Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, April 2000, p. 2350-2357, Vol. 20, No. 7
0270-7306/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Architectural Transcription Factors and the SAGA
Complex Function in Parallel Pathways To Activate
Transcription
Yaxin
Yu,
Peter
Eriksson, and
David J.
Stillman*
Division of Molecular Biology and Genetics,
Department of Oncological Sciences, University of Utah Health
Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132
Received 27 October 1999/Returned for modification 7 December
1999/Accepted 10 January 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
Recent work has shown that transcription of the yeast
HO gene involves the sequential recruitment of a series of
transcription factors. We have performed a functional analysis of
HO regulation by determining the ability of mutations in
SIN1, SIN3, RPD3, and SIN4 negative regulators to permit HO
expression in the absence of certain activators. Mutations in the
SIN1 (=SPT2) gene do not affect HO
regulation, in contrast to results of other studies using an
HO:lacZ reporter, and our data show that the regulatory properties of an HO:lacZ reporter differ from that of the
native HO gene. Mutations in SIN3 and
RPD3, which encode components of a histone deacetylase
complex, show the same pattern of genetic suppression, and this
suppression pattern differs from that seen in a sin4
mutant. The Sin4 protein is present in two transcriptional regulatory
complexes, the RNA polymerase II holoenzyme/mediator and the SAGA
histone acetylase complex. Our genetic analysis allows us to conclude
that Swi/Snf chromatin remodeling complex has multiple roles in
HO activation, and the data suggest that the ability of the
SBF transcription factor to bind to the HO promoter may be
affected by the acetylation state of the HO promoter. We
also demonstrate that the Nhp6 architectural transcription factor, encoded by the redundant NHP6A and NHP6B genes,
is required for HO expression. Suppression analysis with
sin3, rpd3, and sin4 mutations
suggests that Nhp6 and Gcn5 have similar functions. A gcn5 nhp6a
nhp6b triple mutant is extremely sick, suggesting that the SAGA
complex and the Nhp6 architectural transcription factors function in
parallel pathways to activate transcription. We find that disruption of
SIN4 allows this strain to grow at a reasonable rate,
indicating a critical role for Sin4 in detecting structural changes in
chromatin mediated by Gcn5 and Nhp6. These studies underscore the
critical role of chromatin structure in regulating HO gene expression.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The Saccharomyces cerevisiae
HO gene encodes an endonuclease that is responsible for initiating
mating type switching in yeast. The transcriptional regulation of
HO is complex and has been the subject of intensive study
(for reviews, see references 22 and 37). Recent studies have shown that transcription of
specific genes can be affected by chromatin structure at the promoter
(for reviews, see references 25, 28, 54, and
59). Chromatin structure plays an important role in
regulation of HO transcription, as HO expression
is altered by mutations in a number of important transcriptional
regulators, including components of the Swi/Snf chromatin remodeling
complex, the SAGA histone acetyltransferase complex, and the Sin3/Rpd3
histone deacetylase complex. GCN5, ADA2, and
ADA3, which encode members of the SAGA histone
acetyltransferase complex (18), are required for
HO:lacZ expression (43), and native HO
expression is also reduced in a gcn5 mutant (41). The yeast RPD3 gene encodes a histone deacetylase that is
associated with Sin3 (26, 27). SIN3 and
RPD3 are negative regulators of transcription, and mutations
in SIN3 or RPD3 allow an HO:lacZ reporter to be expressed in the absence of specific activators (41, 53).
HO is cell cycle regulated and is expressed in late
G1 (36). Recent work using chromatin
immunoprecipitation provides new insights as to changes at the
HO promoter during the cell cycle. Cosma et al.
(12) showed that activation of HO transcription involves ordered recruitment of transcription factors. Swi5 enters the
nucleus at the end of anaphase, binds to the promoter, and then
recruits Swi/Snf. Swi/Snf, in turn, recruits SAGA, and Swi/Snf and SAGA
are both required for SBF binding. It is believed that SBF, composed of
the Swi4 and Swi6 factors, is then directly responsible for
HO activation. Krebs et al. (30) showed that a
1-kb region of the HO promoter undergoes histone acetylation
in mid-G1 phase of the cell cycle, and these promoter
changes require the activity of the Swi5, Swi/Snf, and SAGA
transcription factors. Mutations in SIN3 or RPD3
result in acetylation of the HO promoter throughout the cell cycle.
The SIN4 gene was identified as regulator of HO
expression (24). A sin4 mutation causes decreased
expression of some genes, including HIS4, CTS1,
and MAT
. However, expression of other genes, including
HO:lacZ, IME1, GAL1, SUC2,
DIT1, DIT2, and a-specific genes, is
increased in a sin4 mutant (11, 14, 16, 24, 50,
56). A sin4 mutation has effects similar to those seen in strains with histone mutations, including changes in linking number
of plasmid DNA and sensitivity of chromatin to nucleases, and it has
been suggested that these effects on transcription are caused by
changes in chromatin structure (23, 24, 33). The Sin4
protein is part of the RNA polymerase II holoenzyme/mediator, in a
subcomplex with Rgr1, Gal11, Med2, and Pgd1 (32, 35). Importantly, mutations in other components of the RNA polymerase II
mediator complex also have diverse effects on transcriptional regulation (for reviews, see references 5, 9, and
20). It has been recently demonstrated that Sin4 is
also part of the SAGA complex (P. Grant and J. Workman, personal communication).
The HO gene promoter is quite large, by yeast standards,
with regulatory sites identified nearly 2 kb from the transcription start site. The SWI5 gene encodes a zinc finger DNA binding
protein that is required for HO expression. There are two
Swi5 binding sites in the HO promoter, at
1800 and at
1300. Genetic analysis demonstrates that both Swi5 binding sites are
required for HO expression, suggesting that there is a
physical interaction between these two sites separated by 500 bp
(34). The term "architectural transcription factor" has
been applied to proteins that bend DNA and promote assembly of
distantly bound factors into a productive complex (58). It
is possible that architectural transcription factors, by promoting DNA
bending, could facilitate this proposed interaction between Swi5
molecules bound at these two sites. We decided to examine whether
architectural transcription factors contribute to Swi5-dependent
activation of HO by determining whether mutations in these
factors affect HO expression.
Architectural transcription factors often contain the DNA-binding
domain first identified in mammalian high-mobility-group 1 and 2 (HMG1/2) proteins (8). There are a number of yeast genes
encoding proteins with homology to the HMG domain, including ABF2, ROX1, SIN1, and the duplicated
NHP6A and NHP6B genes. Some HMG proteins, such as
Rox1 (15), bind DNA in a sequence-specific manner; other HMG
proteins have little specificity in DNA sequence recognition but may
recognize structural elements in DNA or chromatin, such as cruciform
structures (4). We directed our attention to SIN1
and NHP6A/B because mutations in these genes have been reported to affect transcriptional regulation.
