Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Molecular and Cellular Biology, March 2001, p. 1593-1602, Vol. 21, No. 5
Center for Gene Regulation, Department of
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania 168021;
Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 787422;
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
20892-18303; U.S. Army ERDEC SCBRD-RT,
Bioprocess Engineering Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen,
Maryland 21010-54244; and Department
of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138-20925
Received 29 September 2000/Returned for modification 30 October
2000/Accepted 6 December 2000
TFIID recognizes multiple sequence elements in the
hsp70 promoter of Drosophila. Here, we
investigate the function of sequences downstream from the TATA element.
A mutation in the initiator was identified that caused an eightfold
reduction in binding of TFIID and a fourfold reduction in transcription
in vitro. Another mutation in the +24 to +29 region was somewhat less
inhibitory, but a mutation in the +14 to +19 region had essentially no
effect. The normal promoter and the mutants in the initiator and the
+24 to +29 region were transformed into flies by P element-mediated transformation. The initiator mutation reduced expression an average of
twofold in adult flies, whereas the mutation in the +24 to +29 region
had essentially no effect. In contrast, a promoter combining the two
mutations was expressed an average of sixfold less than the wild type.
The results suggest that the initiator and the +24 to +29 region could
serve overlapping functions in vivo. Protein-DNA cross-linking was used
to identify which subunits of TFIID contact the +24 to +29 region and
the initiator. No specific subunits were found to cross-link to the +24
to +29 region. In contrast, the initiator cross-linked exclusively to
dTAF230. Remarkably, dTAF230 cross-links approximately 10 times more
efficiently to the nontranscribed strand than to the transcribed strand
at the initiator.
DNA sequences contributing to
transcription of protein-encoding genes can be separated into two
categories. Gene-specific regulatory sequences compose one category,
and they are typically situated at various distances upstream from the
transcription start site. These sequences are recognition elements for
a variety of transcriptional activators and repressors. These
regulatory elements play major roles in governing gene-specific
patterns of expression. The other category is located in the region
contacted by the basal transcription machinery. These sequences are
often referred to as the core promoter elements (38). The
best-characterized core promoter elements consist of a TATA box located
approximately 30 nucleotides upstream from the start site
(3), an initiator element located at the transcription
start site (37), and a downstream promoter element (DPE)
located approximately 30 nucleotides downstream from the transcription
start (17). All three regions are recognized by TFIID
(4, 10, 16, 29, 38). The TATA-binding protein (TBP)
subunit of TFIID recognizes the TATA box, whereas TBP-associated
factors (TAFs) appear to be responsible for the recognition of
sequences downstream from the TATA box (5, 41).
Numerous studies provide evidence that the core promoter elements could
be important in establishing specific patterns of gene expression. It
was observed that a Gal4-fusion protein containing the glutamine-rich
activation domains of Sp1 stimulated transcription from an
Inr-only core promoter, but not from a TATA-only core promoter
(9). The TdT gene has a promoter that lacks a
consensus TATA box. Insertion of a consensus TATA box upstream from the Inr increased the strength of transcription when the DNA was
transiently expressed in a T-cell line. Removing the initiator, but
leaving the TATA box, results in no expression. This result suggests
that the initiator is required for at least one of the activators of this promoter to function (12). The alcohol dehydrogenase
gene in Drosophila has two promoters. The distal promoter is
used primarily during early embryogenesis and in adults, whereas the
proximal promoter is used late in embryogenesis and during larval
development. In vitro transcription analyses suggest that the
preferential use of the distal promoter in early embryos depends in
part on TAF150 and the sequence at the Inr (15). More
recently, however, a repressor protein has been identified that binds
the initiator region of the proximal promoter, and this repressor is
thought to cause transcription to shift from the proximal to the distal promoter in adults (31). Promoter competition experiments
in which the ability of one enhancer to act on promoters placed on each
side of the enhancer was determined also demonstrate that various core
promoters can respond differently to an enhancer (27).
Chalkley and Verrijzer recently found that certain sequences placed in
the initiator region inhibit basal expression, but not activation by
Sp1 (6). If this situation occurs naturally, it could
significantly contribute to the degree of induction caused by an
activator. Finally, sequence and biochemical analyses indicate that
sequences in the region 30 nucleotides downstream from the transcription start may be important for expression of a wide spectrum
of genes (17).
