![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, December 2004, p. 10857-10867, Vol. 24, No. 24
0270-7306/04/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.24.24.10857-10867.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
Received 10 August 2004/ Returned for modification 30 August 2004/ Accepted 16 September 2004
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
How telomere structure is modulated by the telomeric DNA tract length and how length-dependent structural changes regulate the lengthening and shortening activities at the telomere are central but unresolved questions. Available data support the proposal that long telomeres assume an as-yet-unknown structural state that is inhibitory for telomerase-mediated telomere elongation, while short telomeres can undergo a structural change that results in either recruitment or activation of telomerase (4, 46). Physical models for higher-order telomere structure have been proposed. A "fold-back" model places the end of the telomere inward toward the subtelomeric region, preventing action by telomerase (11, 33, 45). In a related model, suggested by the clustering of telomeres at the nuclear periphery (17), telomere-telomere interactions restrict accessibility to telomerase. Another idea is based on T-loop DNA structures that have been isolated from human cell telomeres, in which the single-stranded 3' end of the telomeric DNA invades and base pairs with more internal telomeric repeat sequences (19).
Rap1p is implicated in regulating telomere length in yeast. Rap1p binds duplex telomeric DNA via its DNA binding domain (DBD) on average every 18 bp (15). Several lines of evidence had suggested that Rap1p (which is also an essential transcriptional regulator of many genes) is a direct negative regulator of telomere length. Overexpression of the C terminus of Rap1p lacking the DBD or introduction of extra telomeric DNA sequence on plasmids into yeast causes average telomere lengths to increase, consistent with titration of negative length regulators off telomeres (10, 39). Various rap1t alleles cause elongated telomeres, ranging from 
0.8 to 3 kb; these alleles encode mutant proteins that retain the Rap1p DBD and essential transcriptional functions, but lack the C-terminal domain, which interacts with other telomeric proteins (25). Disrupting the binding of Rap1p to telomeric DNA by introducing mutant telomeric repeats can also result in telomere elongation; for several such mutant telomeric sequences, the lengthening was proportional to their loss of Rap1p binding affinity in vitro (24, 37). Finally, targeting the C-terminal domain of Rap1p to the immediate subtelomere (i.e., immediately adjacent to the telomeric repeat sequence) as a Gal4p DBD fusion causes telomere shortening proportional to the number of tethered Rap1p C termini (32). Hence a Rap1p C-terminus counting model was proposed to explain how Rap1p negatively regulates telomere length. By this model, the property of a telomere that is sensed is not the length per se of its telomeric DNA, but rather the number of Rap1p C termini bound to it, which would serve as a readout of telomere length.
Length sensing and regulation are likely intimately related to the telomere structure formed by Rap1p and associated proteins bound to telomeric DNA. In vitro, Rap1p bends telomeric DNA (35, 49), implying that Rap1p molecules bound along a series of successive binding sites will fold the DNA into an overall trajectory of as-yet-unknown form. The importance of telomere structure for length regulation is highlighted by the observation that the spacing between consecutive Rap1p binding sites determines whether or not those sites are "seen" by the Rap1p counting mechanism; while 15/20-, 22-, and 27-bp spacings are counted, 17- and 31-bp spacings are not (20). Additionally, placing a 138-bp stretch of nontelomeric DNA between consensus Rap1p binding sites disrupts such Rap1p counting (38).
In yeast two-hybrid experiments, Rif1p and Rif2p interact with the C terminus of Rap1p and with each other (21, 50). Like Rap1p, both Rif proteins localize to yeast telomeres by a one-hybrid assay (5) and by chromatin immunoprecipitation (29, 43). Also like Rap1p, Rif1p and Rif2p negatively regulate telomere length; telomeres in rif1
strains lengthen to 0.5 to 1 kb and those in rif2 strains lengthen to 0.35 to 0.5 kb. rif1 rif2 has a synergistic effect, with telomere lengths ranging between 0.8 and 3 kb (21, 50). Conversely, Rif1p or Rif2p overexpression causes telomere shortening (50). Telomere lengthening by Rif protein deletion is telomerase dependent and RAD52 independent (47).
We investigated the mechanisms by which these telomeric proteins negatively regulate telomere length. We show that Rif proteins are directly counted and that Rap1p counting is primarily a consequence of Rif1p and Rif2p recruitment to the telomeres. Furthermore, even in the complete absence of the Rap1p C terminus, Rif proteins can prevent overelongation of telomeres. We conclude that telomere length regulation by Rap1p counting is in fact Rif protein counting. In certain genetic settings in which telomeres are long, a single targeted Rif2p is sufficient for a maximal effect in curtailing telomere overlengthening, while tethered Rif1p still shows a counting trend. Finally, simply targeting heterologous PDZ protein-protein interaction domains to the telomere is sufficient to mimic the cis-acting, negative telomere length regulation by Rif proteins. We propose that Rif1p and Rif2p regulate telomere length through distinct protein counting mechanisms that involve protein-protein interactions.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
C where PDZ is aa 471 to 753 from rat GRIP1 (12). For overexpression of the free PDZ domain, plasmid pDL142 was used and pDL141 served as the vector-only control in such experiments. Additional information about these plasmids and others is listed in supplemental information (see Table S1 in the supplemental material), and details about their construction are available upon request.