The SIN1 gene was originally identified as SPT2,
as sin1/spt2 mutations suppress the transcriptional defects
due to insertions of the Ty1 transposable element into the
HIS4 and LYS2 promoters (49).
SIN1 mutations were also identified as bypass suppressors allowing expression of an HO:lacZ reporter in strains
lacking either the Swi1 or Swi5 transcriptional activator
(51). As we show below, sin1 mutations do not
restore expression of the native HO gene; the original
observation appears to be an artifact of the bacterial sequences
present in the HO:lacZ reporter. A sin1 mutation
can suppress the transcriptional defects at the SUC2 and
HIS3 loci caused by mutations in SWI1 and
GCN5, respectively (41, 43). Additionally, a
sin1 mutation increases expression of the SSA3
gene (1).
The 11-kDa Nhp6 protein of yeast shows 40% identity to the HMG domain
of mammalian HMG1/2 proteins (29). There are two highly related genes, NHP6A and NHP6B, that express the
Nhp6 protein. These two genes appear to be functionally redundant, as
deletion of both genes is required for any observable phenotype
(13). The nhp6a nhp6b double mutant is
temperature sensitive for growth and shows defects in transcriptional
activation of a number of LacZ reporter constructs (13, 39).
Finally, in vitro experiments show that Nhp6 protein can promote the
assembly of multicomponent protein-DNA complexes (40).
In this report we show that the Gcn5 and Nhp6 proteins are required for
expression of HO. Suppressor analysis shows that mutations in the SIN3, RPD3, or SIN4 gene can
allow HO expression in the absence of these activators. We
also find that gcn5 nhp6a nhp6b triple mutants are very
sick, suggesting that Gcn5 and Nhp6 are both required for transcription
of important genes. A sin4 mutation suppresses this growth
defect, suggesting that Sin4 has a unique role in regulating chromatin
structure. The genetic analysis shows differences in the ability of
sin3 and sin4 mutations to suppress swi5 and swi6 defects, and these results provide
new insights as to regulation of HO expression.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
The yeast strains used in this study are listed in Table
1. Standard genetic methods were used for
strain construction (45, 46). W303 strains with
SWI5, SIN3, and SIN4 disruptions have been previously described (24, 57). W303 strains with gene disruptions in GCN5, HDA1, and HPR1
were provided by Sharon Roth, Michael Grunstein, and Hannah Klein,
respectively. The SIN1 gene was disrupted with plasmid WB39
(31), provided by Ira Herskowitz, and the NHP6A
and NHP6B genes were disrupted with plasmids pDK201 and
pDK262, respectively, provided by David Kolodrubetz. All gene disruptions were confirmed by Southern analysis. The
swi6::TRP1 allele from the closely related K1107
strain background was backcrossed four times into W303. Plasmid M4195
was constructed by inserting a 2.2-kb
EcoRI-HindIII fragment with NHP6B from
plasmid pDK227 (from David Kolodrubetz) into YEplac195 (17).
Cells were grown at 30°C in standard media (46). YEPD
medium was used, except where use of YEP-galactose medium is indicated or when strains had plasmids. In the latter case, cells were grown in
synthetic complete medium with 2% glucose supplemented with adenine,
uracil, and amino acids, as appropriate, but lacking essential
components to select for plasmids.
RNA levels were determined with S1 nuclease protection assays using
HO and CMD1 probes as described elsewhere
(3). Protein extracts were prepared for quantitative
measurement of
-galactosidase activity as described previously
(7).
 |
RESULTS |
Role of architectural transcription factors in HO
transcription.
Genetic studies demonstrated that Swi5 binding at
two sites, separated by 500 bp, was required for transcription of the
HO gene (34). An architectural transcription
factor might promote interaction between Swi5 molecules bound at these
sites, and we determined whether mutations in the SIN1
(=SPT2) gene, which encodes an HMG protein (31),
affect HO expression. RNA was isolated from isogenic
SIN1 and sin1 strains, and HO mRNA
levels were measured with an S1 nuclease protection assay. As shown in
Fig. 1A, a sin1 mutation does
not affect expression of HO (compare lanes 1 and 3). Two
groups recently reported that a gcn5 mutation reduced expression of an HO:lacZ reporter (41, 43). It
was also reported that a sin1 mutation suppresses the
gcn5 mutation, as the HO:lacZ reporter is
expressed in the gcn5 sin1 double mutant (41).
However, we measured HO mRNA and found that while the
gcn5 mutation does reduce HO expression (Fig. 1A,
lane 2), this reduction is not reversed in the gcn5 sin1
mutant (Fig. 1A, lane 4). We attribute this difference in results in
the gcn5 sin1 double mutant to the use of an
HO:lacZ reporter rather than native HO. (The
differences between regulation of the native HO gene and the
HO:lacZ reporter are considered in Discussion.) As
GCN5 encodes a histone acetyltransferase, it seemed possible
that a mutation in a histone deacetylase would suppress the
gcn5 defect in HO expression. HO is
expressed in a gcn5 rpd3 double mutant (Fig. 1B, lane 4),
consistent with results with an HO:lacZ reporter
(41). In contrast, a mutation in a different histone
deacetylase, HDA1, does not suppress the gcn5 mutation (Fig. 1B, lane 6). The S1 protection assay in Fig. 1C shows
that HO is not expressed in a swi5 sin1 or
swi2 sin1 double mutant. Thus, a sin1 mutation
does not suppress defects in HO transcription caused by
mutations in GCN5, SWI5, or SWI2.
These results suggest that SIN1/SPT2 is not a true negative
regulator of native HO expression.

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
HO expression is not altered by a
sin1 mutation. S1 nuclease protection assays were performed
using probes specific for HO and CMD1 (internal
control). HO RNA levels were quantitated by phosphorimager,
normalized by dividing by the value for CMD1, and expressed
as a percentage of the wild-type (WT) value in lane 1 in each panel.
RNAs were prepared from strains DY2395, DY5116, DY5323, and DY5326 (A),
DY2389, DY5199, DY4548, DY5170, DY5068, and DY5168 (B), and DY150,
DY5323, DY161, DY5410, DY2348, and DY5420 (C).
|
|
We next evaluated the role of the
NHP6A and
NHP6B
genes, which encode HMG proteins, in activation of
HO. The
two genes encode
nearly identical proteins, and a temperature-sensitive
phenotype
is seen in the
nhp6a nhp6b double mutant but not
in either single
mutant (
13). Expression of a number of
lacZ reporters is reduced
in a
nhp6a nhp6b mutant
strain (
39). We find that expression
of
HO is
reduced nearly 20-fold in the
nhp6a nhp6b double mutant
(Fig.