A missing-nucleoside analysis provided evidence that TFIID makes
specific contact with at least four regions of the hsp70 promoter of Drosophila: the TATA box, the initiator,
position +18, and position +28 (29). Here, we set out to
determine what contribution the regions downstream from the TATA box
make towards expression from the hsp70 promoter in
Drosophila. The hsp70 promoter is rapidly induced
in response to heat shock (20). We have mutated specific
sites contacted by TFIID and used P element-mediated transformation to
analyze the effects of the mutations on expression in a normal
chromosomal context. UV cross-linking was used to identify which
subunits of TFIID are likely to recognize the downstream elements, and
DNase I footprinting was used to further explore the nature of the
TFIID interaction downstream from the transcription start.
Plasmids and construction of the mutants.
The
hsp70 promoter spanning
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.5.1593-1602.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Analysis of Core Promoter Sequences Located
Downstream from the TATA Element in the hsp70 Promoter
from Drosophila melanogaster
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
194 to +84 was used for this
study. The mutant clones were constructed with the Clontech
site-directed mutagenesis kit according to the manufacturer's
instructions. The different mutations (underlined) were produced
with the primers described below:
galactosidase. A
schematic of the region that is transposed into the genome is provided
in Fig. 2.
In vitro transcription. Nuclear extracts were prepared from Drosophila embryos as described by Biggin and Tjian (2). In vitro transcription reactions were carried out with 40-µl reaction volumes containing 50 mM KCl, 50 mM HEPES (pH 7.6), 6.25 mM MgCl2, 5% glycerol, 0.5 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), 10 µl of nuclear extract, 10 ng of supercoiled hsp70 DNA template, 1 µg of HaeIII-cut Escherichia coli DNA, and 0.3 mM nucleoside triphosphates (NTPs). The reaction mixture was incubated at 21°C for 25 min, and transcription was stopped with 80 µl of stop buffer (20 mM EDTA [pH 8.0], 0.2 M NaCl, 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate [SDS], 0.25 mg of yeast tRNA per ml, 0.1 mg of proteinase K per ml). After proteinase K digestion at 42°C for 30 min, the reaction mixture was extracted once with 100 µl of a phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol mixture (25:24:1 ratio), and the RNA was precipitated with ethanol.
The RNA was dissolved in 10 µl of annealing mixture consisting of 2 mM Tris-Cl (pH 7.8), 0.2 mM EDTA, 250 mM KCl, and 0.03 pmol of radioactive primer. The mixture was heated to 75°C and allowed to cool to 37°C. Forty microliters of reverse transcriptase mixture containing 62.5 mM Tris-Cl (pH 8.3), 30 mM MgCl2, 12.5 mM DTT, 62.5 µM dNTPs, and 15 U of Moloney murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase (RNase H
) (Promega) was added, and the mixture
was incubated at 37°C for 1 h. The nucleic acid was ethanol precipitated and analyzed on an 8% denaturing polyacrylamide gel. The
gel was then quantified on a Molecular Dynamics PhosphorImager.
DNA binding analysis with immunoprecipitated TFIID.
Nuclear
extracts were prepared from Drosophila embryos and
fractionated over a DEAE column as previously described
(30). For the experiments shown in Fig.
1B, 4, and 5, the DEAE fraction was
fractionated further on phosphocellulose. TFIIDs immunoprecipitated from the DEAE fraction or the phosphocellulose fractions have the same
polypeptide composition, as detected by SDS-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis (PAGE), and produce the same DNase I footprints and
patterns of cross-linking to dTAF150 and dTAF230.
|
UV cross-linking analysis.
Radiolabeled DNA was prepared by
pulse-chase primer elongation on a single-stranded M13 phage DNA
template (14). The following primers were used to generate
DNA fragments selectively labeled in small regions (the NruI
and PvuII sites are underlined):
59 to
2 of the
nontranscribed strand,
5'GAATGTTCGCGAAAAGAGCGCCGGAGTATAAATAGAGGCGCTTCGTCTACGGAGCGACA3'; +74 to +4 of the transcribed strand,
5'CTTGTTCAGCTGCGCTTGTTTATTTGCTTAGCTTTCGCTTAGCGACGTGTTCACTTTGCTTGTTTGAATTG3'; +72 to +30 of the transcribed strand,
5'TGTTCAGCTGCGCTTGTTTATTTGCTTAGCTTTCGCTTAGCGA3'; and +71 to +43 of the transcribed strand,
5'GTTCAGCTGCGCTTGTTTATTTGCTTAGC3'. Three
picomoles of oligonucleotide primer was annealed to 1 pmol of
single-stranded hsp70-M13 DNA for 2 h at 37°C in 7.5 µl of a
mixture containing 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8), 1 mM EDTA, and 40 mM NaCl.
