![[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}
G. Lelandais,1,
Z. Kozovska,2
V. Tanty,1
T. Delaveau,1
F. Devaux,1 and
C. Jacq1*
Laboratoire de Génétique Moléculaire, CNRS UMR 8541, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France,1 Department of Microbiology and Virology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic2
Received 6 September 2004/ Returned for modification 8 November 2004/ Accepted 24 November 2004
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We have focused our studies on the very early genomic events which characterize the chemical stress response. We used DNA microarrays to analyze changes in transcript abundance in yeast cells responding to the presence of benomyl. Benomyl is known to activate Yap1 (23) by a process which probably implicates its c-CRD region (1). Time series whole-genome expression data were generated to unfold the very early transcriptional changes which occur soon after the addition of benomyl. These data revealed that cells experienced a transient transcriptional response which partly mimics the oxidative stress response. This stress response, which depends mainly on Yap1, was very specific in terms of the enzymes that were recruited. Genes coding for redox-controlling enzymes (TRR1, TRX2, etc.), which keep the cytosol in a reduced state, were up-regulated, whereas genes coding for ROS enzymes (CTT1, SOD1, etc.) remained unchanged. This specificity was studied by time course chromatin immunoprecipitation (tChIP) experiments. tChIP experiments suggested that in vivo Yap1 binding to the relevant promoters is an essential step in the benomyl-controlled activation process but that it is not sufficient to discriminate between up-regulated (like FLR1) or invariant (like CTT1) genes.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
his3
1 leu20 lys20 ura3). Cells were grown in YPD medium (1% [wt/vol] Bacto yeast extract, 2% [wt/vol] Bacto peptone, 2% [wt/vol] glucose). Drug resistance assays were performed by tests with serial dilutions in YPD liquid medium in order to establish the most appropriate concentration of benomyl. Time course experiments and microarray experiments. Different strains were grown in YPD liquid medium to an optical density at 600 nm of 0.5. Addition of benomyl or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) to 20 µg/ml was performed for various times (30 s, 2 min, 4 min, 10 min, 20 min, and 40 min), starting with the same initial culture. Cells were harvested instantaneously by centrifugation, flash frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at –80°C. Total RNA was isolated, purified, and used to synthesize and label cDNA as described on our website (http://www.transcriptome.ens.fr/sgdb). For each time of exposure to benomyl and for each strain analyzed, we performed two independent microarray experiments and two technical repetitions. Microarrays containing oligonucleotides to probe most of the open reading frames of S. cerevisiae were produced in our laboratory with an Omnigrid II Biorobotics robot (http://www.transcriptome.ens.fr/sgdb). They were based on the principle of 40-mer oligonucleotides from MWG covalently deposited onto Corning glass slides coated with pure gamma amino propyl silane. The microarray protocol used is described on our website (http://www.transcriptome.ens.fr/sgdb). A total of 20 µg of total purified RNA was used for each experiment. In each experiment, the cDNA corresponding to cells treated with benomyl was labeled with Cy5-dUTP, and cDNA from control cells treated with DMSO was labeled with Cy3-dUTP. Dye swap experiments were carried out for each analysis. The arrays were read using a Genepix 4000A scanner (Axon) and analyzed with Genepix 3.0 software. Artefactual, saturated, or low-signal spots were eliminated from the analysis.
Linear regression of Cy5 against Cy3 channels (21) was applied to data in order to normalize fluorochrome channels. Duplicate spots were averaged, and nonreproductive values were not used for the rest of the analysis.
(i) Missing value handling. Gene expression patterns where the minimum percentage of existing values was less than 80% were eliminated from the rest of the analysis. The remaining missing values were replaced by using the KNN-imputation method (29).
(ii) Selection of up- and down-regulated genes. Log2(ratio) data sets of times courses were used for filtering genes for which a change of more than twofold was observed for at least two successive times during the experiments.
Chromatin immunoprecipitation analyses (ChIP assays). The YAP1 gene with an N-terminal Myc tag on pRS316 plasmid (8) was introduced into a wild-type yeast strain producing Yap1 under the control of the its own promoter. Cells were grown on YPD medium to an optical density of 0.5. Addition of benomyl or DMSO to 20 µg/ml was performed for 5, 15, 40, and 60 min, starting with the same initial culture. The full protocol as well as the various primer sets used for amplification of the 14 promoters can be found in the supplemental material (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material and www.biologie.ens.fr/lgmgml/publication/benomyl/).
Bioinformatic analyses. (i) Principal component analysis (PCA). Complete interpretation of the biplots, given different transformation of the data expression matrix, can be found elsewhere (12). The analysis was completed with the statistical computing and graphics environment R (http://cran.r-project.org/).