Yeast strains and methods.
Standard methods of yeast genetics and molecular biology were used. The yeast strains used in this study are listed in Table 1. To generate strains ("counting-test strains") with subtelomeric Gal4p UAS sites at chromosome VIIL, S288C-BY4705a (EHB11114) (6) was transformed with SalI/NotI-digested pDL1*, pDL55, pDL49, pDL52, pDL61, and pDL72 and selected for Ura+. Telomeric integrants were verified by Southern blot. For Rif1p tethering experiments, pDL116 and pDL120 were digested with Bsu36I to loop in at the RIF1 promoter. For Rif2p tethering, pDL114 and pDL115 were integrated into the RIF2 3' untranslated region (UTR) by digesting with AgeI. Counting of Rap1p C termini was done by transforming Eco47III-digested pDL125 and pDL124 to integrate at his3200. In all cases, His+ integrants were verified by diagnostic colony PCR. Test strains for examining the effect of tethered Rif1p, Rif2p, or Rap1p C termini on telomere length were passaged on plates or in liquid culture prior to measuring telomere length by URA3 teloblot as described below (see the supplemental material for a comparison of results obtained by passaging strains on plates versus in liquid culture). For experiments in which GBD fusions were expressed off CEN ARS plasmids, pDL47, pDL56, pEHB11088, or pEHB11094 was transformed into counting-test strains and transformants were passaged in selective media either on plates or in liquid culture.
|
C mutation (deletion of nucleotides 1990 to 2481; deletion of aa 664 to 827), PCR product was made with ODL109 and ODL141 templated off pDL106. Leu+ transformants were selected, and the mutation was verified by diagnostic colony PCR and sequencing of the PCR product. The rap1C allele introduces P662L and deletes aa 664 to 827 followed by TGA stop, 236-bp RAP1 3' UTR, and LEU2; this allele is analogous to rap1-17 but deletes the Rap1p C terminus encoding DNA (18, 25). rap1-17 was originally identified as an intragenic suppressor of the temperature-sensitive rap1-5 allele, which encodes a mutant Rap1p, with a point mutation in the C terminus. Since the rap1-17 allele has a premature stop codon preceding the rap1-5 lesion, rap1-17 encodes a C-terminally truncated protein lacking the rap1-5 mutation (25). The original rap1-17 allele and our rap1C allele encode the same truncated Rap1p. They differ only in the sequence downstream of the stop codon: while rap1C coding sequence is followed immediately by endogenous RAP1 3' UTR sequence, rap1-17 coding sequence is followed by rap1-5 C-terminus-encoding DNA. Hence, rap1C cells express precisely the same truncated version of Rap1p that is expressed in rap1-17 cells. Modification of the genetic background of counting-test strains (i.e., strains with tethered Rif1p, Rif2p, or Rap1p C termini) was done by mating to EHB11258 followed by sporulation of the heterozygous diploid, dissection of tetrads, and selection of strains with the desired genotypes. Diploid strains EHB11351 to -11362 were made by mating EHB11261, -11262, -11265, -11267, -11268, -11271, -11273, -11274, -11277, -11279, -11280, and -11283 to EHB11258, respectively, and then selecting diploids, deleting RAD52 as described above to make RAD52/rad52::natMX4, and verifying the deletion and overall genotype by diagnostic colony PCR and checking all markers.
Strains overexpressing RIF1 and RIF2 were generated as described previously (30). The PCR product was made with ODL213 and ODL214 (for Gal Rif1p) and ODL215 and ODL216 (for Gal Rif2p) templated off pFA6a-His3MX6-PGAL1. The PCR product was transformed into EHB11256. Integration of the Gal promoter was verified for His+ colonies by diagnostic colony PCR and sequencing of the PCR product. EHB11298 and EHB11300 were sporulated and dissected on yeast extract-peptone-galactose (YP-gal) plates. Spores were genotyped and passaged on YP-gal plates prior to examination of telomere lengths by TG1-3 teloblots (see below).