2, lane 2). Sidorova and Breeden (
47) recently showed
that
NHP6A acts as a multicopy suppressor allowing
expression
of an
HO:lacZ reporter at the nonpermissive
temperature in a
swi6 temperature-sensitive mutant. The
YEp-
NHP6A plasmid does not suppress
a
swi6 null
mutation, however. They also observed reduced
HO expression
in a
nhp6a nhp6b double mutant; however, the strains were
not
isogenic and only a modest reduction in
HO expression
was seen
in this study (
47).
Mutations in sin3 and sin4 suppress
nhp6 and gcn5 transcription defects.
Isogenic yeast strains were constructed to test the ability of
mutations in regulatory genes to suppress the nhp6 defect in HO transcription. A sin1 mutation does not
suppress the defect in HO expression due to the absence of
the Nhp6 protein (Fig. 2, lane 4).
However, mutations in the SIN3 or SIN4 genes do
permit HO expression in the nhp6a nhp6b mutant
(Fig. 2, lanes 6 and 8).

View larger version (61K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
The nhp6 defect in HO
transcription can be suppressed by sin3 or sin4
mutations. S1 nuclease protection assays were performed using probes
specific for HO and CMD1 (internal control).
HO RNA levels were quantitated by phosphorimager, normalized
by dividing by the value for CMD1, and expressed as a
percentage of the wild-type (WT) value in lane 1. RNAs were prepared
from strains DY150, DY2381, DY3658, DY5153, DY984, DY5157, DY1699, and
DY5155.
|
|
As
sin3 and
sin4 mutations were effective in
suppressing defects in
nhp6 mutants, we sought to determine
whether
sin3 or
sin4 could suppress defects in
other activators of
HO expression, such
as
GCN5
and
SWI5. A
sin3 mutation suppresses the defects
in
HO expression caused by a
gcn5 mutation (Fig.
3, lane 6) or a
swi5 mutation
(Fig.
3, lane 10) to 64 or 45%, respectively, of the
wild-type level.
Similar levels of suppression are seen in an
rpd3 mutant
(data not shown). This last result is not surprising
as mutations in
SIN3 and
RPD3 cause similar phenotypes
(
53)
and the Sin3 protein physically interacts with the Rpd3
histone
deacetylase (
26,
27). A
sin4 mutation
shows striking differences
in the ability to suppress
gcn5
or
swi5 mutations for expression
of
HO. HO is not
expressed in a
swi5 sin4 strain (Fig.
3, lane
11), despite
the fact a
sin4 mutation does suppress the
swi5
defect
when an
HO:lacZ reporter is used (
24) (see
Discussion). In contrast,
HO is expressed in a
gcn5
sin4 mutant at 104% of wild-type levels
(Fig.
3, lane 7), and
thus
sin4 is an effective
gcn5 suppressor.
The
combination of the
sin3 and
sin4 mutations is
able to suppress
either a
gcn5 mutation (Fig.
3, lane 8) or
a
swi5 mutation (Fig.
3, lane 12). In summary, a
sin3 mutation is able to suppress both
swi5 and
gcn5 defects in
HO expression, but a
sin4 mutation can
suppress only
gcn5. Thus,
sin3 and
sin4 suppress transcriptional
defects by
different mechanisms.

View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Both sin3 and sin4 mutations
suppress the gcn5 defect. S1 nuclease protection assays were
performed using probes specific for HO and CMD1
(internal control). HO RNA levels were quantitated by
phosphorimager, normalized by dividing by the value for
CMD1, and expressed as a percentage of the wild-type (WT)
value in lane 1. RNAs were prepared from strains DY150, DY5285, DY2763,
DY5294, DY5265, DY5297, DY5289, DY5315, DY411, DY775, DY2133, and
DY5299.
|
|
Analysis of suppression of swi6 and swi2
transcription defects by sin3 and sin4.
Based on
the difference in suppression of a swi5 mutation by
sin3 and sin4, we decided to examine suppression
of mutations affecting other types of HO transcriptional
activators. SWI2 encodes part of the Swi/Snf chromatin
remodeling complex, and HO is not expressed in a
swi2 mutant. We first examined HO expression in swi2 sin3 and swi2 sin4 mutants to look for
suppression of the swi2 transcriptional defect. The results
in Fig. 4A show that neither
sin3 nor sin4 can suppress the reduced
HO expression caused by the swi2 mutation. Thus,
the requirement for the Swi/Snf chromatin remodeling complex cannot be
suppressed by mutations in either SIN3 or SIN4.

View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
A sin4 mutation suppresses swi6
but not swi2. S1 nuclease protection assays were performed
using probes specific for HO and CMD1 (internal
control). (A) HO is not expressed in swi2 sin3 or
swi2 sin4 strains. RNAs were prepared from strains DY150,
DY3944, DY773, DY2870, DY1702, and DY2499. (B) HO is
expressed in swi6 sin4 strains. RNAs were prepared from
strains DY150, DY151, DY5780, DY5781, DY5907, DY5908, DY5909, DY5910,
DY5911, and DY5912. (C) HO is not expressed in a swi6
sin3 strains. RNAs were prepared from strains DY150, DY5780,
DY773, and DY6103.
|
|
The SBF DNA binding factor binds to the
HO promoter only
after Swi/Snf and SAGA are recruited to the
HO promoter
(
12). The
SWI6 gene encodes a subunit of SBF, and
HO is not expressed in
a
swi6 mutant (Fig.
4B,
lanes 1 to 4). However, in the
swi6 sin4 double mutant,
HO is expressed at nearly wild-type levels (Fig.
4B, lanes 5 and 6). Thus,
HO can be expressed in a
sin4
mutant
in the absence of SBF. Importantly,
HO is not
expressed in the
swi5 swi6 sin4 mutant (Fig.
4B, lanes 9 and
10). This suggests
that Swi5, or a factor recruited in a
SWI5-dependent manner such
as Swi/Snf or SAGA, is still
required for
HO expression in the
sin4 mutant.
Finally,
HO is not expressed in a
swi6 sin3
double
mutant, and thus a
sin3 mutation does not permit
HO transcription
without SBF (Fig.
4C). Thus there is a
striking difference in
the ability of
sin3 and
sin4 mutations to suppress activator mutations.
A
sin4 mutation allows
HO to be expressed in the
absence of the
SBF factor, while a
sin3 mutation does not
suppress. The pattern
of suppression of a
swi5 mutation
(Fig.
3) is just the opposite,
with a
sin3 mutation
suppressing but not
sin4.
Suppression of gcn5 by Nhp6b overexpression.