(ii) Knockout gene cluster analysis.
The differential gene expression ratio induced by benomyl between wild-type and yap1 strains was plotted as x [log2(ratio) value observed in the wild type strain] versus y [log2(ratio) value observed in the yap1 strain] for the different time points (see Fig. 3A).
|
strain.
Thus, considering two genes, g1 and g2, the similarity measure between them is computed as follows:
 |
Next, a classical hierarchical cluster analysis was performed by using the distance matrix. Initially, each object is assigned to its own cluster and then the algorithm proceeds iteratively, with the two most similar clusters being joined at each stage and continuing until the analysis reaches a single cluster. The resulting tree is finally split into several groups of genes (see Fig. 3B) joined together (mean value) in the two-dimensional graph (see Fig. 3C).
Graphical representation and distance computation as well as hierarchical clustering were performed with a script to utilize library function in R (http://cran.r-project.org/).
(iii) REDUCE algorithm. REDUCE was used as described previously (26). REDUCE is a motif-based regression method for microarray analysis. This algorithm uses unbiased statistics to identify oligonucleotide motifs whose occurrence in the regulatory region of a gene correlates with the level of mRNA expression. Regression analysis is used to infer the activity of the transcriptional module associated with each motif. REDUCE is available online at http://bussemaker.bio.columbia.edu/reduce/ (26).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Global analysis of changes in mRNA abundance. To gain insight into the physiological changes that followed the benomyl addition, we analyzed our data using different bioinformatics tools. We first applied PCA to our gene expression data as described previously (4). PCA is a well-established technique in multivariate statistics; the objective is to determine a new coordinate system such that the first coordinate explains the maximal amount of variance in the data and successive coordinates explain maximal variance while being orthogonal to the first. Explaining the majority of the variance in the data, the first and the second principal components can be represented simultaneously as a biplot (Fig. 1A). The horizontal axis corresponds to the first principal component (PCA1), which accounts for 42% of the total variance in the data. The second principal component (PCA2) corresponds to the vertical axis and explains 20% of the total variance. Initial time vectors are also represented (Fig. 1A), and the resulting sectors reflect classes of similar expression profiles (Fig. 1B). For instance, the first two up-regulated genes appeared extremely rapidly, between 30 s and 2 min after the addition of benomyl (Fig. 1B, group 0). Within the 40 min following the addition of benomyl, three classes of expression profiles represent the up-regulated genes (Fig. 1B, groups 1, 2, and 3). Classes 1 and 2, which include most of the genes, differed only by the delay in the start of induction (4 and 10 min after benomyl addition, respectively). On the other hand, they both exhibited a typical transient activation process, and 40 min after benomyl addition, most of the genes had returned to a near-basal expression ratio. Genes affected by this transient activation phenomenon constitute the core of this study.
|
strains are analyzed. It allows a quantitative assessment of the consequence of gene deletion on global gene expression. Snapshots of differential gene expression at different times (30 s to 20 min) show (Fig. 2A) that among the 119 genes that are significantly up-regulated in the wild-type strain, groups of genes can be distinguished. A similar measurement can be derived from the "differential expression profiles," and these groups of genes appeared to be connected via their dependence on the presence of Yap1 (Fig. 2C). For instance, groups I and II are comprised of genes which are completely dependent on Yap1, while groups III, IV, and V are comprised of genes whose up-regulation does not rely only upon Yap1. Interestingly, this rigorous analysis of deletion strain properties revealed gene groups which could not be simply deduced from classical visual examination of the expression profiles.
|
strains (Fig. 3).
This independent analysis of the transcription control is in full agreement with the above-described studies. Moreover, when REDUCE was applied to the expression data obtained with the yap1 strain, it showed (Fig. 3B) that, as expected, the Yap1 motif-containing genes are totally absent, whereas the other signals are unaffected. This result suggests that independent transcription programs control Yap1 and Pdr1 networks.
Early up-regulated genes.(i) Yap1-dependent genes.
It is interesting that gene clustering analyses conducted by independent approaches on wild-type and yap1 cells led to comparable gene clusters. Especially clear are groups I and II (Fig. 2B and C) which include genes that were plotted along the direction of the 10-min vector in the wild-type cell (Fig. 1). This reflects the fact that the transcription factor Yap1 plays a predominant role in the early events governing the benomyl response of the cell. Indeed, in the absence of YAP1, the benomyl-controlled up-regulation of these genes is totally abolished. This result is in agreement with the presence of at least one Yap1 response element, YRE (TTANTAA), in the promoter of these genes (Fig. 2B). This suggests that the up-regulation phenomenon actually results, at least in part, from a direct action of Yap1 with the relevant promoters. Chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments conducted with some of these promoters emphasize this point (see below).
