band.
|
|
The
HinfI site corresponding to the Gcn4 binding site in the
wild-type
HIS3 promoter was cleaved approximately 10- to
20-fold
more efficiently than any of the neighboring 13 sites located
0.2 to 1 kb away in the
his3 and
pet56 coding
regions (Fig.
1B
and
2). This
HinfI hypersensitivity clearly reflects some aspect
of
chromatin structure, because the same
HinfI sites in
purified
DNA were cleaved with equal efficiency. Furthermore,
HinfI hypersensitivity
occurred in a region with increased
accessibility to other probes
of chromatin structure (
15,
27,
38,
45).

View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
HinfI cleaves preferentially in promoter
regions in vivo. Gcn4-dependent genes (CPA1, LYS2, ILS1, CPA2, and
HIS3), Gcn4-independent genes (RDN37 and YOR205C), and adjacent
genomic regions were analyzed. Genomic DNA was prepared from
strain ySH104, containing pSH212 and pHinfI, that was
induced with 1.5 mM CuSO4 for 90 min, and the DNA was
hybridized to the indicated probes. As a control, genomic DNA
from untransformed ySH104 cells was also partially digested with
HinfI in vitro (N). Schematics are as described in the
legend to Fig. 1B. Relative HinfI cleavage at the numbered
genomic sites was calculated based on quantitation of band
intensity by using ImageGauge (Fujimax) and normalized to the
lowest-intensity band.
|
|
Differential HinfI sensitivity at Gcn4 binding sites in
promoter versus nonpromoter regions.
To extend these observations,
we examined the HinfI sensitivity patterns of several
Gcn4-activated genes (HIS3, ILS1,
LYS2, CPA1, and CPA2), all of which
contain Gcn4 binding sites 100 to 500 bp upstream of the start codon.
Some of these genes contain consensus or near-consensus Gcn4 sites
within their own or neighboring coding regions. The HinfI
sensitivity of these Gcn4 sites, transcriptionally relevant and
irrelevant, can thus be directly compared in a single experiment. We
also tested two Gcn4-independent genes, DED1 and YOR205C, each of which contains a consensus Gcn4 binding
site within its coding region. As additional internal controls for HinfI cleavage in vivo, we examined sites within nonpromoter
regions of the rRNA precursor and 5S RNA locus, which occur as 100 to 200 tandem copies.
All of the promoter regions tested showed strikingly enhanced (5- to
20-fold)
HinfI cleavage at Gcn4 binding sites compared
to
neighboring
HinfI sites in nonpromoter regions (Fig.
2). An
additional region of
HinfI hypersensitivity was observed
downstream
of the
cpa1 gene; it corresponds to sites
(including one near-consensus
Gcn4 site) immediately upstream of
the
isw2 coding region. Furthermore,
a
HinfI
site which is not a Gcn4 site in the distal
cpa1
promoter
was also preferentially cleaved, although less strongly
(fourfold).
Conversely,
HinfI cleavage at Gcn4 sites in
nonpromoter regions
in
ded1 and
YOR205C was
comparable to that of other
HinfI sites
in nonpromoter
regions (Fig.
2), indicating that consensus Gcn4
sites do not,
per se, confer
HinfI hypersensitivity. Thus,
HinfI
cleavage in promoter regions is generally increased
relative to
that in adjoining genomic sites, confirming that
increased accessibility
is a common characteristic of promoter
regions.
HinfI hypersensitivity of the Gcn4 binding site in the
his3 promoter is not determined by any of the previously
defined promoter elements.
Detailed mutational analysis of the
his3 promoter region has identified the following promoter
elements: initiator elements that specify the +1 and +13 mRNA start
sites (2); a consensus TATA element (nucleotides
45 to
40), TR, that is responsible for +13 transcription
(3); a collection of nonconsensus TATA elements (nucleotides
80 to
53), TC, that is responsible for +1 initiation
(14, 28); a Gcn4 binding site located between nucleotides
100 and
91 and an adjacent tract of 9 dA-dT residues (11); a poly(dA-dT) element (nucleotides
130 to
115)
that is important for Gcn4-independent transcription of his3
as well as the divergently transcribed pet56 (15,
40); and a poorly characterized sequence around nucleotide
140
which makes a minor contribution to maximal induced levels of
transcription (44). In addition, there is a nonconsensus
TATA element (nucleotide
150) that is responsible for
pet56 transcription, which is initiated in the direction
opposite from a position 191 bp upstream of his3 +1
(40).
To determine which, if any, of these promoter elements are important
for the
HinfI hypersensitivity of the Gcn4 binding site,
we
examined a set of promoter derivatives whose transcriptional
properties had been previously characterized. In one set of derivatives
(Fig.
3A), sequences upstream of an
optimal Gcn4 site were deleted
and the TATA region was perturbed
in a variety of ways (
14).