We
determined whether overexpression of Nhp6b could suppress HO
transcriptional defects caused by mutations in transcriptional activators. A YEp multicopy plasmid with the NHP6B gene was
transformed into various strains. An S1 nuclease protection assay shows
that overexpression of Nhp6b does not suppress swi5,
swi2, or swi6 null mutations (Fig.
5). However, Nhp6b overexpression
partially suppresses the reduced HO expression caused by a
gcn5 mutation (lanes 7 and 8). In the gcn5
mutant, HO is expressed at 6% of the wild-type level, and
YEp-NHP6B causes a threefold increase in HO
expression.

View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
Nhp6b overexpression partially suppresses the
gcn5 defect. Strains DY150 (wild type [w.t.]), DY161
(swi5), DY2348 (swi2), DY5116 (gcn5),
and DY5780 (swi6) were transformed with either the YEplac195
vector or M1195, a YEp-NHP6B plasmid. S1 nuclease protection assays
were performed using probes specific for HO and
CMD1 (internal control), using RNA prepared from strains
grown under selective conditions to maintain the plasmid. The upper
panel was exposed to film for 8 h; the lower panel was exposed for
24 h.
|
|
Genetic interactions based on growth phenotypes.
As the
sin3 and sin4 mutations suppress the defect in
HO transcription caused by the lack of the Nhp6 protein, we
investigated whether these mutations would also suppress other
nhp6a nhp6b phenotypes. The nhp6a nhp6b double
mutant displays a number of phenotypes, including temperature-sensitive
growth (13) and inability to grow on galactose medium (Fig.
6). Interestingly, we observed this
galactose growth defect for nhp6a nhp6b double mutants only
in the S288C background, not in W303 strains. The sin3
mutation was unable to suppress any of the nhp6 defects; in
fact, the nhp6a nhp6b sin3 triple mutant grows much more
slowly than either the nhp6a nhp6b or sin3 mutant
strains. We were unable to demonstrate suppression of the 37°C growth
defect, as the sin4 single mutant is also temperature
sensitive for growth (24). However, a sin4
mutation is able to suppress one of the nhp6 phenotypes. The
nhp6a nhp6b sin4 triple mutant can grow on galactose,
whereas the nhp6a nhp6b double mutant cannot (Fig. 6). This
suggests that the suppression of nhp6 by sin4 may
be more general and not limited to HO transcription.

View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
A sin4 mutation suppresses the
nhp6 growth defect on galactose. Strains DY881, DY1712,
DY2532, and DY2533 were plated on YEP-galactose medium and grown for 4 days at 30°C.
|
|
Combining two mutations can sometimes cause a severe additive
phenotype, suggesting that these two genes affect the same function
but
from different pathways (
19). For example, Roberts and
Winston
(
44) found that combining a
gcn5 mutation
with a mutation in
the Swi/Snf chromatin remodeling complex causes a
severe growth
defect. They suggested that either the SAGA histone
acetyltransferase
complex (which contains Gcn5) or the Swi/Snf
chromatin remodeling
factor can supply certain critical functions for
gene activation,
but that the absence of both activities is manifested
as the growth
defect. We constructed
gcn5 nhp6a nhp6b triple
mutant strains
and found that these strains grew extremely poorly (Fig.
7A).
To test whether a
sin4
mutation could suppress this growth defect,
we crossed a
gcn5
nhp6a strain to a
nhp6a nhp6b sin4 strain and
examined
the phenotype of haploid progeny. The experiment in Fig.
7B show that
the
gcn5 nhp6a nhp6b sin4 quadruple mutant strain
grows much better than the
gcn5 nhp6a nhp6b triple
mutant. Thus,
the effect of a
sin4 mutation is not limited
to allowing
HO expression
in
gcn5 or
nhp6 mutants.
SIN4 has global effects on
transcription,
as a
sin4 mutation overcomes the marked
growth defects in a
gcn5 nhp6a nhp6b strain.

View larger version (64K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 7.
The severe growth defect of a gcn5 nhp6a
nhp6b triple mutant is suppressed by a sin4 mutation.
(A) Strains DY150, DY2378, DY2380, DY2382, DY5116, and DY5306 were
plated on YEPD medium and grown for 3 days at 30°C. (B) Strains
DY5825 and DY5820 were plated on YEPD medium and grown for 5 days at
30°C.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The promoter of the yeast HO gene is large and complex,
and genetic analysis has shown that chromatin structure plays an
important role in transcriptional regulation of this gene. Through
studies of HO regulation, we have identified common features
between the NHP6A and NHP6B genes, which encode
architectural transcription factors, and GCN5, which encodes
a hitone acetyltransferase subunit of the SAGA complex.
HO expression is reduced in either an nhp6a nhp6b
double mutant or a gcn5 mutant. Moreover, these mutants show
similar suppression patterns, with either a sin3 or a
sin4 mutation restoring HO expression despite
mutations in transcriptional activators. We found that a
nhp6a nhp6b gcn5 triple mutant grows extremely slowly. One
interpretation of this result is that Nhp6 and Gcn5 may provide two
distinct mechanisms for transcriptional activation of certain important
genes. Disruption of the SIN4 gene suppresses this
defect, and thus the nhp6a nhp6b gcn5 sin4 quadruple mutant
grows reasonably well. A sin4 mutation also suppresses galactose growth defects of a nhp6a nhp6b mutant.
How do sin3 and sin4 mutations suppress
transcriptional defects caused by the absence of Gcn5 or Nhp6? To
investigate this further, we determined whether sin3 or
sin4 can suppress other mutations in other activators
required for HO expression (Table 2). Cosma et al. (12) used
chromatin immunoprecipitation to examine transcription factor binding
to the HO promoter, and they showed that factors bind
sequentially. Their model is that Swi5 enters the nucleus in late
anaphase, binds to the promoter, and recruits Swi/Snf. Swi/Snf, in
turn, recruits SAGA, and SAGA is required for SBF binding. It is
suggested that SBF is responsible for recruiting general transcription
factors to the promoter (12). (The term "recruit" means
brings to the promoter and does not necessarily imply a direct physical
interaction.) Krebs et al. (30) showed that histone
acetylation of a 1-kb region of the HO promoter occurs in
late G1 phase, and this histone acetylation is dependent on
Swi5, Swi/Snf, and the Gcn5 component of SAGA. Importantly,
inactivation of the Sin3/Rpd3 histone deacetylase complex causes the
promoter to be constitutively acetylated. In light of these findings,
we explain our results on suppression by sin3 mutations by
suggesting that SBF binds poorly to HO when it is
deacetylated, and that either the sin3 mutation or activity of the Gcn5 histone acetyltransferase results in histone acetylation that permits SBF binding. This model explains why a sin3
mutation is able to suppress swi5 and gcn5
mutations (Table 2). The failure of a sin3 mutation to
suppress the swi6 defect in HO transcription is
also consistent with this model. Why then is HO not
expressed in a swi2 sin3 double mutant? We suggest that
Swi/Snf has multiple roles in activation of HO expression,
with only one being to recruit SAGA. By this model, the second role of
Swi/Snf, revealed in the swi5 sin3 mutant, is to assist the
TATA-binding protein (TBP), or possibly SBF, to bind the HO
promoter. We suggest that Swi/Snf need not be stably bound to the
HO promoter to assist TBP to bind. Thus, Swi/Snf is still
required for HO activation in a swi5 mutant although it may not be stably bound to the promoter.