Limited extensions were carried out by adding 1.5 µl of 0.1 M
Tris-HCl (pH 8), 0.1 M MgCl2, 1.5 µl of 100 mM
DTT, 1 µl of 0.1 mM bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU), and 1 µl of 1 mM dGTP
or dCTP or by adding 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8), 1 mM EDTA; 2 µl of
[
-32P]dCTP,
[
-32P]dGTP, or
[
-32P]dATP (3,000 Ci/mmol, 25 mCi/ml); and
0.5 µl of Klenow fragment (2.5 U). Incubation was carried out for 10 min at 37°C. After the pulse, all four nucleotide triphosphates were
added to allow unlimited extension for another 15 min. The reaction was
stopped by heating at 65oC for 15 min. The
resulting double-stranded hsp70 promoters were excised as
PvuII-NruI restriction fragments and isolated on
an 8% polyacrylamide gel. Purified DNA fragments were bound to
immunoprecipitated TFIID.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Mutation of the initiator or the +24 to +29 region
debilitates promoter functions in vitro.
Previously, we had
identified a high-affinity consensus element for TFIID in the region of
the transcription start site by using the selected and amplified
binding (SAAB) procedure (29). Sequencing of another 10 clones from this earlier study refined our consensus to the sequence
(
3)G/A/T, T/C, A, G/T, T, G/A/T/C(+3). Visual inspection of the
selected sequences suggested that certain nucleotides at particular
positions might inhibit TFIID binding. For example, a C at position
3 and an A at position
2 only appeared once in the 20 clones that
were sequenced. After careful consideration of the sequences, we
mutated the initiator region to CACCC as a possible candidate for
inhibiting TFIID binding (Fig. 1A). Such a mutation does not fit our
consensus in any of the positions from
3 to +3. To test if this
mutation inhibited TFIID binding, a relative measure of TFIID
affinities for various DNA fragments was determined by incubating a
mixture of DNA fragments with TFIID that had been immunoprecipitated
with TBP antibody. The relative amounts of various fragments bound to
the immobilized TFIID were compared to the amount in the initial
mixture of fragments (Fig. 1B, lanes 1 and 2). The fragment
corresponding to the initiator mutant was depleted eightfold relative
to the fragment corresponding to the normal promoter. Fragments
corresponding to a part of the pUC cloning vector or a TATA deletion
were depleted even more.
<10% of the input radioactive DNA associates with the
immobilized TFIID. Changing the amount of E. coli DNA
(10) or the amount of TFIID (22) does not
change the relative amount of each fragment that binds to the TFIID.
We next determined if the mutations affected transcription in vitro.
The various hsp70 promoters were transcribed in nuclear extracts from Drosophila embryos, and the level of
transcription in vitro from the different hsp70 mutants was
measured by primer extension analysis. The primer anneals to the region
located 110 nucleotides downstream from the transcription start of the
test promoters (Fig. 1C, test). A truncated version of the normal
promoter was used as an internal control (Fig. 1C, control). The
transcription levels of the Inr and +24/+29 mutants were found to be
decreased by fourfold. In contrast, the +14/+19 mutation decreased
transcription by 25%.
Mutation in the initiator alone inhibits expression in vivo, but a
double mutation is required to observe a contribution by the +24/+29
region.
Having identified mutations in the initiator and the
+24/+29 region that debilitated the promoter in vitro, we wanted to
investigate what effect these mutations would have on expression in
vivo. P element-mediated transformation was used to generate transgenic flies containing the normal or mutant promoters (33). This
experimental approach would allow us to analyze the effects of the
mutations in a chromosomal context. The promoters were inserted
upstream from a
-galactosidase reporter gene (Fig.
2). We also generated transgenic flies
that contained an hsp70 promoter lacking the TATA element to
serve as a negative control. This deletion removes 20 nucleotides
encompassing the TATA element. Previous work had indicated that this
deletion rendered the promoter inactive both in vitro and in vivo
(10, 13, 42). Eight wild-type, seven initiator mutant, and
seven +24/+29 mutant lines were obtained. Southern blotting analysis
indicated that the lines contained single-copy inserts located at
different positions in the genome. Following heat shock treatment, all
of the wild-type, initiator mutant, and +24/+29 mutant lines expressed
galactosidase at levels greater than those of the TATA deletions,
indicating that most of the
-galactosidase detected was due to
transcription from the hsp70 promoter. On average, the Inr
mutant promoter was expressed at approximately one-half the level of
the normal promoter, and the majority of the Inr mutant lines expressed
-galactosidase at levels lower than the majority of wild-type lines
(Fig. 2). The +24/+29 mutation had little effect, because the majority
of the +24/+29 mutant lines expressed
-galactosidase at levels
comparable to those of the majority of wild-type lines.
|
Cross-linking reveals that TAF230 is in close proximity to the
initiator.