In these cases, the
pet56 promoter and the initial part of the
pet56
structural gene were deleted, and the level of
his3
transcription
was extremely low due to the absence of Gcn4 and (in some
cases)
because of poorly functioning TATA elements. Another set of
derivatives
(Fig.
3B) lacked the
pet56 promoter region and
contained mutations
that inactivated the Gcn4 binding site (but not the
HinfI recognition
sequence) and the short dA-dT tract
downstream (
11). We also
examined derivatives with variously
sized internal deletions that
removed one or more of the
his3 promoter elements described above,
although the
pet56 promoter remained essentially intact (
2,
38). Finally, a double deletion removing the entire
his3-pet56 promoter region, such that the Gcn4 binding site
was flanked by
portions of the respective protein coding regions, was
generated.
In all experiments,
HinfI cleavage at the
his3 promoter and flanking
regions was normalized to the
averaged cleavage at neighboring
HinfI sites in the
his3-pet56 locus and also compared to cleavage
at sites
within in the rDNA locus.

View larger version (50K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Structures of his3 promoter derivatives. (A)
his3 promoter derivatives containing an optimal Gcn4 site
with various TATA element combinations in addition to a deletion of the
pet56 promoter (upstream deletion) (14). (B)
his3 promoter derivatives containing a deletion of the
pet56 promoter (upstream deletion), the short proximal T
tract (his3-161), or a nonfunctional Gcn4 site in addition
to his3-151 (11); derivatives containing
wild-type upstream sequence of the pet56 promoter and
deletions of various portions of the core promoter region
(38; K. Struhl, unpublished data); and the
his3- p derivative constructed here. Arrows represent
transcriptional start sites, open boxes indicate the HIS3
coding region, and shaded boxes represent promoter elements as
indicated. Numbering is relative to the +1 transcriptional start site
of HIS3. The drawing is not to scale.
|
|
Surprisingly, all of the extensively modified derivatives that had
retained some promoter sequence showed
HinfI
hypersensitivity
at the Gcn4 binding site at a level comparable to that
observed
in the wild-type locus (Fig.
4).
The preservation of the hypersensitive
site is thus independent of
poly(dA-dT) sequences, a functional
Gcn4 binding site, functional TATA
or initiator elements, and
transcription of the
his3 and/or
pet56 gene. However, hypersensitivity
was abolished in the
derivative in which the Gcn4 binding site
was immediately flanked on
both sides by protein coding sequences.
These observations argue that
preferential accessibility of the
Gcn4 binding site depends on the
presence of a promoter region,
but not on transcriptional activity per
se or a specific sequence
element.

View larger version (56K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
HinfI hypersensitivity at the his3
Gcn4 binding site is unaffected by any of the previously defined
promoter elements. Shown are Southern blots of DNA subjected to in vivo
HinfI cleavage at his3 promoter derivatives with
TATA element combinations (see Fig. 3A) and rDNA controls (A),
his3 promoter deletions (see Fig. 4B) (B), and
his3 alleles 161 (proximal T tract deletion) and 151
(nonfunctional Gcn4 site) (see panel B) (C). Genomic DNA was prepared
from the corresponding strains, containing pSH212 and
pHinfI, that were induced with 1.5 mM CuSO4 for
90 min, and the DNA was hybridized to the indicated probes. As a
control, genomic DNA from untransformed cells was also
partially digested with HinfI in vitro (N). HinfI
cleavage at the Gcn4 binding site (indicated with arrows) and five
adjacent genomic sites was quantitated by phosphorimager
analysis (Fujimax) and normalized to the lowest-intensity site, and the
averaged cleavage of the five adjacent HinfI sites was used
to calculate the relative HinfI preference for the Gcn4
binding site (averaged HinfI preference). The standard
deviation of normalized cleavage at the adjacent sites ranged between
0.6 and 1.4.
|
|
Progressive deletion of the his3 promoter region in
either direction causes a progressive loss of HinfI
accessibility.
All of above-described derivatives that displayed
normal HinfI hypersensitivity contained either the intact
his3 or pet56 promoter region, leaving open the
possibility that preferential accessibility is due to redundant
elements in these two promoters. To investigate this possibility and to
determine the minimal region necessary to confer HinfI
hypersensitivity, we analyzed additional strains in which one promoter
region was removed and the other promoter region was successively
deleted (Fig. 5). In the first set of
derivatives (Fig. 5A), his3 sequences downstream of the Gcn4
site were deleted and the pet56 promoter region was
successively deleted from Gcn4 binding site. The second set of
derivatives (Fig. 5B) lacked pet56 promoter sequences
upstream of the Gcn4 site and contained a successively deleted
his3 promoter region (with deletions starting from the
downstream end). The third set of derivatives (Fig. 5C) was comparable
to the second set, except that the his3 deletion series
started from the upstream end. Analysis of genomic DNAs
purified from these strains indicated that all HinfI sites
were cleaved to comparable extents (Fig.