Suppression of HO activation defects by a sin4
mutation is quite different (Table 2). The Sin4 protein is a component
of the RNA polymerase II mediator complex (32), and thus it
is possible that the sin4 mutation relaxes the RNA
polymerase holoenzyme's specificity, allowing it to activate in the
absence of certain factors such as SBF. RNA polymerase binding and
transcriptional initiation at HO normally require both SBF
and Swi/Snf, and a sin4 mutation could allow polymerase to
start in the absence of SBF. According to this scenario, the mediator
part of RNA polymerase functions as an "activator checkpoint,"
verifying that an activator is at the promoter before RNA polymerase
can initiate transcription.
An alternative model for Sin4 function is possible based upon the
recent observation that Sin4 is also present in the SAGA complex (Grant
and Workman, personal communication). Genetic analysis clearly shows
that the SAGA complex has additional roles besides the Gcn5 histone
acetyltransferase complex; one of these functions, mediated by the Spt3
and Spt8 proteins, may be to inhibit DNA binding by TBP (2,
52). The model most consistent with the data suggests that in a
sin4 mutant the activity of SAGA is altered, with the
sin4-mutant SAGA not inhibiting, and thus stimulating, TBP binding. In the wild type, TBP binding requires SBF and Swi/Snf; in
the sin4 mutant, TBP binding occurs in the absence of
SBF. This model fits the data nicely as HO can be activated
in the absence of SBF in a sin4 mutant. Similarly, a
sin4 mutation allows HO to be expressed in
the absence of Gcn5, normally required for SBF binding. HO
is not expressed in a swi2 sin4 double mutant because
Swi/Snf is still required, probably to promote binding by TBP.
We first examined the role of Nhp6 in HO expression based on
the hypothesis that architectural transcription factors might be
involved in bridging the two Swi5 molecules bound at distant sites
(34). While we have shown that the Nhp6 protein is required for HO activation, at present we have no evidence that it
mediates this long-range interaction in vivo. Instead, our data suggest that Nhp6 functions with the Gcn5 histone acetyltransferase. The nhp6a nhp6b mutant shows the same suppression pattern as the
gcn5 strain (Table 2), and thus Nhp6 may work through SAGA.
The Nhp6 protein could assist in the recruitment of SAGA to the
HO promoter, possibly by stabilizing binding by SAGA.
Alternatively, Nhp6 could act downstream of SAGA, by establishing a
chromatin structure that facilitates activities of SAGA, or by
assisting in DNA binding by SBF. Overexpression of Nhp6 allows
HO expression in the absence of Gcn5 (Fig. 5) and suppresses
the reduced HO:lacZ expression caused by mutations within
the ankyrin repeat region of Swi6 (47). Increased levels of
Nhp6 do not suppress swi6 null mutations, however. In
contrast, the fact that the nhp6a nhp6b gcn5 mutant grows
very slowly suggests that Nhp6 and Gcn5 have independent functions. How
does a sin4 mutation suppress the growth defect in the
nhp6a nhp6b gcn5 mutant? Further work will be needed to determine whether the absence of Sin4 from the holoenzyme or from SAGA
is responsible for suppression of this growth defect. Finally, while we
believe that the Nhp6 and Sin4 have direct effects on HO
expression, it remains possible that there are indirect effects caused
by these mutations altering expression of other genes.
Differences between native HO and an
HO:lacZ reporter.
The sin3 and
sin4 mutations were identified as suppressor mutations that
allow an HO:lacZ reporter to be expressed in the absence of
the SWI5 transcriptional activator. As shown in Table 3, a swi5 mutation reduces
expression of the HO:lacZ reporter 100-fold. A mutation in
either SIN3 or SIN4 restores expression of
HO:lacZ, although to different extents. We have found that the regulation of the HO:lacZ reporter can be strikingly
different from that of the native HO gene. This
HO:lacZ reporter is integrated at the HO locus on
chromosome IV, with the entire flanking HO promoter
sequences present. HO is expressed in a swi5 sin3
double mutant strain, and thus SIN3 is a bona fide
swi5 suppressor. However, a sin4 mutation does
not overcome the defect in HO expression due to the mutation
in the SWI5 transcription factor. This inability to allow
HO expression in a swi5 mutant was described
before for the sdi3-1 allele of sin4
(38).
Are there other differences between
HO:lacZ and
HO in terms of regulatory properties? Although
sin1 mutations do suppress
the defect in
HO:lacZ
expression due to the absence of the Swi5
or Swi2 transcriptional
activators (data not shown) (
31,
41,
43), the same result is
not observed when native
HO mRNA is
measured. The difference
between the effects of a
sin1 mutation
on
HO
versus
HO:lacZ regulation may reflect unique properties
of
HO, as a
sin1 mutation has marked effects on
regulation of
SUC2,
INO1 and
SSA3
(
1,
42,
43).
A
pho2 mutation reduces expression of an
HO:lacZ
reporter (
6) but has no effect on expression of the native
HO gene (
34).
Zhu et al. (
60) reported
that an
hpr1 mutation reduced expression
of an
HO:lacZ reporter. However, we have determined that
expression
of the native
HO gene is not affected by an
hpr1 mutation (data
not shown). Chávez and Aguilera
(
10) have shown that an
hpr1 mutation has
different effects on
lacZ reporters and native genes,
and
that these effects are transcriptional and not
translational.
It is possible that there are sequences present within the bacterial
lacZ gene that act in
cis to affect regulation of
the
HO promoter, and that these effects become apparent in a
sin4 mutant. Supporting this idea of
cis effects
from within
lacZ,
W. Hörz (personal communication) has
shown that a
sin4 mutation
affects expression of a
PHO5-lacZ reporter, but a
sin4 mutation
does not
cause derepression of the native
PHO5 gene. Additionally,
the fact that a
sin4 mutation derepresses
PHO5
transplaced into
the
URA3 locus, but not the native
PHO5 locus, suggests that effects
of a
sin4
mutation can be influenced by the chromosomal context
(
21).