We wanted to identify which subunits of TFIID might be
responsible for recognizing the initiator and the region from +24 to +29. DNA fragments were synthesized that contained radionucleotides and
BrdU in selected regions (Fig. 3A). Each
fragment was incubated with TFIID immobilized by a monoclonal antibody
against dTAF230. The immobilized complexes were irradiated with
long-wavelength UV light to induce cross-links, and then the DNA was
degraded with DNase I. The resulting polypeptides were separated by
SDS-PAGE, and radioactively tagged polypeptides were identified. When
radioactivity was incorporated into the nontranscribed strand in the
initiator, there was strong labeling of several large polypeptides
(Fig. 3B, lane 1). Western blot analysis showed that the large
polypeptides comigrated with dTAF230 (Fig. 3D). Presumably the largest
fragment is intact dTAF230, whereas the smaller fragments are
proteolytic breakdown products. Interestingly, dTAF230 was only
weakly labeled when the radioactivity was incorporated into the
transcribed strand of the initiator (Fig. 3C, compare lanes 1 and 2).
When the radioactivity was incorporated elsewhere in the fragment, a
different pattern of polypeptides was observed. Incorporation into the
+24 to +27 region failed to consistently label any polypeptides (Fig.
3B, lane 2). We also analyzed contacts in the region from +35 to +42, since previous analyses of a crude preparation of TFIID had shown that
a 150-kDa polypeptide cross-linked to this region (39). In
accord with this earlier work, dTAF150 was strongly labeled, whereas
dTAF230 was weakly labeled (Fig. 3B, lane 3). The identity of dTAF150
was determined by doing a Western blot analysis with antibody against
dTAF150 (data not shown). The labeling of each of the polypeptides in
Fig. 3 is due to specific binding, since deletion of the TATA element
from the fragments results in no labeling of any of these polypeptides
(data not shown). Specificity is also indicated by the variation in the
pattern of labeled polypeptides that resulted when the radiolabel was
placed in different locations in the DNA.
|
44 to +35 (Fig. 4, lane 4). This footprint was indistinguishable from the footprint produced by a less
pure, soluble form of TFIID (10, 14) or by TFIID that had
been immobilized with antibody against TBP (Fig. 4, lane 2). The good
agreement between footprinting and cross-linking data for crude and
immobilized TFIID indicates that the immobilization strategy does not
disturb the interaction between TFIID and the hsp70 promoter
DNA.
|
DNase I footprinting analysis of complexes formed between TFIID and various 3' deletions of the hsp70 promoter. As shown in Fig. 4, TFIID makes extensive contact with DNA downstream from the transcription start site. In some situations, this downstream contact seems to be dependent on the presence of upstream activators, and the extended contact correlates with activated transcription (7, 8). We wondered if the extended contact of TFIID with the hsp70 promoter required specific sequences located downstream from the transcription start, since the results could bear on the failure of our +24/+29 mutation to affect expression in vivo.
We examined the interaction between TFIID and a series of 3' deletions, since these deletions had previously been shown to inhibit TFIID binding, and the effect of some of these deletions exceeded the impact that our +24/+29 mutation had on binding (10). These deletions placed sequences from the cloning vector downstream from the 3' deletion endpoint. The end-labeled promoter fragments were allowed to bind immobilized TFIID. Unbound DNA was washed away, and the remaining material was subjected to DNase I. Equal amounts of radioactive material from each bound fraction were analyzed on the gel. Note that the deletions extending to +23, +18, +10, or
3 reduce the
affinity of the fragments for TFIID (10), but the unbound
material has been washed away. Hence, the DNase I footprinting is being
performed on DNA adhering to the beads via specific interaction with
TFIID or via other nonspecific interactions, as appears to be the case
for the
3 deletion.
Figure 5 shows the results of the
analysis. A large footprint spanning
44 to +35 is clearly evident on
fragments containing hsp70 sequences from
194 to +84 or
+39. TFIID also clearly footprints over the vector sequences associated
with the +23 and +18 deletions. The +10 deletion also shows evidence of
downstream contact, although the degree of protection is less complete.