(ii) Pdr1-dependent genes.
Shortly after gene activation of groups I and II, genes of groups III and IV are up-regulated (Fig. 2B and C). These different early expressed clusters differ in their dependence on the transcription factors. While Yap1 controls groups I and II exclusively, genes of groups III and IV are poorly affected in the yap1 strain. On the contrary, deletion of PDR1 completely abolishes the up-regulation process for half of these genes (TPO1, YIL056W, PDR5, and APJ1) and clearly alters the up-regulation process of the others (see the supplemental material). Again, the presence of typical PDR elements (TCCGA/GCGGA; [10]) in these promoters strongly suggests that a direct interaction of a benomyl-activated form of Pdr1 recognizes the regulatory signals of the relevant genes. It should be remembered that the set of yeast genes possibly activated by Pdr1 is well identified and concerns a set of 25 genes which mainly encode membrane proteins (11). Groups III and IV constitute a subset of the genes which are up-regulated when Pdr1 is derepressed by a gain-of-function mutation or by an artificial fusion with a Gal4 activation domain (11). As in the case of Yap1, which is discussed below, the benomyl-directed activation of Pdr1 confines the transcription factor specificity. Factors involved in the specific restriction of the transcription factor activity spectra are thus far unknown.
(iii) The early activated genes mainly control membrane properties. Among the 14 early up-regulated genes (Fig. 1B, group 1) whose function is known (see the supplemental material), 9 genes code for proteins which are directly involved in the plasma membrane organization and 6 genes function as active transporters of either ABC (SNQ2 and PDR5) or MFS types (FLR1, SNG1, TPO1, and ATR1). The case of FLR1 deserves special mention. Our results are in agreement with those of previous studies (23, 28), which pointed out the specific role of Yap1 in the regulation of FLR1 in the response of the cell to diverse drugs, oxidants, and alkylating agents.
Late up-regulated genes. A second wave of up-regulated genes can be distinguished from the previous early activated genes (Fig. 1B, groups 2 and 3). These 96 genes, like the early induced genes, predominantly exhibit a transient expression profile, which in this case starts at about 10 min after the addition of benomyl. Most of these genes are included in the genes induced in the environmental stress response (ESR) described previously (13). Also, whereas early induced genes mainly concern gene coding for membrane remodeling proteins, this last group of genes contains relatively few membrane protein-coding genes like transporters (YCF1, PCA1, and MRS4) or proteins involved in cell wall structure (ECM4). In fact, the three main characteristics of this cluster which distinguish it from the other environmental stress response already studied (13) are presented in the functional clusters of Fig. 2D.
(i) Protein folding control. An important group of genes coding for protein folding chaperones operating in diverse cellular compartments (endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, cytoplasm, and nucleus) are up-regulated 10 min after the addition of benomyl. Most of them have a Yap1 binding signal in their promoter, and their benomyl-dependent up-regulation process is severely affected by the deletion of YAP1. However, remnant transcriptional activation suggests that other transcription factors are involved in their regulation.
(ii) Dissection of the oxidative stress response. Shortly after benomyl addition, most of the genes coding for REDOX-controlling enzymes were up-regulated, whereas expression of the genes coding for ROS-removing enzymes was unchanged. Remarkably, neither catalases nor superoxide dismutases were called upon in coping with the benomyl stress; the expression levels of these genes remained unchanged. GSH and TRX1 to TRX3, the most important agents that keep the cytosol in a reduced state and which are all kept in a reduced state by NADPH (14), were produced. We observed that mRNAs of GTT2, GPX2, TRR1, GSH1, TRX2, GLR1, and TTR1 rose quickly after benomyl addition. TRX2 and TRR1 encode thioredoxin and thioredoxin reductase, respectively; GSH1 and GLR1 encode glutathione synthetase and glutathione reductase, respectively. This is a strong indication that a redox imbalance developed shortly after the addition of benomyl.