6).

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
Structures of his3 promoter derivatives. (A)
his3 promoter derivatives containing a downstream deletion
(D ) of positions 83 to +30 and the indicated deletions upstream of
the Gcn4 binding site. (B) his3 promoter derivatives
containing an upstream deletion (U ) of positions 447 to 105 and
the indicated deletions downstream of the Gcn4 binding site originating
from the 3' end. (C) his3 promoter derivatives containing an
upstream deletion (U ) of positions 447 to 105 and the indicated
deletions downstream of the Gcn4 binding site originating from the 5'
end. Arrows represent transcriptional start sites of his3
and pet56. Numbering is relative to the +1 transcriptional
start site of HIS3. Open boxes represent the sequence, and
black boxes represent the Gcn4 binding site. The drawing is not to
scale. WT, wild type.
|
|

View larger version (98K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
HinfI cleavage of purified genomic
DNAs from strains containing his3 promoter derivatives shown
in Fig. 5. Southern blots containing 25% of the amount of DNA used in
Fig. 7 were hybridized with his3 (the second band from the
bottom represents the HinfI site within the Gcn4 binding
sequence) and rDNA probes. wt, wild type.
|
|
Analysis of
HinfI cleavage in vivo indicated that the
his3 region is considerably more important than the
pet56 region with
respect to preferential accessibility.
HinfI hypersensitivity
at the Gcn4 binding site was
drastically reduced in all cases
in which the
his3 promoter
region was completely deleted (Fig.
7A),
indicating that the
pet56 promoter region is insufficient
to
confer preferentially accessibility. However, the
pet56
region
contributes to accessibility, because the least-deleted
derivatives
showed approximately threefold-higher cleavage of the Gcn4
site.
In contrast, several deletion mutants lacking the entire
pet56 region displayed preferential
HinfI
cleavage that was comparable
to that of the wild-type promoter.

View larger version (95K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 7.
Progressive deletion of the his3 promoter
region in either direction causes a progressive loss of
HinfI hypersensitivity. Shown are Southern blots of in vivo
HinfI-cleaved DNA from strains containing his3
promoter derivatives lacking downstream sequence with various deletions
of upstream sequence (see Fig. 5A) and rDNA controls (A),
his3 promoter derivatives lacking upstream sequence with
various deletions of downstream sequence from the 3' end (see Fig. 5B)
and rDNA controls (B), and his3 promoter derivatives lacking
upstream sequence with various deletions of downstream from the 5' end
(see Fig. 5C) and rDNA controls (C). Genomic DNA was prepared from the
corresponding strains, containing pHinfI, that were induced
with 1 mM CuSO4 for 90 min, and the DNA was hybridized to
the indicated probes. As a general control, genomic DNA from
SH104 without pHinfI was also partially digested with
HinfI in vitro (N). wt, wild type.
|
|
The most interesting observation was that in the absence of the
pet56 promoter region, successive deletion of the
his3 promoter
region from either direction resulted in a
progressive loss of
HinfI hypersensitivity (Fig.
7B and C).
As a consequence, nonoverlapping
segments of the
his3
promoter region conferred equivalent levels
of
HinfI
hypersensitivity, and preferential accessibility was
related to the
length of the
his3 promoter region. This observation
indicates that there are multiple determinants of preferential
accessibility within the
his3 promoter. The present deletion
analysis
suggests that there are at least five such determinants that
contribute
in a cumulative (although not necessarily a quantitatively
equivalent)
fashion. The observation that progressive deletion in
either direction
resulted in a gradual loss of function is analogous to
the situation
with acidic activation domains (
13).
The his3 promoter region is sufficient to confer
accessibility when placed in the middle of the ade2
structural gene.
To determine whether the his3 promoter
region is sufficient for conferring preferential accessibility, we
examined HinfI cleavage of a strain in which a 150-bp
segment of the his3 promoter region (positions
120 to +30)
was inserted in the middle of the ade2 structural gene (Fig.
8). Cleavage of the Gcn4 binding site in the inserted his3 promoter (band 6, which is absent in the
wild-type strain) was ninefold more efficient than any of the
neighboring four sites located in the ade2 coding region.
The level of preferential accessibility is comparable to the observed
12-fold effect on the Gcn4 binding site within the native
ade2 promoter region (band 2). Thus, the his3
promoter region is sufficient to confer preferential accessibility,
even when it is translocated to the middle of an otherwise inaccessible
structural gene.

View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 8.