There is very little evidence of protection on the
3 deletion,
suggesting that much of this DNA is adhering nonspecifically to the
immobilized TFIID or to the beads. We conclude that TFIID is able to
make extensive contact with the downstream region of the
hsp70 promoter, even after the sequence in the downstream
region has been significantly altered. This interaction is not
dependent on the activator and could help explain why a small mutation
such as the +24/+29 mutation had no impact on expression in flies.
|
3 mutant. This
hypersensitivity suggests that TFIID makes contact with the DNA beyond
+35. This contact might be due to TAF150, which was found to cross-link
to the region encompassing +35 to +42 (Fig. 3B, lane 3).
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We have investigated the functions of two regions situated downstream from the TATA element in the hsp70 promoter that are recognized by TFIID. Although the functions of sequences corresponding to this location in several genes have been investigated, the majority of these studies have been directed at TATA-less promoters. Most studies of both TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters have relied on either in vitro transcription or transient expression assays to assess the impact of mutation of sequence elements. Neither the in vitro transcription assay nor the transient expression assay ensures that the promoter function is being evaluated in a normal chromosomal context. In addition, many of the studies have not provided data directly assessing the relationship between these sequences and TFIID.
For the hsp70 promoter, it had already been shown that deletions in the region downstream from the TATA box reduced expression (18). We were interested in assessing the function of individual sequences that were recognized by TFIID. Mutations were directed at three regions based on chemical interference studies (29, 30). Two mutations were identified that reduced binding: one in the initiator and another located +24 to +29 nucleotides downstream from the transcription start site. A third mutation was made in the region from +14 to +19, but this had essentially no impact on TFIID binding. Unfortunately, there is little sequence information to guide design of the mutation in the +14 to +19 region, so we chose to focus on the other two mutations.
The use of P element-mediated transformation allowed us to assess the contribution of the initiator and +24 to +29 region when the promoter resides in the chromosome. One shortcoming of this approach is that the transposed DNA inserts randomly into the chromosome, and sequences flanking the insertion can affect the level of expression. We attempted to reduce the magnitude of this problem by placing the hsp70 promoter at least 3 kb from the DNA flanking the insertion. At present, techniques for targeted insertion of DNA into the Drosophila genome are not well established. Nevertheless, examination of numerous lines carrying the insertions in different locations provides a way to assess the function of specific elements in vivo (21).
Our results show that the individual mutations have only a modest impact on expression. The initiator mutation, which reduced binding of TFIID by eightfold, only reduced expression in vivo by an average of twofold. The +24 to +29 mutation had virtually no effect, despite the observation that this mutation did reduce TFIID binding and inhibited transcription in vitro. The double mutant reduces expression by an average of sixfold. We suggest that both of these elements contribute to expression and that one compensates for the absence of the other in vivo. It is clear from the DNase I footprinting analysis that TFIID can still contact the downstream region even when the sequences in the downstream region are drastically changed.
The modest impact of our individual mutations is in accord with two
other recent transgenic studies that have restricted their mutations to
small regions in the core promoter region. It was observed that
mutating the initiator in the
2-tubulin promoter caused a 25%
reduction in the tissue-specific expression of this promoter
(34). The mutation of a downstream region reduced
expression by 75% (threefold), and the combination of the two
mutations did not inhibit transcription to any greater extent. In
another study, mutation of the initiator element of the yellow gene was
found to cause a slight decrease in body pigment (25).
This indicates that the level of yellow gene expression has been
diminished, but the amount was not quantified.
An important point to emerge from the small number of transgenic
studies (including this work) is that individual sequences located at
the initiation site and further downstream can make rather modest
contributions to the level of expression when the genes are evaluated
in a chromosomal context. The results with the
2-tubulin gene are
particularly noteworthy, because this promoter lacks a TATA box. Thus,
one might anticipate that this promoter would be particularly sensitive
to mutations in the downstream region, and yet it is not.
The results of the transgenic studies with Drosophila are a
warning that the contributions of individual core promoter elements need to be evaluated in a chromosomal context to fully assess the
contribution of these elements to the function of normal promoters. In
this regard, it is worth noting that an early transgenic analysis of
the vermilion promoter in Drosophila showed that mutation of sequences from +19 to +36 reduced expression of this promoter by
100-fold (11). This promoter lacks a TATA element. Hence there are likely to exist cases in which the contribution of an individual element to expression could be quite large. Of course, even
if the contributions of individual core promoter sequences turn out to
be small, these contributions could have significant physiological
impact. For example, mutations in the promoter proximal region of the
adult
-globin gene might be the basis for two kinds of human
-thalassemia (19).