EHB11200 was made by transforming EHB11188 with PCR product generated off pDL88 with ODL184 and ODL141. This fuses PDZ to the C terminus of RAP1 followed by two stop codons, CYC1 terminator sequence, and HIS3. EHB11201 was a control strain consisting of RAP1 followed by two stop codons, the CYC1 terminator, and HIS3; it was made by transforming EHB11188 with a PCR product made from pDL88 with ODL142 and ODL141. EHB11205 was another control strain that expressed free PDZ domain only from the RAP1 promoter and was made by digesting pDL88 with PmlI and looping the plasmid into a RAP1 promoter in EHB11188. For each strain, His+ integrants were selected and verified by diagnostic yeast colony PCR and sequencing of the PCR product as necessary. EHB11330 replaced the C terminus of RAP1 with PDZ followed by two stop codons, RAP1 3' UTR sequence, and LEU2. This strain was made by transforming EHB11188 with PCR product made from pDL134 with ODL109 and ODL141. Leu+ transformants were selected and verified by diagnostic yeast colony PCR and sequencing of the PCR product. To make EHB11345 and -11349, EHB11256 and -11330, respectively, were made RAD52/rad52::natMX4 by deleting RAD52 as described above; the deletion and genotype were verified by diagnostic colony PCR and by checking all markers. Each diploid strain was sporulated and dissected at 23°C; spores with the desired genotype were passaged on plates at 23°C prior to determining bulk telomere lengths by TG1-3 teloblot.
Telomere Southern blots.
To measure length of the URA3-marked chromosome VIIL telomere, an EcoRV digestion of genomic DNA was done to generate a telomeric restriction fragment (Fig. 1a). A second, separate digestion of a portion of the DNA sample was done with EcoRV and BamHI to excise a fragment containing the Gal4p UAS sites, and BamHI was inactivated with EDTA. The BamHI/EcoRV fragment served to verify that the expected number of Gal4p UAS sites was present and that none had been lost through recombination (Fig. 1a). These digests were mixed and run together in the same lane of a 0.9% agarose gel along with a 607-bp fragment of URA3 generated by PCR (ODL185 and ODL186 templated off pDL1*). DNA was transferred to Hybond N+ (Amersham Biosciences) and probed for URA3 with a random prime-labeled URA3 PCR product (ODL185 and ODL186 templated off pDL1*). Telomere lengths were measured with ImageQuant (Molecular Dynamics). The peak position for each band was determined and standardized across a given gel using the 607-bp URA3 band as a size standard. Next, relative DNA lengths were converted to absolute lengths with a 1-kb DNA ladder (Invitrogen), end labeled with 32P, and run on the same gel. Finally, to obtain a peak telomere length value (i.e., length of TG1-3 repeat tract), the size of the EcoRV/BamHI band was subtracted from the size of the EcoRV band. Telomeres in which Gal4p UAS sites had been lost as evidenced by a smaller-than-expected BamHI/EcoRV fragment were excluded from these calculations. In some cases with URA3-marked telomeres in long-telomere genetic backgrounds, splitting was observed where lengths broke out into two distinct populations, one population comparable in length to genetically similar isolates and one population that was much shorter (Fig. 1m, lanes marked with 
). The frequency of such split telomeres was not dependent on the number of Gal4p UAS sites or on expression of any GBD fusion protein. These telomeres likely arose through the process of telomeric rapid deletion (27). For the purpose of quantification, the band corresponding to the longer population was used.
|
200, and strains were passaged for 15 days in liquid culture. Additional information on experiments similar to those presented in Fig. 1b to e but conducted by passaging strains on plates instead of in liquid culture is presented in supplemental information.
In Fig. 1f, strains expressing GBD only or GBD-Rif1p under the RIF1 promoter off a CEN ARS plasmid (pEHB11094 and pEHB11088, respectively) were made rif2 by transformation. Strains were passaged three streaks on SD-His plates. Data for Fig. 1g to i were obtained similarly to those for Fig. 1c, except that the genetic background of these strains was altered as indicated and as described above (i.e., by mating to EHB11258, sporulating, and dissecting) and strains were passaged three streaks on plates rather than in liquid culture. Data for Fig. 1j to k were obtained similarly to Fig. 1d, except that the genetic background of these strains was altered as indicated, and strains were passaged three streaks on SD-Trp plates rather than in liquid culture. For Fig. 1l to m, constructs expressing GBD only or GBD-Rif2p from the RIF2 promoter were integrated as a single copy at the RIF2 locus. The genetic background of these strains was made rif1 rap1C, and strains were passaged three streaks on plates. Data for Fig. 4 were obtained similarly to Fig. 1e, except that the genetic background of these strains was altered as indicated, and strains were passaged five to six streaks on plates rather than in liquid culture.
|
Chromosome spreads. Chromosome spreads were prepared and Rap1p was visualized by immunofluorescence with a rabbit anti-Rap1p antibody as previously described (14, 43). Slides were examined with a DeltaVision microscope system (Applied Precision) with a 60x lens and 1.5x magnifier. Fields were pseudo-colored blue for 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) and green for fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC; anti-Rap1p). At least 50 spread nuclei were scored for each strain, and the total number of Rap1p foci per nucleus was counted.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Rif protein counting through distinct mechanisms.
We examined the genetic dependencies of Rif1p and Rif2p counting. We modified the genetic background of counting-test strains by mating them to a rif1 rif2 rap1C strain, sporulating, and selecting spores with the desired genotypes (or directly by transformation in some cases where noted). The resulting strains were serially passaged either in liquid culture or on plates to allow the URA3-marked test telomere to elongate from the initially wild-type length to equilibrium length, and this length was then measured by Southern blotting.