The his3 promoter region is sufficient to
confer accessibility when located within the ADE2 structural
gene. Shown is a Southern blot of genomic DNAs from strains
containing the wild-type (WT) ADE2 or
ade2::his3p alleles and pHinfI that
were induced for 90 min with 1 mM CuSO4 (C) or
untransformed cells partially digested with HinfI in vitro
(N). For the wild-type and mutant alleles, open boxes represent the
ADE2 coding region (the long arrow indicates the 5'-to-3'
orientation of ADE2), the vertical gray bar under the
vertical long arrow indicates the inserted 150-bp his3
promoter region, and short horizontal lines indicate HinfI
restriction sites. Band 6 corresponds to the Gcn4 binding site within
the inserted his3 promoter, and band 2 (whose mobility
differs in the wild-type and mutant alleles) corresponds to the Gcn4
binding site within the ade2 promoter region and serves as
an internal control.
|
|
HinfI sensitivity at Gcn4 binding sites in the
his3 promoter is not determined by the Swi-Snf, SAGA, Ada,
or Rad6 chromatin-modifying activities.
To investigate the effect
of the Swi-Snf chromatin-remodeling complex, the SAGA and ADA
histone acetylase complexes, and Rad6, which ubiquitinates
histone H2B (35), we analyzed HinfI cleavage in
isogenic snf2, gcn5, ahc1, and
rad6 deletion strains. These strains were derived from
BY105, which displays greater preferential HinfI cleavage at
the Gcn4 binding site in the his3 promoter (30-fold increase) than in the strain background of the previous experiments. As
shown in Fig. 9, the HinfI
hypersensitivity of the Gcn4 binding site in each of the mutant strains
was comparable to that observed in the wild-type strain, indicating
that these chromatin-modifying activities are not required for
preferential accessibility of the his3 promoter region.

View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 9.
Swi-Snf, SAGA, and Ada complexes and Rad6 are not
responsible for the HinfI hypersensitivity at the
his3 Gcn4 site. Wild-type (WT) and rad6,
ahc1, snf2, or gcn5 deletion strains
that contain pHinfI were induced with 1 mM CuSO4
for 90 min, and genomic DNAs were analyzed by Southern blotting
with his3 and rDNA probes. As a control, genomic DNA
from the wild-type strain was partially digested with HinfI
in vitro (N). Preferential HinfI cleavage at the Gcn4
binding site (indicated by an arrow) was determined with respect to the
average cleavage of three adjacent genomic sites.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
A general property of the his3-pet56 promoter region is
responsible for preferential accessibility in vivo.
Using
inducible HinfI cleavage to measure accessibility of nuclear
proteins to chromatin in living yeast cells, we showed that
HinfI sites in a variety of promoter regions are cleaved 5- to 20-fold more efficiently than sites in nonpromoter regions. The
hypersensitivity of the HinfI site within the
his3-pet56 promoter region is locally determined, because
preferential cleavage was abolished when promoter sequences flanking
both sides of the HinfI site were removed yet was retained
when this region was translocated to the middle of the ade2
structural gene. In several derivatives, transcription from both the
his3 and pet56 promoters was virtually eliminated
yet HinfI cleavage at the Gcn4 site occurred at a level comparable to that of the wild-type chromosomal locus. In a similar vein, Swi-Snf- or activator-dependent alterations of chromatin structure (1, 7, 12, 29, 33, 46) or nuclease
hypersensitivity (23, 39) can occur in the absence of a
functional TATA element and transcriptional activity of the promoter.
The striking and unexpected finding of our study is that preferential
accessibility of the
his3-pet56 promoter region does
not
depend on a specific sequence element. This accessibility
does not
depend on Gcn4 (which is absent from all of the yeast
strains) or on
any sequence or combination of sequences upstream
of the
his3 core promoter region. Thus, the preferential
sensitivity
of promoter regions observed here is mechanistically
distinct
from the activator-dependent changes in chromatin structure.
Furthermore,
since deletion or modification of TATA elements does not
affect
HinfI hypersensitivity, preferential accessibility
does not result
from the local DNA distortion due to binding by TBP. In
this regard,
TBP is not generally associated with TATA elements in vivo
under
conditions of transcriptional inactivity (
22,
24).
Finally,
poly(dA-dT) elements do not constitute a significant basis
of
preferential access to promoter regions. Although an artificially
long dA-dT stretch (42 bp) can increase
HinfI cleavage by
70%
(
15), the magnitude of this effect is considerably less
than
the difference between
HinfI cleavage at sites in
promoter versus
nonpromoter regions. In the derivatives here, which
involve dA-dT
tracts of physiological length, there is no detectable
effect
on cleavage at an immediately adjacent
HinfI
site.
The combined results of our deletion analysis indicate that multiple
determinants within the
his3-pet56 promoter region
contribute
in an additive fashion to preferential accessibility. When
the
pet56 promoter region was removed, progressive deletion
of the
his3 promoter region from either direction resulted
in a gradual
loss of
HinfI hypersensitivity. Thus, the
degree of preferential
accessibility was related to the length, but not
the precise sequence,
of the
his3 promoter region that was
present in the various derivatives.