We sought to identify the subunits of TFIID that might be responsible for recognizing different regions of the promoter. Our cross-linking procedure failed to detect any candidates contacting the +24 to +27 region. Previous work by Burke and Kadonaga showed that dTAF60 and dTAF40 cross-linked to the downstream region of a TATA-less promoter (5). The cross-linking agent used in their study had a length of 10 Å, whereas our cross-linking agent (BrdU) has a length of 1 or 2 Å. It is possible that TAF40 and TAF60 are not in intimate contact with the bases in DNA. Another possibility is that the interaction between TFIID and the hsp70 promoter is different from the interaction that occurs with a TATA-less promoter. Our chemical interference data support this possibility (29, 30). Our data showed that TFIID makes intimate contact at nucleotide +28, yet this region does not contain a sequence that matches the consensus sequence for the downstream promoter element described by Kutach and Kadonaga (17).
The results of our cross-linking analysis indicate that the initiator is recognized by dTAF230. It was previously observed that human TAFs (hTAFs) 250 and 135 cross-linked to the initiator region when TFIID was bound to the adenovirus major late promoter in the presence of TFIIA (26). TFIIA copurifies with Drosophila TFIID (43), so we anticipate that our interaction should be similar. hTAF250 is the homologue of dTAF230. Some of the hTAF135 detected in the previous cross-linking experiments could correspond to dTAF150 (24). There are two distinct TAFs in human TFIID that comigrate at a position of 135 kDa, and only one of these appears to be functionally and structurally related to dTAF150. The previously reported cross-linking experiments were performed with a cross-linker with a length of 10 Å, so the question of which TAF is most likely responsible for directly contacting the initiator was left unanswered.
Recently a complex containing only dTAF150 and dTAF230, but neither TAF alone, was found to recognize the initiator sequence (6). Binding site selection analysis with this dimeric complex identifies an initiator consensus that matches well with the consensus we found for TFIID (29). This observation, in combination with our cross-linking data, suggests that dTAF230 is responsible for recognizing the initiator, and dTAF150 might stabilize DNA binding by making DNA contacts outside of the initiator. Alternatively, dTAF150 could induce a conformational change in dTAF230 that is necessary for dTAF230 to recognize the initiator. We favor the former possibility, because we observed dTAF150 making contact in the region 35 to 42 nucleotides downstream from the initiator. Mutations downstream from +33 do not affect the affinity of TFIID, suggesting that the contact of dTAF150 with DNA downstream from +35 is not dependent on the sequence (10).
An intriguing result from our cross-linking analysis is that dTAF230 preferentially cross-links to the nontranscribed strand of the initiator. This is not simply due to differences in the labeling of the nontranscribed strand and transcribed strand, since the modified region in the DNA is exactly the same: AATT. Moreover, we did not detect any difference in the amount of DNA binding to the immobilized TFIID, suggesting the incorporation of BrdU into either strand of the initiator does not interfere with the association of TFIID. The biased cross-linking of TAF230 with the nontranscribed strand might simply be a consequence of the spatial distribution of groups that are capable of participating in the photochemistry. However, the more interesting possibility is that this cross-linking is indicative of a strand-specific association of dTAF230. Thirty years ago, sigma 70 was found to cross-link preferentially to the nontranscribed strand in an RNA polymerase-promoter complex (28, 36). Subsequently, sigma 70 was found to recognize the nontranscribed strand of the Pribnow box (23, 32). It will be interesting to see if dTAF230 has a similar property.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank Kate Cilli and Chris Bell for assistance in generating plasmids and characterizing transformants. We thank Peter Verrijzer, Robert Weinzierl, and Robert Tjian for antibodies against TFIID.
This work was supported by Public Health Service grant GM47477 from the NIH.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Center for Gene Regulation, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. Phone: (814) 863-8905. Fax: (814) 863-7024. E-mail: dsg11{at}psu.edu.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Arkhipova, I. R. 1995. Promoter elements in Drosophila melanogaster revealed by sequence analysis. Genetics 139:1359-1369[Abstract]. |
| 2. | Biggin, M. D., and R. Tjian. 1988. Transcription factors that activate the Ultrabithorax promoter in developmentally staged extracts. Cell 53:699-711[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 3. | Breathnach, R., and P. Chambon. 1981. Organization and expression of eucaryotic split genes coding for proteins. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 50:349-383[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 4. |
Burke, T. W., and J. T. Kadonaga.