In the absence of Rif2p, tethered Rif1p was still counted. In such rif2 cells, when one Rif1p molecule was tethered to the URA3-marked telomere, that telomere elongated and equilibrated at an average length 204 bp shorter than the zero-UASG-site control telomere; when four UASG sites were present, the final telomere length attained was 56 bp shorter still (Fig. 1f). Strikingly, in rap1C cells, again generated by sporulation of heterozygous diploid strains so that the test telomere started at wild-type length, tethering of Rif1p to the test telomere prevented it from lengthening as much as the control zero-tethering-site telomere (Fig. 1g). The ability of tethered Rif1p to exert negative-telomere-length control in the absence of the C terminus of Rap1p was even more pronounced when Rif2p was also deleted. In rif2 rap1C cells, one tethered Rif1p molecule prevented that telomere from full lengthening such that, once elongated to its equilibrium length, it was shorter than the zero-site telomere by 143 bp, and the telomere with four tethering sites was a further 259 bp shorter (Fig. 1h and i). Thus, tethered Rif1p is still counted in the absence of Rif2p and/or the Rap1p C terminus.
Tethered Rif2p was also effective in exerting negative telomere length control on the targeted telomere in cells lacking Rif1p and/or Rap1p C termini. However, in the absence of Rif1p, rather than observing a counting trend, tethered Rif2p prevented telomere elongation to the same extent independently of the number of tethered molecules. Starting with diploid heterozygotes having wild-type-length URA3-marked test telomeres, in the rif1 spore progeny, the extent to which telomeres were shorter relative to the zero-UASG-site control was similar whether one or up to four Rif2p tethering sites were present (225 bp shorter with one site and 207 bp shorter with four sites; Fig. 1j). Similarly, in rif1 rap1C cells, the same degree of negative length control was seen whether there were one or four tethering sites (571 bp with one site and 580 bp with four sites) (Fig. 1l and m). This potent ability of a single tethered Rif2p to prevent overelongation of the telomere was reproduced in four independent experiments, with each strain background represented by two or three different spore isolates in each experiment. Such a result was never obtained in multiple comparable Rif1p tethering experiments. Thus, Rif2p differs from Rif1p and the Rap1p C terminus in that, in genetic settings where telomeres are longer than usual, a single tethered Rif2p molecule is sufficient for a maximal effect on length control in the absence of the other two proteins.
We repeated a subset of the experiments described above in rad52 cells and obtained results comparable to those in RAD52 cells (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). Thus, the major recombination pathway is not involved in the length regulatory effects of tethered Rap1p and the Rif proteins. Experiments with control telomeres lacking UASG sites showed that tethering of the Rif proteins is necessary for their length control effects (Fig. 1). Also, bulk telomere lengths for telomeres lacking UASG sites remained unaffected in these tethering experiments (data not shown). Hence the Rif proteins act in cis to regulate telomere length.
Rif proteins can act independently of the Rap1p C terminus and of each other.
It was reported previously that telomeres in cells expressing C-terminal deletions of Rap1p (e.g., rap1-17) are comparable in length to those in rif1 rif2 double and rif1 rif2 rap1-17 triple mutants (50). This suggested that the negative length regulatory functions of Rif1p and Rif2p are mediated solely through the C terminus of Rap1p. However, our finding that tethered Rif proteins can potently block overelongation of the test telomere in rap1C cells suggested that the Rif proteins can perform this function independently of the C terminus of Rap1p. We therefore tested whether Rif protein overexpression, rather than telomeric tethering, can block bulk telomere lengthening in rap1C cells. These rap1C cells express a truncated Rap1p constructed with the same amino acids deleted as in the original Rap1-17p. Heterozygous diploid strains with wild-type-length telomeres were sporulated and dissected on plates containing galactose to drive overexpression of RIF1 or RIF2 from a galactose-inducible promoter. Spore products with the desired genotypes were serially passaged on galactose plates to allow telomeres to elongate to their equilibrium lengths. Bulk telomere lengths were compared between rap1C strains expressing either RIF1 or RIF2 from its endogenous promoter or the galactose-inducible promoter.