(iii) Regulatory control. This study focuses on the description of the very early regulatory events in response to benomyl; no more than 200 genes are involved. Clearly, Yap1 and Pdr1 are the first transcription factors to be involved in the genome adaptation to the drug. Analyses of strains in which genes coding for diverse transcription factors known to be involved in the pleiotropic drug response, like PDR3, YRM1 (20), and PDR8 (15), are deleted did not provide any evidence that these factors respond to benomyl under the experimental conditions. On the other hand, several transcription factor-encoding genes are themselves activated in the course of this early benomyl response. This is the case with CIN5, also named YAP4, whose function is not clear and which was already shown to be induced under conditions of either oxidative or osmotic stress (see reference 25 for a review). YRR1, which codes for a zinc finger transcription (7, 19), is also activated by benomyl, probably via the activation of Yap1. The presence of Yap1 recognition elements in the promoters of both CIN5/YAP4 and YRR1 suggests a direct interaction of Yap1 with these promoters. It will be interesting to study the putative role of these transcription factors in the regulation cascade induced by benomyl.
Benomyl and DNA-binding properties of Yap1. The observation (see above) that the early genomic response to benomyl concerns only a subset of the genes generally involved in the oxidative stress response is intriguing. To better understand this phenomenon, we analyzed the in vivo Yap1 binding properties to promoters of ROS and REDOX genes, the latter group being the only one to be up-regulated by benomyl. For this purpose, we used a version of Yap1 tagged at its C terminus with myc epitopes, which was previously shown to be fully active while having no effect on cell growth (8). After addition of benomyl to the growth medium, ChIP analyses were conducted at different times (tChIP) to assess the variations of myc-Yap1 binding on different promoters (tChIP analyses). Based on the results of three independent experiments, the enrichment of myc-Yap1 occupancy, with reference to time zero before benomyl addition, was assessed on 15 different promoters containing Yap1 response elements. Promoters of ACT1 and COX6 which do not have an apparent Yap1 binding site and do not exhibit any significant enrichment after benomyl addition (Fig. 4) were used as negative controls. The most salient feature of this analysis is that all the promoters containing at least one Yap1 recognition element exhibit a significant time course variation in the level of promoter occupancy after addition of benomyl. It is striking that this variation for the gene FLR1, for instance, reflects the variation in the mRNA level previously observed. Taken at face value, this finding suggests a close connection between Yap1 DNA-binding properties and gene transcription. However, it is not that simple, since SOD1, CCP1, and TSA1, which show similar benomyl-dependent myc-Yap1 promoter occupancies, do not exhibit any increase in their mRNA levels during this period. Thus, benomyl is likely to act at the level of Yap1 nuclear localization rather than on the specific binding process (see Discussion). Reciprocally, when the myc-Yap1 promoter occupancy decreases at the end of the transient phenomenon, a negative regulatory process is supposed to limit Yap1 availability independently of gene expression properties. In other words, it looks as if Yap1 promoter binding is necessary but not sufficient to power transcription of the adjacent gene.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Generality of the stress response: the transient gene activation process. Many transcriptional response analyses have been conducted for a large variety of stresses. However, simple direct comparison of these results is difficult because of the heterogeneity of the experimental conditions. For instance, it was previously observed that variegated responses are likely to be found by varying the intensity of environmental stresses (5). It was nevertheless proposed that a general stress response program called ESR could account for the observed cross-resistance to various stresses (13). However, while the ESR shows stereotypical expression changes, its regulation is nevertheless both gene specific and condition specific (13). Probably one of the best examples of the stereotypical behavior of the ESR is the repression of genes involved in protein synthesis and cellular growth which is also observed after benomyl action (Fig. 1 and see the supplemental material). Also, since the ESR is a graded response whose amplitude corresponds to the severity of the environmental stress, we reasoned that initiation of the ESR in suboptimal environmental perturbations may provide a useful operational characterization of the specificity or generality of the environmental response. Indeed, this approach allowed us to point out a small group of up-regulated genes which mainly code for proteins involved in plasma membrane properties (Fig. 1). Probably, the main consensus feature of all these ESRs is the transient aspect of the early genomic response. Very soon after the addition of benomyl, the membrane-controlling genes are up-regulated during a short period of 30 s to 40 min before adjusting to a new steady state. A similar transient response has been observed for many different stress conditions (13, 17), whereas the sets of genes responding to different stresses are different. The raison d'être of this transient expression is not clear. Although it is intuitive that, in the case of benomyl, changes in membrane properties might make the cell more resistant to the drug, it was hypothesized that in fact the transient changes in transcript levels would be accompanied by relatively small alterations in the corresponding protein levels (13). Another interesting aspect of this transient expression phenomenon is the necessary negative regulation which leads to a decrease in Yap1 activity, which was found to correlate with a decrease in promoter occupancy (Fig. 1 and 4). Nuclear export control of Yap1, probably in connection with specific protein modifications, is likely to have an active role in this negative regulation (18). In addition, it was recently proposed (3) that the thioredoxin system might play a crucial role in the reduction of Yap1 genome-wide activity.