1996.
Drosophila TFIID binds to a conserved downstream basal promoter element that is present in many TATA-box-deficient promoters.
Genes Dev.
10:711-724 |
| 5. |
Burke, T. W., and J. T. Kadonaga.
1997.
The downstream core promoter element, DPE, is conserved from Drosophila to humans and is recognized by TAFII60 of Drosophila.
Genes Dev.
11:3020-3031 |
| 6. | Chalkley, G. E., and C. P. Verrijzer. 1999. DNA binding site selection by RNA polymerase II TAFs: a TAF(II)250-TAF(II)150 complex recognizes the Initiator. EMBO J. 18:4835-4845[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 7. |
Chi, T., and M. Carey.
1996.
Assembly of the isomerized TFIIA-TFIID-TATA ternary complex is necessary and sufficient for gene activation.
Genes Dev.
10:2540-2550 |
| 8. | Chi, T., P. Lieberman, K. Ellwood, and M. Carey. 1995. A general mechanism for transcriptional synergy by eukaryotic activators. Nature 377:254-257[Medline]. |
| 9. | Emami, K. H., W. W. Navarre, and S. T. Smale. 1995. Core promoter specificities of the Sp1 and VP16 transcriptional activation domains. Mol. Cell. Biol. 15:5906-5916[Abstract]. |
| 10. |
Emanuel, P. A., and D. S. Gilmour.
1993.
TFIID recognizes DNA sequences downstream of the TATA element in the hsp 70 heat shock gene.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
90:8449-8453 |
| 11. |
Fridell, Y.-W. C., and L. L. Searles.
1992.
In vivo transcriptional analysis of the TATA-less promoter of the Drosophila melanogaster vermillion gene.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
12:4571-4577 |
| 12. |
Garraway, I. P.,
K. Semple, and S. T. Smale.
1996.
Transcription of the lymphocyte-specific terminal deoxynucleotidyltransferase gene requires a specific core promoter structure.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
93:4336-4341 |
| 13. |
Gilmour, D. S.,
T. J. Dietz, and S. C. R. Elgin.
1988.
TATA box-dependent protein-DNA interactions are detected on heat shock and histone gene promoters in nuclear extracts derived from Drosophila melanogaster embryos.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
8:3204-3214 |
| 14. |
Gilmour, D. S.,
T. J. Dietz, and S. C. R. Elgin.
1990.
UV-cross-linking identifies four polypeptides that require the TATA box to bind to the Drosophila hsp70 promoter.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
10:4233-4238 |
| 15. | Hansen, S. K., and R. Tjian. 1995. TAFs and TFIIA mediate differential utilization of the tandem Adh promoters. Cell 82:565-575[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 16. |
Hernandez, N.
1993.
TBP, a universal eukaryotic transcription factor?
Genes Dev.
7:1291-1308 |
| 17. |
Kutach, A. K., and J. T. Kadonaga.
2000.
The downstream promoter element DPE appears to be as widely used as the TATA box in Drosophila core promoters.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20:4754-4764 |
| 18. | Lee, H., K. W. Kraus, M. F. Wolfner, and J. T. Lis. 1992. DNA sequence requirements for generating paused polymerase at the start of hsp70. Genes Dev. 60:284-295. |
| 19. |
Lewis, B. A.,
T. K. Kim, and S. H. Orkin.
2000.
A downstream element in the human beta-globin promoter: evidence of extended sequence-specific transcription factor IID contacts.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
97:7172-7177 |
| 20. | Lis, J. 1998. Promoter-associated pausing in promoter architecture and postinitiation transcriptional regulation. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 63:347-356[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 21. | Lu, Q., L. L. Wallrath, and S. C. R. Elgin. 1993. The use of Drosophila P-element mediated germline transformation to examine the chromatin structure and expression of in vitro modified genes. Methods Mol. Genet. 1:333-357. |
| 22. |
Lu, Q.,
L. L. Wallrath,
P. A. Emanuel,
S. C. R. Elgin, and D. S. Gilmour.
1994.
Insensitivity of the preset hsp26 chromatin structure to a TATA box mutation in Drosophila.
J. Biol. Chem.
269:15906-15911 |
| 23. |
Marr, M. T., and J. W. Roberts.
1997.