Finally, the concept of
cis-acting effects of
lacZ sequences
affecting transcriptional regulation is
supported by the work
of Chávez and Aguilera (
10)
showing that an
hpr1 mutation affects
native genes and
lacZ reporters
differently.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Leena Bhoite, Brad Cairns, Tim Formosa, and Warren Voth
for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript, Michael Grunstein, Ira Herskowitz, Hannah Klein, David Kolodrubetz, and Sharon
Roth for providing strains and plasmids, and Patrick Grant, Wolfram
Hörz, and Jerry Workman for communicating unpublished results.
P.E. was supported by a fellowship from the Swedish Foundation for
International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education. This work
was supported by grants from the NIH awarded to D.J.S.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Oncological Sciences, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, 50 N. Medical Dr., Room 5C334 SOM, Salt Lake City, UT 84132. Phone: (801)
581-5429. Fax: (801) 581-3607. E-mail:
stillman{at}hci.utah.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Baxter, B. K., and E. A. Craig.
1998.
Suppression of an Hsp70 mutant phenotype in Saccharomyces cerevisiae through loss of function of the chromatin component Sin1p/Spt2p.
J. Bacteriol.
180:6484-6492[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Belotserkovskaya, R.,
D. E. Sterner,
M. Deng,
M. H. Sayre,
P. M. Lieberman, and S. L. Berger.
2000.
Inhibition of TATA-binding protein function by SAGA subunits Spt3 and Spt8 at Gcn4-activated promoters.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20:634-647[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 3.
|
Bhoite, L. T., and D. J. Stillman.
1998.
Residues in the Swi5 zinc finger protein that mediate cooperative DNA binding with the Pho2 homeodomain protein.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:6436-6446[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Bianchi, M. E.,
M. Beltrame, and G. Paonessa.
1989.
Specific recognition of cruciform DNA by nuclear protein HMG1.
Science
243:1056-1059[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Björklund, S.,
G. Almouzni,
I. Davidson,
K. P. Nightingale, and K. Weiss.
1999.
Global transcription regulators of eukaryotes.
Cell
96:759-767[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Brazas, R. M., and D. J. Stillman.
1993.
The Swi5 zinc finger and the Grf10 homeodomain proteins bind DNA cooperatively at the yeast HO promoter.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
90:11237-11241[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 7.
|
Breeden, L., and K. Nasmyth.
1987.
Cell cycle control of the yeast HO gene: cis- and trans-acting regulators.
Cell
48:389-397[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Bustin, M., and R. Reeves.
1996.
High-mobility-group chromosomal proteins: architectural components that facilitate chromatin function.
Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol.
54:35-100[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Carlson, M.
1997.
Genetics of transcriptional regulation in yeast: connections to the RNA polymerase II CTD.
Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.
13:1-23[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Chávez, S., and A. Aguilera.
1997.
The yeast HPR1 gene has a functional role in transcriptional elongation that uncovers a novel source of genome instability.
Genes Dev.
11:3459-3470[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
Chen, S.,
R. W. J. West,
S. L. Johnston,
H. Gans, and J. Ma.
1993.
TSF3, a global regulatory protein that silences transcription of yeast GAL genes, also mediates repression by 2 repressor and is identical to SIN4.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13:831-840[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 12.
|
Cosma, M. P.,
T. Tanaka, and K. Nasmyth.
1999.
Ordered recruitment of transcription and chromatin remodeling factors to a cell cycle- and developmentally regulated promoter.
Cell
97:299-311[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Costigan, C.,
D. Kolodrubetz, and M. Snyder.
1994.
NHP6A and NHP6B, which encode HMG1-like proteins, are candidates for downstream components of the yeast SLT2 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
14:2391-2403[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 14.
|
Covitz, P. A.,
W. Song, and A. P. Mitchell.
1994.
Requirement for RGR1 and SIN4 in RME1-dependent repression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Genetics
138:577-586[Abstract].
|
| 15.
|
Deckert, J.,
A. M. Rodriguez Torres,
J. T. Simon, and R. S. Zitomer.
1995.
Mutational analysis of Rox1, a DNA-bending repressor of hypoxic genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15:6109-6117[Abstract].
|
| 16.
|
Friesen, H.,
J. C. Tanny, and J. Segall.
1998.
Spe3, which encodes spermidine synthase, is required for full repression through NRE(DIT) in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Genetics
150:59-73[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 17.
|
Gietz, R. D., and A. Sugino.
1988.
New yeast-Escherichia coli shuttle vectors constructed with in vitro mutagenized yeast genes lacking six-base pair restriction sites.
Gene
74:527-534[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Grant, P. A.,
L. Duggan,
J. Cote,
S. M. Roberts,
J. E. Brownell,
R. Candau,
R. Ohba,
T. Owen-Hughes,
C. D. Allis,
F. Winston,
S. L. Berger, and J. L. Workman.
1997.
Yeast Gcn5 functions in two multisubunit complexes to acetylate nucleosomal histones: characterization of an Ada complex and the SAGA (Spt/Ada) complex.
Genes Dev.
11:1640-1650[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Guarente, L.
1993.
Synthetic enhancement in gene interaction: a tool come of age.
Trends Genet.
9:362-366[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 20.
|
Hampsey, M.
1998.
Molecular genetics of the RNA polymerase II general transcriptional machinery.
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
62:465-503[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Harashima, S.,
T. Mizuno,
H. Mabuchi,
S. Yoshimitsu,
R. Ramesh,
M. Hasebe,
A. Tanaka, and Y. Oshima.
1995.
Mutations causing high basal level transcription that is independent of transcriptional activators but dependent on chromosomal position in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Mol. Gen. Genet.
247:716-725[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Herskowitz, I.,
B. Andrews,
W. Kruger,
J. Ogas,
A. Sil,
C. Coburn, and C. Peterson.
1992.
Integration of multiple regulatory inputs in the control of HO expression in yeast, p. 949-974.
In
S. L. McKnight, and K. R. Yamamoto (ed.), Transcriptional regulation. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Plainview, N.Y.
|
| 23.
|
Jiang, Y. W.,
P. R. Dohrmann, and D. J. Stillman.
1995.
Genetic and physical interactions between yeast RGR1 and SIN4 in chromatin organization and transcriptional regulation.
Genetics
140:47-54[Abstract].
|
| 24.
|
Jiang, Y. W., and D. J. Stillman.
1992.
Involvement of the SIN4 global transcriptional regulator in the chromatin structure of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
12:4503-4514[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 25.
|
Kadonaga, J. T.
1998.
Eukaryotic transcription: an interlaced network of transcription factors and chromatin-modifying machines.
Cell
92:307-313[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 26.
|
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].
|
| 27.
|
Kasten, M. M.,
S. Dorland, and D. J. Stillman.
1997.