If Rif1p and Rif2p act only through binding the C terminus of Rap1p, then when that domain is deleted, Rif protein overexpression should have no effect on telomere length. Contrary to this prediction, overexpressing either Rif1p or Rif2p in rap1C cells prevented much of the lengthening seen in the control rap1C strains (mean telomere length was at least 450 bp shorter; Fig. 2). (See Fig. S2 and the other supplemental material for further discussion of these results in relation to the previous genetic study using rap1-17 [50].) Rif1p overexpression in rif2 cells and Rif2p overexpression in rif1 cells each partially suppressed the overlengthening of telomeres that is characteristic of each of these single-deletion strains (Fig. 2). This result is consistent with the previous observation that Rif1p and Rif2p can each partially regulate telomere length without the other, since rif1 and rif2 single-mutant telomeres are shorter than those in a rif1 rif2 double mutant (50). Furthermore, even in the absence of the C-terminal domain of Rap1p, Rif1p overexpression could still negatively control telomere overelongation independently of Rif2p and vice versa (Fig. 2). In summary, Rif1p and Rif2p not only can act independently of each other, but also can substantially regulate telomere length without any requirement for the Rap1p C terminus.
|
cells. We therefore asked whether, like the Rif proteins, Sir3p and Sir4p might also be able to act at telomeres independently of the Rap1p C terminus by examining an aspect of telomere behavior in which these Sir proteins are known to function: telomere clustering (22, 34). In wild-type cells, immunofluorescence against Rap1p reveals four to six foci at the nuclear periphery and deletion of Sir proteins leads to telomere unclustering and release from the nuclear periphery (22). If Sir proteins could act independently of the Rap1p C terminus, then telomeres might still cluster in rap1C cells. However, in rap1C chromosome spreads stained for Rap1p, we observed loss of clustering (Fig. 3). Hence, Rap1p clustering requires the C terminus of Rap1p. The degree of unclustering was the same in rap1C rif1 rif2 as in rap1C cells, showing the Rif proteins do not act independently of the C terminus of Rap1p to promote clustering (Fig. 3). In fact, deletion of Rif proteins slightly reduces the average number of Rap1p foci per spread nucleus: approximately three to four foci in rif1 cells but only approximately three foci in rif2 and rif1 rif2 cells (D. L. Smith and E. H. Blackburn, unpublished data). Rif and Sir proteins may compete for binding the Rap1p C terminus (50); thus, more Sir proteins might bind Rap1p in the absence of Rif proteins, thereby enhancing clustering.
|
cells and little or no effect in a rif1 rif2 background (Fig. 4). We further predicted that tethered Rap1p C termini would be counted in a rap1C background, but only in the presence of Rif proteins. Indeed, in rap1C cells, one tethered Rap1p C terminus kept the telomere shorter than the control zero-site telomere by 53 bp and four kept it 422 bp shorter; however, tethered Rap1p C termini were ineffective in the rif2 rap1C and rif1 rif2 rap1C backgrounds (Fig. 4) (data not shown). Strikingly, in rap1C cells, such Rap1p counting absolutely depended on Rif2p but not on Rif1p, consistent with the results in RAP1 cells. Hence, Rap1p counting is mediated substantially through the Rif proteins, with a greater dependence on Rif2p than Rif1p.
A tethered heterologous protein oligomerization domain confers telomere length control.
Current information on how telomere length is regulated suggests that Rap1p-DNA and protein-protein interactions act together to fold the telomere into a structure that limits telomerase action or access. To investigate the role of protein-protein interactions in length regulation, we engineered a heterologous protein-protein interaction domain into Rap1p and tested whether this was sufficient to confer telomere length control. We used the PDZ domain, a modular protein-protein interaction motif common in many different mammalian proteins but apparently absent from S. cerevisiae. PDZ domains cluster mammalian cell membrane receptors, thereby effecting localized signaling reactions (41). Since PDZ domains homomultimerize, they have been used in other studies as generic protein-protein interaction domains (13, 36). Specifically, we replaced the C terminus of Rap1p at the endogenous RAP1 locus with PDZ456 of rat GRIP1, which interacts with itself in coimmunoprecipitation and yeast two-hybrid experiments (12). Thus, the only form of Rap1p in the cell was the resulting rap1C-PDZp (Fig. 5a). This fusion protein was expressed at levels comparable to that of rap1Cp (see Fig. S3 in the supplemental material), and growth rates of rap1C and rap1C-PDZ strains were similar.
|
C or rap1C-PDZ were sporulated and dissected, and spore products were successively streaked on plates to allow telomeres to elongate from wild type up to their new equilibrium lengths. Bulk telomere lengths were then examined by Southern blotting. In rap1C-PDZ strains, telomeres were kept dramatically shorter than in the rap1C control strains, although they were slightly longer than wild type (Fig. 5b; wild-type length Y' telomeres are 1.2-kb XhoI fragments in the Southern blots shown). This blocking of elongation did not require Rif1p and Rif2p (Fig. 5b). The rap1C-PDZ telomere lengths equilibrated within two passages on plates and were then stable (Fig. 5c). Finally, PDZ fused to the C terminus of full-length Rap1p was also competent in regulating telomere length in the absence of Rif1p and Rif2p (see Fig. S4 in the supplemental material). A subset of these experiments was repeated in rad52 cells, and the same results were obtained (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). Hence, PDZ can at least partially substitute for the telomere length regulatory role of the C terminus of Rap1p, without any Rif1p or Rif2p, and not via a recombination-based mechanism.