The simplest explanation for these
results is that each observable
decrease in
HinfI cleavage
reflects the removal of at least one
determinant of preferential
accessibility; in this interpretation,
the
his3 promoter
region would contain at least four determinants.
In addition, the
pet56 promoter region clearly contains determinants
of
preferential accessibility because some
HinfI
hypersensitivity
is observed when the
his3 promoter region
is completely deleted
and because similar
his3 derivatives
that do or do not contain
the
pet56 region have different
levels of
HinfI cleavage. Thus,
there appear to be at least
five determinants in the
his3-pet56 promoter region that
contribute to preferential accessibility.
Since there is no obvious
motif that is repeated within the
his3-pet56 promoter region
or that is contained in other promoters displaying
HinfI
hypersensitivity, our results suggest that preferential
accessibility
is due to a general property of the DNA
sequence.
Potential molecular mechanisms.
The general property of the
his3-pet56 (and presumably other) promoter regions inferred
to be responsible for increased accessibility to nuclear proteins is
unknown. However, it has long been observed that yeast promoter regions
are relatively AT rich compared to the genome as a whole, and the
promoter regions analyzed in this study have a 5.5% lower GC content
than their adjacent coding regions. Thus, AT richness or some
other feature of base composition (e.g., frequency of certain di-
or trinucleotides) might serve to distinguish promoter from nonpromoter
regions. In this regard, replacement of HIS3 upstream
promoter sequences by relatively GC-rich sequences from bacteriophage
DNA eliminated micrococcal-nuclease hypersensitivity in the
HIS3 TATA region (41).
There are several classes of explanations for how a broad and rather
crude feature such as overall AT richness might lead
to differential
protein accessibility in physiological chromatin.
First,
nucleosomes might associate poorly with or be less stable
on AT-rich
DNA sequences, thereby providing a weaker barricade
to proteins. In a
related model, AT-rich sequences might be poor
substrates for
nonhistone proteins that render chromatin structure
more inaccessible.
Second, AT-rich regions might interact with
nonhistone proteins
that relax chromatin structure or inhibit
nucleosome formation. Third,
chromatin-modifying activities such
as the Swi-Snf, Rsc, and related
complexes might have untargeted
genome-wide effects that are sensitive
to overall base composition.
The Swi-Snf and Rsc complexes directly
interact with DNA (
26,
34), and such interactions might have
some sequence specificity.
Fourth, positioning of nucleosome cores is
significantly affected
by an intrinsic preference for certain sequence
periodicities
that are related to DNA bending; e.g., the minor grooves
of AAA
and AAT face inward toward histones, whereas those of GGC and
AGC face outward (
4,
37). Such sequence-dependent effects
on
intrinsic nucleosome positioning might result in internucleosomal
regions which display preferential accessibility to nuclear proteins.
Whatever the molecular explanation, a key feature of all of these
models is that the structural differences between promoter and
nonpromoter regions extend over relatively long distances, thereby
resulting in cooperative effects that significantly affect protein
accessibility.
Biological significance.
Our results suggest that the compact
yeast genome is organized into structurally distinct promoter and
nonpromoter regions that inherently differ in their accessibility to
nuclear proteins. In principle, this genomic organization is
useful for ensuring that transcription factors bind preferentially to
appropriate sites in promoters rather than to the excess of irrelevant
but equally high-affinity sites in nonpromoter regions. A generally increased accessibility of promoters regardless of their
transcriptional activity is also useful given that many genes are
required only in response to specific environmental or developmental
cues. Distinguishing promoters of inactive genes from nonpromoter
regions allows the cell to economize on regulatory factors by lowering
the threshold for binding to a specific subset of the genomic
DNA. This effectively decreases the concentration of competing,
nonfunctional binding sites without stimulating transcription in
the absence of the appropriate signal. Thus, we suggest that the
general promoter accessibility we have observed provides a
context in which further gene-specific regulation can occur.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
Xuhong Mai and Susanna Chou contributed equally to this work.
We thank Vishwanath Iyer for the pHinfI plasmid and initial
development of the HinfI assay, Keith Lunnen of New England
Biolabs for HinfI DNA and sequence information, Fred Winston
for yeast strain FW833, M. Adelaida Garcia-Gimeno for helpful
discussions and reading of the manuscript, and Ivins Chou for
assistance with figures.
This work was supported by a grant to K.S. from the National Institutes
of Health (GM30186).
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Dept. of
Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard
University, Boston, MA 02115. Phone: (617) 432-2104. Fax: (617)
432-2529. E-mail: kevin{at}hms.harvard.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Axelrod, J. D., and J. Majors.
1993.
GAL4 disrupts a nucleosome to activate GAL1 transcription in vivo.
Genes Dev.
7:857-869[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Chen, W., and K. Struhl.
1985.
Yeast mRNA initiation sites are determined primarily by specific sequences, not by the distance from the TATA element.