A large protein complex containing the Sin3p and Rpd3p transcriptional regulators.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16:4215-4221[Abstract].
|
| 28.
|
Kingston, R. E.,
C. A. Bunker, and A. N. Imbalzano.
1996.
Repression and activation by multiprotein complexes that alter chromatin structure.
Genes Dev.
10:905-920[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 29.
|
Kolodrubetz, D., and A. Burgum.
1990.
Duplicated NHP6 genes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae encode proteins homologous to bovine high mobility group protein 1.
J. Biol. Chem.
265:3234-3239[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 30.
|
Krebs, J. E.,
M. H. Kuo,
C. D. Allis, and C. L. Peterson.
1999.
Cell cycle-regulated histone acetylation required for expression of the yeast HO gene.
Genes Dev.
13:1412-1421[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 31.
|
Kruger, W., and I. Herskowitz.
1991.
A negative regulator of HO transcription, SIN1 (SPT2), is a nonspecific DNA-binding protein related to HMG1.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
11:4135-4156[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 32.
|
Li, Y.,
S. Bjorklund,
Y. W. Jiang,
Y. J. Kim,
W. S. Lane,
D. J. Stillman, and R. D. Kornberg.
1995.
Yeast global transcriptional repressors Sin4 and Rgr1 are components of mediator complex/RNA polymerase II holoenzyme.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
92:10864-10868[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 33.
|
Macatee, T.,
Y. W. Jiang,
D. J. Stillman, and S. Y. Roth.
1997.
Global alterations in chromatin accessibility associated with loss of SIN4 function.
Nucleic Acids Res.
25:1240-1248[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 34.
|
McBride, H. J.,
R. M. Brazas,
Y. Yu,
K. Nasmyth, and D. J. Stillman.
1997.
Long range interactions at the HO promoter.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17:2669-2678[Abstract].
|
| 35.
|
Myers, L. C.,
C. M. Gustafsson,
D. A. Bushnell,
M. Lui,
H. Erdjument-Bromage,
P. Tempst, and R. D. Kornberg.
1998.
The Med proteins of yeast and their function through the RNA polymerase II carboxy-terminal domain.
Genes Dev.
12:45-54[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 36.
|
Nasmyth, K.
1983.
Molecular analysis of a cell lineage.
Nature
302:670-676[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 37.
|
Nasmyth, K.
1993.
Regulating the HO endonuclease in yeast.
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
3:286-294[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 38.
|
Nasmyth, K.,
D. Stillman, and D. Kipling.
1987.
Both positive and negative regulators of HO transcription are required for mother-cell-specific mating-type switching in yeast.
Cell
48:579-587[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 39.
|
Paull, T. T.,
M. Carey, and R. C. Johnson.
1996.
Yeast HMG proteins NHP6A/B potentiate promoter-specific transcriptional activation in vivo and assembly of preinitiation complexes in vitro.
Genes Dev.
10:2769-2781[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 40.
|
Paull, T. T., and R. C. Johnson.
1995.
DNA looping by Saccharomyces cerevisiae high mobility group proteins NHP6A/B. Consequences for nucleoprotein complex assembly and chromatin condensation.
J. Biol. Chem.
270:8744-8754[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 41.
|
Pérez-Martín, J., and A. D. Johnson.
1998.
Mutations in chromatin components suppress a defect of Gcn5 protein in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:1049-1054[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 42.
|
Peterson, C. L.,
W. Kruger, and I. Herskowitz.
1991.
A functional interaction between the C-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II and the negative regulator SIN1.
Cell
64:1135-1143[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 43.
|
Pollard, K. J., and C. L. Peterson.
1997.
Role for ADA/GCN5 products in antagonizing chromatin-mediated transcriptional repression.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17:6212-6222[Abstract].
|
| 44.
|
Roberts, S. M., and F. Winston.
1997.
Essential functional interactions of SAGA, a Saccharomyces cerevisiae complex of Spt, Ada, and Gcn5 proteins, with the Snf/Swi and Srb/mediator complexes.
Genetics
147:451-465[Abstract].
|
| 45.
|
Rothstein, R.
1991.
Targeting, disruption, replacement, and allele rescue: integrative DNA transformation in yeast.
Methods Enzymol.
194:281-302[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 46.
|
Sherman, F.
1991.
Getting started with yeast.
Methods Enzymol.
194:1-21[Medline].
|
| 47.
|
Sidorova, J., and L. Breeden.
1999.
The MSN1 and NHP6A genes suppress SWI6 defects in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Genetics
151:45-55[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 48.
|
Sikorski, R. S., and P. Hieter.
1989.
A system of shuttle vectors and yeast host strains designed for efficient manipulation of DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Genetics
122:19-27[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 49.
|
Simchen, G.,
F. Winston,
C. A. Styles, and G. R. Fink.
1984.
Ty-mediated gene expression of the LYS2 and HIS4 genes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae is controlled by the same SPT genes.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
81:2431-2434[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 50.
|
Song, W.,
I. Treich,
N. Qian,
S. Kuchin, and M. Carlson.
1996.
SSN genes that affect transcriptional repression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae encode SIN4, ROX3, and SRB proteins associated with RNA polymerase II.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16:115-120[Abstract].
|
| 51.
|
Sternberg, P. W.,
M. J. Stern,
I. Clark, and I. Herskowitz.
1987.
Activation of the yeast HO gene by release from multiple negative controls.
Cell
48:567-577[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 52.
|
Sterner, D. E.,
P. A. Grant,
S. M. Roberts,
L. J. Duggan,
R. Belotserkovskaya,
L. A. Pacella,
F. Winston,
J. L. Workman, and S. L. Berger.
1999.
Functional organization of the yeast SAGA complex: distinct components involved in structural integrity, nucleosome acetylation, and TATA-binding protein interaction.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19:86-98[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 53.
|
Stillman, D. J.,
S. Dorland, and Y. Yu.
1994.
Epistasis analysis of suppressor mutations that allow HO expression in the absence of the yeast SWI5 transcriptional activator.
Genetics
136:781-788[Abstract].
|
| 54.
|
Struhl, K.
1998.
Histone acetylation and transcriptional regulatory mechanisms.
Genes Dev.
12:599-606[Free Full Text].
|
| 55.
|
Thomas, B. J., and R. Rothstein.
1989.
Elevated recombination rates in transcriptionally active DNA.
Cell
56:619-630[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 56.
|
Wahi, M., and A. D. Johnson.
1995.
Identification of genes required for 2 repression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Genetics
140:79-90[Abstract].
|
| 57.
|
Wang, H.,
I. Clark,
P. R. Nicholson,
I. Herskowitz, and D. J. Stillman.
1990.