We tested whether disrupting the PDZ-PDZ interactions at telomeres would cause telomere lengthening. To achieve this, we overexpressed free PDZ in cells expressing rap1C-PDZp; free PDZ was expressed approximately 30-fold over rap1C-PDZp levels (data not shown). Indeed, this caused significant telomere lengthening in rap1C-PDZ cells, but not in control rap1C cells (Fig. 5d; see Fig. S4 in the supplemental material). Such overexpression was unlikely to have titrated the rap1C-PDZp off the telomeres because the fusion protein contains a full Rap1p DBD, and the strength of the Rap1p-DNA interaction (dissociation constant [kD] < 10–11 M) (8, 48) is much greater than that of the PDZ-PDZ interaction (kD 10–8 to 10–6 M) (41). The fact that overexpression of free PDZ alone did not cause telomere shortening showed that the PDZ domain itself does not simply inhibit telomerase activity directly nor interact independently with telomeres (Fig. 5d; see Fig. S4 in the supplemental material). Furthermore, because fusion of other protein domains such as GBD or GFP to RAP1 does not lead to shorter telomeres (see the supplemental material), it is unlikely that the PDZ fusion is acting nonspecifically. Taken together, these data show that PDZ domains targeted to telomeres are sufficient to confer negative length regulation, most likely via oligomerization of PDZ domains.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The results reported here also reveal new properties of Rif proteins. The overexpression and tethering experiments show that Rif1p and Rif2p are able to partially negatively regulate telomere length even in the absence of the C terminus of Rap1p, the only protein-protein interaction domain for the Rif proteins known. Although rap1C might conceivably retain residual binding affinity for Rif1p and Rif2p through other domains of Rap1p, in coimmunoprecipitation experiments Rif1p and Rif2p interact with wild-type Rap1p, but not with rap1Cp (unpublished data). While normally, in the presence of wild-type Rap1p, the Rif proteins likely are brought to the telomere by interacting with the Rap1p C terminus, our results also provide evidence that Rif proteins can be brought to telomeres by binding other telomeric factors in addition to Rap1p (Fig. 6). Accordingly, we propose a Rif protein counting mechanism, not solely dependent on Rap1p, by which telomere length can be sensed and negatively regulated predominantly by the amounts of Rif1p and Rif2p that are present at the telomere. Consistent with such a model, first, two chromosome ends in S. cerevisiae lack detectable Rap1p by chromatin immunoprecipitation, yet Rif1p is associated with at least one of these ends in vivo (29, 43). Second, telomeres composed of a tract of vertebrate telomeric repeat sequence are maintained slightly shorter than wild type in yeast, yet are not detectably bound by Rap1p, as measured by chromatin immunoprecipitation (1, 7), although Tbf1p may also play a role in telomere length control in this context. Third, in a telomerase template mutant strain with mutant sequence telomeres longer than that in a rif1 rif2 strain and having a >300-fold reduction in Rap1p binding affinity (37), even a slight increase in cellular Rif2p levels was sufficient to dramatically curtail telomere overelongation (J. Lin, D. L. Levy, and E. H. Blackburn, unpublished data).
|
Higher-order chromatin structure appears to be regulated by mechanisms that ensure domains of chromatin structure are stably established in a switch-like manner. Our data support a model in which telomeric chromatin is formed by a nucleation and spreading mechanism reminiscent of the establishment of silenced heterochromatin initiated by yeast Sir proteins (40). Rif proteins may play a comparable role at telomeres to influence telomerase access (Fig. 6). The similarity between the modes of length regulation in mammals (2, 44) and yeasts and the existence of Rap1p and Rif1p homologs in Schizosaccharomyces pombe (23) and human cells (28, 42; L. Xu and E. H. Blackburn, in press) suggest that a similar nucleation and spreading mechanism may operate at telomeres in higher eukaryotes.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
D.L.L. was supported by a predoctoral fellowship from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. This work was supported by grant GM26259 from the National Institutes of Health to E.H.B.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://mcb.asm.org.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
2. Ancelin, K., M. Brunori, S. Bauwens, C.-E. Koering, C. Brun, M. Ricoul, J. P. Pommier, L. Sabatier, and E. Gilson. 2002. Targeting assay to study the cis functions of human telomeric proteins: evidence for inhibition of telomerase by TRF1 and for activation of telomere degradation by TRF2. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22:3474-3487.
3. Blackburn, E. H. 2000. The end of the (DNA) line. Nat. Struct. Biol. 7:847-850.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Blackburn, E. H. 2000. Telomere states and cell fates. Nature 408:53-56.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Bourns, B. D., M. K. Alexander, A. M. Smith, and V. A. Zakian. 1998. Sir proteins, Rif proteins, and Cdc13p bind Saccharomyces telomeres in vivo. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18:5600-5608.