EMBO J.
4:3273-3280[Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Chen, W., and K. Struhl.
1988.
Saturation mutagenesis of a yeast his3 TATA element: genetic evidence for a specific TATA-binding protein.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
85:2691-2695[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Drew, H. R., and A. A. Travers.
1985.
DNA bending and its relation to nucleosome positioning.
J. Mol. Biol.
186:773-790[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 5.
|
Eibel, H., and P. Philippsen.
1984.
Preferential integration of yeast transposable element Ty into a promoter region.
Nature
307:386-388[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Erkine, A. M.,
C. Adams,
M. Gao, and D. S. Gross.
1995.
Multiple protein-DNA interactions over the yeast HSC82 heat shock gene promoter.
Nucleic Acids Res.
23:1822-1829[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 7.
|
Fascher, K. D.,
J. Schmitz, and W. Horz.
1993.
Structural and functional requirements for the chromatin transition at the PHO5 promoter in Saccharomyces cerevisiae upon PHO5 activation.
J. Mol. Biol.
231:658-667[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Fedor, M. J.,
N. F. Lue, and R. D. Kornberg.
1988.
Statistical positioning of nucleosomes by specific protein binding to an upstream activating sequence in yeast.
J. Mol. Biol.
204:109-127[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Felsenfeld, G.
1996.
Chromatin unfolds.
Cell
86:13-19[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Grunstein, M.
1997.
Histone acetylation in chromatin structure and transcription.
Nature
389:349-352[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Hill, D. E.,
I. A. Hope,
J. P. Macke, and K. Struhl.
1986.
Saturation mutagenesis of the yeast HIS3 regulatory site: requirements for transcriptional induction and for binding by GCN4 activator protein.
Science
234:451-457[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 12.
|
Hirschhorn, J. N.,
S. A. Brown,
C. D. Clark, and F. Winston.
1992.
Evidence that SNF2/SWI2 and SNF5 activate transcription in yeast by altering chromatin structure.
Genes Dev.
6:2288-2298[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 13.
|
Hope, I. A.,
S. Mahadevan, and K. Struhl.
1988.
Structural and functional characterization of the short acidic transcriptional activation region of yeast GCN4 protein.
Nature
333:635-640[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Iyer, V., and K. Struhl.
1995.
Mechanism of differential utilization of the his3 TR and TC TATA elements.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15:7059-7066[Abstract].
|
| 15.
|
Iyer, V., and K. Struhl.
1995.
Poly(dA:dT), a ubiquitous promoter element that stimulates transcription via its intrinsic structure.
EMBO J.
14:2570-2579[Medline].
|
| 16.
|
Kadosh, D., and K. Struhl.
1997.
Repression by Ume6 involves recruitment of a complex containing Sin3 corepressor and Rpd3 histone deacetylase to target promoters.
Cell
89:365-371[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Kadosh, D., and K. Struhl.
1998.
Targeted recruitment of the Sin3-Rpd3 histone deacetylase complex generates a highly localized domain of repressed chromatin in vivo.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:5121-5127[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 18.
|
Kent, N. A.,
J. S. H. Tsang,
D. J. Crowther, and J. Mellor.
1994.
Chromatin structure modulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by centromere and promoter factor 1.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
14:5229-5241[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Kladde, M. P.,
M. Xu, and R. T. Simpson.
1996.
Direct study of DNA-protein interactions in repressed and active chromatin in living cells.
EMBO J.
15:6290-6300[Medline].
|
| 20.
|
Klein, C., and K. Struhl.
1994.
Increased recruitment of TATA-binding protein to the promoter by transcriptional activation domains in vivo.
Science
266:280-282[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Kuo, M.-H.,
J. Zhou,
P. Jambeck,
M. E. A. Churchill, and C. D. Allis.
1998.
Histone acetyltransferase activity of yeast Gcn5p is required for the activation of target genes in vivo.
Genes Dev.
12:627-639[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 22.
|
Kuras, L., and K. Struhl.
1999.
Binding of TBP to promoters in vivo is stimulated by activators and requires Pol II holoenzyme.
Nature
389:609-612.
|
| 23.
|
Lee, M. S., and W. T. Garrard.
1992.
Uncoupling gene activity from chromatin structure: promoter mutations can inactivate transcription of the yeast HSP82 gene without eliminating nucleosome-free regions.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
89:9166-9170[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 24.
|
Li, X.-L.,
A. Virbasius,
X. Zhu, and M. R. Green.
1999.
Enhancement of TBP binding by activators and general transcription factors.
Nature
389:605-609.
|
| 25.
|
Lohr, D.
1984.
Organization of the GAL1-GAL10 intergenic control region chromatin.
Nucleic Acids Res.
12:8457-8474[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 26.
|
Lorch, Y.,
B. R. Cairns,
M. Zhang, and R. D. Kornberg.
1998.