The Saccharomyces cerevisiae SIN3 gene, a negative regulator of HO, contains four paired amphipathic helix motifs.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
10:5927-5936[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 58.
|
Werner, M. H., and S. K. Burley.
1997.
Architectural transcription factors: proteins that remodel DNA.
Cell
88:733-736[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 59.
|
Wolffe, A. P., and D. Pruss.
1996.
Targeting chromatin disruption: transcription regulators that acetylate histones.
Cell
84:817-819[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 60.
|
Zhu, Y.,
C. L. Peterson, and M. F. Christman.
1995.
HPR1 encodes a global positive regulator of transcription in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15:1698-1708[Abstract].
|
Molecular and Cellular Biology, April 2000, p. 2350-2357, Vol. 20, No. 7
0270-7306/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Biddick, R. K., Law, G. L., Chin, K. K. B., Young, E. T.
(2008). The Transcriptional Coactivators SAGA, SWI/SNF, and Mediator Make Distinct Contributions to Activation of Glucose-repressed Genes. J. Biol. Chem.
283: 33101-33109
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Biswas, D., Takahata, S., Stillman, D. J.
(2008). Different Genetic Functions for the Rpd3(L) and Rpd3(S) Complexes Suggest Competition between NuA4 and Rpd3(S). Mol. Cell. Biol.
28: 4445-4458
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Ashe, M., de Bruin, R. A. M., Kalashnikova, T., McDonald, W. H., Yates, J. R. III, Wittenberg, C.
(2008). The SBF- and MBF-associated Protein Msa1 Is Required for Proper Timing of G1-specific Transcription in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biol. Chem.
283: 6040-6049
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Guha, N., Desai, P., Vancura, A.
(2007). Plc1p Is Required for SAGA Recruitment and Derepression of Sko1p-regulated Genes. Mol. Biol. Cell
18: 2419-2428
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Kim, S., Wolyniak, M. J., Staab, J. F., Sundstrom, P.
(2007). A 368-Base-Pair cis-Acting HWP1 Promoter Region, HCR, of Candida albicans Confers Hypha-Specific Gene Regulation and Binds Architectural Transcription Factors Nhp6 and Gcf1p. Eukaryot Cell
6: 693-709
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Mitra, D., Parnell, E. J., Landon, J. W., Yu, Y., Stillman, D. J.
(2006). SWI/SNF Binding to the HO Promoter Requires Histone Acetylation and Stimulates TATA-Binding Protein Recruitment.. Mol. Cell. Biol.
26: 4095-4110
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Nourani, A., Robert, F., Winston, F.
(2006). Evidence that Spt2/Sin1, an HMG-Like Factor, Plays Roles in Transcription Elongation, Chromatin Structure, and Genome Stability in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol.
26: 1496-1509
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Biswas, D., Yu, Y., Mitra, D., Stillman, D. J.
(2006). Genetic Interactions Between Nhp6 and Gcn5 With Mot1 and the Ccr4-Not Complex That Regulate Binding of TATA-Binding Protein in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics
172: 837-849
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Ragab, A., Thompson, E. C., Travers, A. A.
(2006). High Mobility Group Proteins HMGD and HMGZ Interact Genetically With the Brahma Chromatin Remodeling Complex in Drosophila. Genetics
172: 1069-1078
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Biswas, D., Yu, Y., Prall, M., Formosa, T., Stillman, D. J.
(2005). The Yeast FACT Complex Has a Role in Transcriptional Initiation. Mol. Cell. Biol.
25: 5812-5822
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Wang, X., Michels, C. A.
(2004). Mutations in SIN4 and RGR1 Cause Constitutive Expression of MAL Structural Genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics
168: 747-757
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Zhang, Z., Reese, J. C.
(2004). Redundant Mechanisms Are Used by Ssn6-Tup1 in Repressing Chromosomal Gene Transcription in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biol. Chem.
279: 39240-39250
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Biswas, D., Imbalzano, A. N., Eriksson, P., Yu, Y., Stillman, D. J.
(2004). Role for Nhp6, Gcn5, and the Swi/Snf Complex in Stimulating Formation of the TATA-Binding Protein-TFIIA-DNA Complex. Mol. Cell. Biol.
24: 8312-8321
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Eriksson, P., Biswas, D., Yu, Y., Stewart, J. M., Stillman, D. J.
(2004). TATA-Binding Protein Mutants That Are Lethal in the Absence of the Nhp6 High-Mobility-Group Protein. Mol. Cell. Biol.
24: 6419-6429
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Rhoades, A. R., Ruone, S., Formosa, T.
(2004). Structural Features of Nucleosomes Reorganized by Yeast FACT and Its HMG Box Component, Nhp6. Mol. Cell. Biol.
24: 3907-3917
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Ruone, S., Rhoades, A. R., Formosa, T.
(2003). Multiple Nhp6 Molecules Are Required to Recruit Spt16-Pob3 to Form yFACT Complexes and to Reorganize Nucleosomes. J. Biol. Chem.
278: 45288-45295
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Yu, Y., Eriksson, P., Bhoite, L. T., Stillman, D. J.
(2003). Regulation of TATA-Binding Protein Binding by the SAGA Complex and the Nhp6 High-Mobility Group Protein. Mol. Cell. Biol.
23: 1910-1921
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Formosa, T., Ruone, S., Adams, M. D., Olsen, A. E., Eriksson, P., Yu, Y., Rhoades, A. R., Kaufman, P. D., Stillman, D. J.
(2002). Defects in SPT16 or POB3 (yFACT) in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Cause Dependence on the Hir/Hpc Pathway: Polymerase Passage May Degrade Chromatin Structure. Genetics
162: 1557-1571
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Katan-Khaykovich, Y., Struhl, K.
(2002). Dynamics of global histone acetylation and deacetylation in vivo: rapid restoration of normal histone acetylation status upon removal of activators and repressors. Genes Dev.
16: 743-752
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Howe, L., Auston, D., Grant, P., John, S., Cook, R. G., Workman, J. L., Pillus, L.
(2001). Histone H3 specific acetyltransferases are essential for cell cycle progression. Genes Dev.
15: 3144-3154
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Bhoite, L. T., Yu, Y., Stillman, D. J.
(2001). The Swi5 activator recruits the Mediator complex to the HO promoter without RNA polymerase II. Genes Dev.
15: 2457-2469
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Brewster, N. K., Johnston, G. C., Singer, R. A.
(2001). A Bipartite Yeast SSRP1 Analog Comprised of Pob3 and Nhp6 Proteins Modulates Transcription. Mol. Cell. Biol.
21: 3491-3502
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Sterner, D. E., Berger, S. L.
(2000). Acetylation of Histones and Transcription-Related Factors. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
64: 435-459
[Abstract]
[Full Text]