6. Brachmann, C. B., A. Davies, G. J. Cost, E. Caputo, J. Li, P. Hieter, and J. D. Boeke. 1998. Designer deletion strains derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae S288C: a useful set of strains and plasmids for PCR-mediated gene disruption and other applications. Yeast 14:115-132.[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Brevet, V., A. S. Berthiau, L. Civitelli, P. Donini, V. Schramke, V. Geli, F. Ascenzioni, and E. Gilson. 2003. The number of vertebrate repeats can be regulated at yeast telomeres by Rap1-independent mechanisms. EMBO J. 22:1697-1706.[CrossRef][Medline]
8. Buchman, A. R., W. J. Kimmerly, J. Rine, and R. D. Kornberg. 1988. Two DNA-binding factors recognize specific sequences at silencers, upstream activating sequences, autonomously replicating sequences, and telomeres in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol. 8:210-225.
9. Christianson, T. W., R. S. Sikorski, M. Dante, J. H. Shero, and P. Hieter. 1992. Multifunctional yeast high-copy-number shuttle vectors. Gene 110:119-122.[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Conrad, M. N., J. H. Wright, A. J. Wolf, and V. A. Zakian. 1990. RAP1 protein interacts with yeast telomeres in vivo: overproduction alters telomere structure and decreases chromosome stability. Cell 63:739-750.[CrossRef][Medline]
11. de Bruin, D., S. M. Kantrow, R. A. Liberatore, and V. A. Zakian. 2000. Telomere folding is required for the stable maintenance of telomere position effects in yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol. 20:7991-8000.
12. Dong, H., P. Zhang, I. Song, R. S. Petralia, D. Liao, and R. L. Huganir. 1999. Characterization of the glutamate receptor-interacting proteins GRIP1 and GRIP2. J. Neurosci. 19:6930-6941.
13. Dueber, J. E., B. J. Yeh, K. Chak, and W. A. Lim. 2003. Reprogramming control of an allosteric signaling switch through modular recombination. Science 301:1904-1908.
14. Enomoto, S., P. D. McCune-Zierath, M. Gerami-Nejad, M. A. Sanders, and J. Berman. 1997. RLF2, a subunit of yeast chromatin assembly factor-I, is required for telomeric chromatin function in vivo. Genes Dev. 11:358-370.
15. Gilson, E., M. Roberge, R. Giraldo, D. Rhodes, and S. M. Gasser. 1993. Distortion of the DNA double helix by RAP1 at silencers and multiple telomeric binding sites. J. Mol. Biol. 231:293-310.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Goldstein, A. L., and J. H. McCusker. 1999. Three new dominant drug resistance cassettes for gene disruption in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 15:1541-1553.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Gotta, M., T. Laroche, A. Formenton, L. Maillet, H. Scherthan, and S. M. Gasser. 1996. The clustering of telomeres and colocalization with Rap1, Sir3, and Sir4 proteins in wild-type Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Cell Biol. 134:1349-1363.
18. Graham, I. R., R. A. Haw, K. G. Spink, K. A. Halden, and A. Chambers. 1999. In vivo analysis of functional regions within yeast Rap1p. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19:7481-7490.
19. Griffith, J. D., L. Comeau, S. Rosenfield, R. M. Stansel, A. Bianchi, H. Moss, and T. de Lange. 1999. Mammalian telomeres end in a large duplex loop. Cell 97:503-514.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Grossi, S., A. Bianchi, P. Damay, and D. Shore. 2001. Telomere formation by Rap1p binding site arrays reveals end-specific length regulation requirements and active telomeric recombination. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21:8117-8128.
21. Hardy, C. F., L. Sussel, and D. Shore. 1992. A RAP1-interacting protein involved in transcriptional silencing and telomere length regulation. Genes Dev. 6:801-814.
22. Hediger, F., F. R. Neumann, G. Van Houwe, K. Dubrana, and S. M. Gasser. 2002. Live imaging of telomeres: yKu and Sir proteins define redundant telomere-anchoring pathways in yeast. Curr. Biol. 12:2076-2089.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Kanoh, J., and F. Ishikawa. 2001. spRap1 and spRif1, recruited to telomeres by Taz1, are essential for telomere function in fission yeast. Curr. Biol. 11:1624-1630.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Krauskopf, A., and E. H. Blackburn. 1996. Control of telomere growth by interactions of RAP1 with the most distal telomeric repeats. Nature 383:354-357.[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Kyrion, G., K. A. Boakye, and A. J. Lustig. 1992. C-terminal truncation of RAP1 results in the deregulation of telomere size, stability, and function in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol. 12:5159-5173.
26. Laroche, T., S. G. Martin, M. Tsai-Pflugfelder, and S. M. Gasser. 2000. The dynamics of yeast telomeres and silencing proteins through the cell cycle. J. Struct. Biol. 129:159-174.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Li, B., and A. J. Lustig. 1996. A novel mechanism for telomere size control in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Dev. 10:1310-1326.