Activated RSC-nucleosome complex and persistently altered form of the nucleosome.
Cell
94:29-34[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 27.
|
Losa, R.,
S. Omari, and F. Thoma.
1990.
Poly(dA) · poly(dT) rich sequences are not sufficient to exclude nucleosome formation in a constitutive yeast promoter.
Nucleic Acids Res.
18:3495-3502[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 28.
|
Mahadevan, S., and K. Struhl.
1990.
TC, an unusual promoter element required for constitutive transcription of the yeast his3 gene.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
10:4447-4455[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 29.
|
Morse, R. H.
1993.
Nucleosome disruption by transcription factor binding in yeast.
Science
262:1563-1566[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 30.
|
Mumberg, D.,
R. Muller, and M. Funk.
1995.
Yeast vectors for the controlled expression of heterologous proteins in different genetic backgrounds.
Gene
156:119-122[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 31.
|
Natsoulis, G.,
W. Thomas,
M. C. Roghmann,
F. Winston, and J. D. Boeke.
1989.
Ty1 transposition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is nonrandom.
Genetics
123:269-279[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 32.
|
Oliphant, A. R.,
C. J. Brandl, and K. Struhl.
1989.
Defining the sequence specificity of DNA-binding proteins by selecting binding sites from random-sequence oligonucleotides: analysis of yeast GCN4 protein.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
9:2944-2949[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 33.
|
Pavlovi , B., and W. Hörz.
1988.
The chromatin structure at the promoter of a glyceraldehyde phosphate dehydrogenase gene from Saccharomyces cerevisiae reflects its functional state.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
8:5513-5520[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 34.
|
Quinn, J.,
A. M. Fyrberg,
R. W. Ganster,
M. C. Schmidt, and C. L. Peterson.
1996.
DNA-binding properties of the yeast SWI/SNF complex.
Nature
379:844-847[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 35.
|
Robzyk, K.,
L. Recht, and M. A. Osley.
2000.
Rad6-dependent ubiquitination of histone H2B in yeast.
Science
287:501-504[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 36.
|
Rundlett, S. E.,
A. A. Carmen,
N. Suka,
B. M. Turner, and M. Grunstein.
1998.
Transcriptional repression by UME6 involves deacetylation of lysine 5 of histone H4 by RPD3.
Nature
392:831-835[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 37.
|
Satchwell, S. C.,
H. R. Drew, and A. A. Travers.
1986.
Sequence periodicities in chicken nucleosome core DNA.
J. Mol. Biol.
191:659-675[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 38.
|
Struhl, K.
1982.
Promoter elements, regulatory elements, and chromatin structure of the yeast his3 gene.
Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.
47:901-910.
|
| 39.
|
Struhl, K.
1984.
Genetic properties and chromatin structure of the yeast gal regulatory element: an enhancer-like sequence.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
81:7865-7869[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 40.
|
Struhl, K.
1985.
Naturally occurring poly(dA-dT) sequences are upstream promoter elements for constitutive transcription in yeast.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
82:8419-8423[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 41.
|
Struhl, K.
1986.
Constitutive and inducible Saccharomyces cerevisiae promoters: evidence for two distinct molecular mechanisms.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
6:3847-3853[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 42.
|
Struhl, K.
1998.
Histone acetylation and transcriptional regulatory mechanisms.
Genes Dev.
12:599-606[Free Full Text].
|
| 43.
|
Struhl, K.
1999.
Fundamentally different logic of gene expression in eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
Cell
98:1-4[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 44.
|
Struhl, K., and D. E. Hill.
1987.
Two related regulatory sequences are required for maximal induction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae his3 transcription.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
7:104-110[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 45.
|
Suter, B.,
M. Livingstone-Zatchej, and F. Thoma.
1997.
Chromatin structure modulates DNA repair by photolyase in vivo.
EMBO J.
16:2150-2160[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 46.
|
Verdone, L.,
G. Camilloni,
E. Di Mauro, and M. Caserta.
1996.
Chromatin remodeling during Saccharomyces cerevisiae ADH2 gene activation.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16:1978-1988[Abstract].
|
| 47.
|
Wilke, C. M.,
S. H. Heidler,
N. Brown, and S. W. Liebman.
1989.
Analysis of yeast retrotransposon Ty insertions at the CAN1 locus.
Genetics
123:655-665[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 48.
|
Winston, F.,
C. Dollard, and S. L. Ricupero-Hovasse.
1995.
Construction of a set of convenient Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains that are isogenic to S288C.
Yeast
11:53-55[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 49.
|
Workman, J. L., and R. E. Kingston.
1998.
Alteration of nucleosome structure as a mechanism of transcriptional regulation.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
67:545-579[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 50.
|
Zhu, Z., and D. J. Thiele.
1996.
A specialized nucleosome modulates transcription factor access to a C. glabrata metal responsive promoter.