Promoter recognition as measured by binding of polymerase to nontemplate strand oligonucleotide.
Science
276:1258-1260 |
| 24. |
Martinez, E.,
H. Ge,
Y. Tao,
C.-X. Yuan,
V. Palhan, and R. G. Roeder.
1998.
Novel cofactors and TFIIA mediate functional core promoter selectivity by the human TAFII150-containing TFIID complex.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:6571-6583 |
| 25. |
Morris, J. R.,
P. K. Geyer, and C. T. Wu.
1999.
Core promoter elements can regulate transcription on a separate chromosome in trans.
Genes Dev.
13:253-258 |
| 26. | Oelgeschlager, T., C. M. Chiang, and R. G. Roeder. 1996. Topology and reorganization of a human TFIID-promoter complex. Nature 382:735-738[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 27. |
Ohtsuki, S.,
M. Levine, and H. N. Cai.
1998.
Different core promoters possess distinct regulatory activities in the Drosophila embryo.
Genes Dev
12:547-556 |
| 28. |
Park, C. S.,
Z. Hillel, and C. W. Wu.
1980.
DNA strand specificity in promoter recognition by RNA polymerase.
Nucleic Acids Res.
8:5895-5912 |
| 29. |
Purnell, B. A.,
P. A. Emanuel, and D. S. Gilmour.
1994.
TFIID sequence-recognition of the initiator and sequences further downstream in Drosophila class II genes.
Genes Dev.
8:830-842 |
| 30. |
Purnell, B. A., and D. S. Gilmour.
1993.
Contribution of sequences downstream of the TATA element to a protein/DNA complex containing the TATA-binding protein.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13:2593-2603 |
| 31. | Ren, B., and T. Maniatis. 1998. Regulation of Drosophila Adh promoter switching by an initiator-targeted repression mechanism. EMBO J. 17:1076-1086[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 32. | Roberts, C. W., and J. W. Roberts. 1996. Base-specific recognition of the nontemplate strand of promoter DNA by E. coli RNA polymerase. Cell 86:495-501[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 33. |
Rubin, G., and A. C. Spradling.
1982.
Genetic transformation of Drosophila with transposable element vectors.
Science
218:348-353 |
| 34. |
Santel, A.,
J. Kaufmann,
R. Hyland, and R. Renkawitz-Pohl.
2000.
The initiator element of the Drosophila beta2 tubulin gene core promoter contributes to gene expression in vivo but is not required for male germ-cell specific expression.
Nucleic Acids Res.
28:1439-1446 |
| 35. |
Simon, J. A., and J. T. Lis.
1987.
A germline transformation analysis reveals flexibility in the organization of heat shock consensus elements.
Nucleic Acids Res.
15:2971-2988 |
| 36. |
Simpson, R. B.
1979.
Contacts between Escherichia coli RNA polymerase and thymines in the lac UV5 promoter.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
76:3233-3237 |
| 37. | Smale, S. T. 1994. Core promoter architecture for eucaryotic protein-coding genes, p. 63-81. In R. C. Conaway, and J. W. Conaway (ed.), Transcription: mechanisms and regulation. Raven Press, Ltd., New York, N.Y. |
| 38. | Smale, S. T. 1997. Transcription initiation from TATA-less promoters within eukaryotic protein-coding genes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1351:73-88[Medline]. |
| 39. |
Sypes, M. A., and D. S. Gilmour.
1994.
Protein/DNA cross-linking of a TFIID complex reveals novel interactions downstream of the transcription start.
Nucleic Acids Res.
22:807-814 |
| 40. | Thummel, C. S., A. M. Boulet, and H. D. Lipshitz. 1988. Vectors for Drosophila P-element-mediated transformation and tissue culture transfection. Gene 74:445-456[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 41. | Verrijzer, C. P., J. L. Chen, K. Yokomori, and R. Tjian. 1995. Binding of TAFs to core elements directs promoter selectivity by RNA polymerase II. Cell 81:1115-1125[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 42. | Weber, J. A., D. J. Taxman, Q. Lu, and D. S. Gilmour. 1997. Molecular architecture of the hsp70 promoter after deleting the TATA box or the upstream regulatory region. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17:3799-3808[Abstract]. |
| 43. |
Yokomori, K.,
A. Admon,
J. A. Goodrich,
J.-L. Chen, and R. Tjian.
1993.
Drosophila TFIIA-L is processed into two subunits that are associated with the TBP/TAF complex.
Genes Dev.
7:2235-2245 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»