28. Li, B., S. Oestreich, and T. de Lange. 2000. Identification of human Rap1: implications for telomere evolution. Cell 101:471-483.[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Lieb, J. D., X. Liu, D. Botstein, and P. O. Brown. 2001. Promoter-specific binding of Rap1 revealed by genome-wide maps of protein-DNA association. Nat. Genet. 28:327-334.[CrossRef][Medline]
30. Longtine, M. S., A. McKenzie III, D. J. Demarini, N. G. Shah, A. Wach, A. Brachat, P. Philippsen, and J. R. Pringle. 1998. Additional modules for versatile and economical PCR-based gene deletion and modification in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 14:953-961.[CrossRef][Medline]
31. Lydall, D. 2003. Hiding at the ends of yeast chromosomes: telomeres, nucleases and checkpoint pathways. J. Cell Sci. 116:4057-4065.
32. Marcand, S., E. Gilson, and D. Shore. 1997. A protein-counting mechanism for telomere length regulation in yeast. Science 275:986-990.
33. McEachern, M. J., and E. H. Blackburn. 1995. Runaway telomere elongation caused by telomerase RNA gene mutations. Nature 376:403-409.[CrossRef][Medline]
34. Moretti, P., K. Freeman, L. Coodly, and D. Shore. 1994. Evidence that a complex of SIR proteins interacts with the silencer and telomere-binding protein RAP1. Genes Dev. 8:2257-2269.
35. Muller, T., E. Gilson, R. Schmidt, R. Giraldo, J. Sogo, H. Gross, and S. M. Gasser. 1994. Imaging the asymmetrical DNA bend induced by repressor activator protein 1 with scanning tunneling microscopy. J. Struct. Biol. 113:1-12.[CrossRef][Medline]
36. Park, S. H., A. Zarrinpar, and W. A. Lim. 2003. Rewiring MAP kinase pathways using alternative scaffold assembly mechanisms. Science 299:1061-1064.
37. Prescott, J. C., and E. H. Blackburn. 2000. Telomerase RNA template mutations reveal sequence-specific requirements for the activation and repression of telomerase action at telomeres. Mol. Cell. Biol. 20:2941-2948.
38. Ray, A., and K. W. Runge. 1999. The yeast telomere length counting machinery is sensitive to sequences at the telomere-nontelomere junction. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19:31-45.
39. Runge, K. W., and V. A. Zakian. 1989. Introduction of extra telomeric DNA sequences into Saccharomyces cerevisiae results in telomere elongation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 9:1488-1497.
40. Rusche, L. N., A. L. Kirchmaier, and J. Rine. 2003. The establishment, inheritance, and function of silenced chromatin in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 72:481-516.[CrossRef][Medline]
41. Sheng, M., and C. Sala. 2001. PDZ domains and the organization of supramolecular complexes. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24:1-29.[CrossRef][Medline]
42. Silverman, J., H. Takai, S. B. C. Buonomo, F. Eisenhaber, and T. de Lange. 2004. Human Rif1, ortholog of a yeast telomeric protein, is regulated by ATM and 53BP1 and functions in the S-phase checkpoint. Genes Dev. 18:2108-2119.
43. Smith, C. D., D. L. Smith, J. L. DeRisi, and E. H. Blackburn. 2003. Telomeric protein distributions and remodeling through the cell cycle in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Biol. Cell 14:556-570.
44. Smogorzewska, A., B. van Steensel, A. Bianchi, S. Oelmann, M. R. Schaefer, G. Schnapp, and T. de Lange. 2000. Control of human telomere length by TRF1 and TRF2. Mol. Cell. Biol. 20:1659-1668.
45. Strahl-Bolsinger, S., A. Hecht, K. Luo, and M. Grunstein. 1997. SIR2 and SIR4 interactions differ in core and extended telomeric heterochromatin in yeast. Genes Dev. 11:83-93.
46. Teixeira, M. T., M. Arneric, P. Sperisen, and J. Lingner. 2004. Telomere length homeostasis is achieved via a switch between telomerase-extendible and -nonextendible states. Cell 117:323-335.[CrossRef][Medline]
47. Teng, S. C., J. Chang, B. McCowan, and V. A. Zakian. 2000. Telomerase-independent lengthening of yeast telomeres occurs by an abrupt Rad50p-dependent, Rif-inhibited recombinational process. Mol. Cell 6:947-952.[CrossRef][Medline]
48. Vignais, M. L., J. Huet, J. M. Buhler, and A. Sentenac. 1990. Contacts between the factor TUF and RPG sequences. J. Biol. Chem. 265:14669-14674.
49. Vignais, M. L., and A. Sentenac. 1989. Asymmetric DNA bending induced by the yeast multifunctional factor TUF. J. Biol. Chem. 264:8463-8466.
50. Wotton, D., and D. Shore. 1997. A novel Rap1p-interacting factor, Rif2p, cooperates with Rif1p to regulate telomere length in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Dev. 11:748-760.
51. Zakian, V. A. 1996. Structure, function, and replication of Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomeres. Annu. Rev. Genet. 30:141-172.[CrossRef][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
| ||||||||||||