Cell
87:459-470[CrossRef][Medline].
|
Molecular and Cellular Biology, September 2000, p. 6668-6676, Vol. 20, No. 18
0270-7306/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Kotekar, A. S., Weissman, J. D., Gegonne, A., Cohen, H., Singer, D. S.
(2008). Histone Modifications, but Not Nucleosomal Positioning, Correlate with Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I Promoter Activity in Different Tissues In Vivo. Mol. Cell. Biol.
28: 7323-7336
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Miele, V., Vaillant, C., d'Aubenton-Carafa, Y., Thermes, C., Grange, T.
(2008). DNA physical properties determine nucleosome occupancy from yeast to fly. Nucleic Acids Res
36: 3746-3756
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Liu, X., Lee, C.-K., Granek, J. A., Clarke, N. D., Lieb, J. D.
(2006). Whole-genome comparison of Leu3 binding in vitro and in vivo reveals the importance of nucleosome occupancy in target site selection. Genome Res
16: 1517-1528
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Kim, Y., McLaughlin, N., Lindstrom, K., Tsukiyama, T., Clark, D. J.
(2006). Activation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae HIS3 Results in Gcn4p-Dependent, SWI/SNF-Dependent Mobilization of Nucleosomes over the Entire Gene. Mol. Cell. Biol.
26: 8607-8622
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Morohashi, N., Yamamoto, Y., Kuwana, S., Morita, W., Shindo, H., Mitchell, A. P., Shimizu, M.
(2006). Effect of Sequence-Directed Nucleosome Disruption on Cell-Type-Specific Repression by {alpha}2/Mcm1 in the Yeast Genome. Eukaryot Cell
5: 1925-1933
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Wang, J.-P. Z., Widom, J.
(2005). Improved alignment of nucleosome DNA sequences using a mixture model. Nucleic Acids Res
33: 6743-6755
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Rao, B., Shibata, Y., Strahl, B. D., Lieb, J. D.
(2005). Dimethylation of Histone H3 at Lysine 36 Demarcates Regulatory and Nonregulatory Chromatin Genome-Wide. Mol. Cell. Biol.
25: 9447-9459
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Wade, J. T., Reppas, N. B., Church, G. M., Struhl, K.
(2005). Genomic analysis of LexA binding reveals the permissive nature of the Escherichia coli genome and identifies unconventional target sites. Genes Dev.
19: 2619-2630
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Lee, M. P., Howcroft, K., Kotekar, A., Yang, H. H., Buetow, K. H., Singer, D. S.
(2005). ATG deserts define a novel core promoter subclass. Genome Res
15: 1189-1197
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Reid, J. L., Moqtaderi, Z., Struhl, K.
(2004). Eaf3 Regulates the Global Pattern of Histone Acetylation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol.
24: 757-764
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Mason, P. B., Struhl, K.
(2003). The FACT Complex Travels with Elongating RNA Polymerase II and Is Important for the Fidelity of Transcriptional Initiation In Vivo. Mol. Cell. Biol.
23: 8323-8333
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Valerius, O., Brendel, C., Wagner, C., Krappmann, S., Thoma, F., Braus, G. H.
(2003). Nucleosome Position-Dependent and -Independent Activation of HIS7 Expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Different Transcriptional Activators. Eukaryot Cell
2: 876-885
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Braastad, C. D., Han, Z., Hendrickson, E. A.
(2003). Constitutive DNase I Hypersensitivity of p53-Regulated Promoters. J. Biol. Chem.
278: 8261-8268
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Kim, Y., Clark, D. J.
(2002). SWI/SNF-dependent long-range remodeling of yeast HIS3 chromatin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
99: 15381-15386
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Deckert, J., Struhl, K.
(2002). Targeted Recruitment of Rpd3 Histone Deacetylase Represses Transcription by Inhibiting Recruitment of Swi/Snf, SAGA, and TATA Binding Protein. Mol. Cell. Biol.
22: 6458-6470
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Ng, H. H., Robert, F., Young, R. A., Struhl, K.
(2002). Genome-wide location and regulated recruitment of the RSC nucleosome-remodeling complex. Genes Dev.
16: 806-819
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Anderson, J. D., Widom, J.
(2001). Poly(dA-dT) Promoter Elements Increase the Equilibrium Accessibility of Nucleosomal DNA Target Sites. Mol. Cell. Biol.
21: 3830-3839
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Deckert, J., Struhl, K.
(2001). Histone Acetylation at Promoters Is Differentially Affected by Specific Activators and Repressors. Mol. Cell. Biol.
21: 2726-2735
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Li, B., Reese, J. C.
(2001). Ssn6-Tup1 Regulates RNR3 by Positioning Nucleosomes and Affecting the Chromatin Structure at the Upstream Repression Sequence. J. Biol. Chem.
276: 33788-33797
[Abstract]
[Full Text]