The early transient period is followed by other transcriptional waves which are clearly visible in Fig. 1B (expression profile 3). Interestingly, the REDUCE analysis pointed out (Fig. 3) a group of up-regulated genes which have an STRE signal in their promoter. This finding suggests that 40 min after benomyl addition, Msn2/Msn4 transcription factors might have a role in the transcriptome modifications. A Yap1 (and/or Pdr1)-controlled up- or down-regulation of genes encoding regulatory proteins like kinases might lead to Msn2/Msn4 activation. Several candidate genes in group V (Fig. 2) are being studied to test this hypothesis. In addition, Yap1 activates the transcription of at least two other transcription factors, Yap4 (Cin5) and Yrr1, which probably shape the further evolution of the transcriptome. More work is required to present an accurate view of the regulatory network cascade following Yap1 and Pdr1 regulation.
Regulation of the early stress response: a specific role for Yap1. Yap1 is clearly the main coordinator of the early transcriptional response to benomyl stress. All the sequential steps of this transient response are recapitulated in Fig. 5 and concern Yap1 in different ways. (i) Yap1 first acts as the only transcriptional activator to elicit the up-regulation of 17 genes of groups I and II (Fig. 2). (ii) Yap1 and Pdr1 up-regulate the transcription of 11 genes of groups III and IV (Fig. 2). (iii) Yap1 and other unidentified transcription activators up-regulate the transcription of 87 genes of group V (Fig. 2). Yap1 is already known as an essential factor in the response to oxidative stress (22, 25). Its nuclear localization mediated by its C terminus cysteine-rich domain is an essential feature of its regulation (18). The H2O2-induced nuclear accumulation of Yap1 is dependent on two proteins, Gpx3 (9) and Ybp1 (30). Interestingly, it was previously shown that Yap1 discriminates between oxidative stress elicited by the oxidants H2O2 and diamide (31), and it was recently proposed that Yap1 has two distinct molecular redox centers, one triggered by ROS (hydroperoxides and the superoxide anion) and the other triggered by chemicals with thiol reactivity (electrophiles and divalent heavy metal cations) (1). This last class of chemical Yap1 activators does not require the presence of Gpx3 or Ybp1 to trigger the oxidative response. In that respect, benomyl seems to elicit a diamide-like response since we observed (data not shown) that neither Gpx3 nor Ybp1 is required to trigger the transcriptome response presented in this work. Moreover, our study demonstrates that the spectrum of Yap1-up-regulated genes differs according to the chemical nature of the signal which activates Yap1. This is especially clear if one considers the oxidative stress response. Schematically, in the presence of an H2O2 stress, two classes of important genes are immediately up-regulated: those which code for enzymes involved in the detoxification of ROS species (SOD1, SOD2, CTT1, CCP1, and TSA1) and those which control the REDOX balance (GSH1, GLR1, GRX1, TRX2, and TRR1). Strikingly (Fig. 1), shortly after the addition of benomyl, only the genes of the second group which keep the cytosol in a reduced state (GSH1, TRX2, etc.) were up-regulated; the mRNA level of genes of the first group, like CTT1, did not significantly change. Furthermore, there was a remarkable specificity in the choice of expression of genes coding for isoenzymes; TRX2 was preferred to TRX1 or TRX3, TRR1 was preferred to TRR2, etc. A similar bias has already been observed when a glucose-to-oleate switch was imposed in the growth medium (17).
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Z.K. had a fellowship from the Comenius University (Socrates/Erasmus). This work was supported by a grant from ARC 3310 and by European grants from QLK2-CT-2001-02377 and ACI-IMPBIO-2004-45.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://mcb.asm.org/.
A.L.-D. and G.L. contributed equally to this work.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
2. Bussemaker, H. J., H. Li, and E. D. Siggia. 2001. Regulatory element detection using correlation with expression. Nat. Genet. 27:167-171.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Carmel-Harel, O., R. Stearman, A. P. Gasch, D. Botstein, P. O. Brown, and G. Storz. 2001. Role of thioredoxin reductase in the Yap1p-dependent response to oxidative stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Microbiol. 39:595-605.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Chapman, S., P. Schenk, K. Kazan, and J. Manners. 2002. Using biplots to interpret gene expression patterns in plants. Bioinformatics 18:202-204.
5. Chen, D., W. M. Toone, J. Mata, R. Lyne, G. Burns, K. Kivinen, A. Brazma, N. Jones, and J. Bahler. 2003. Global transcriptional responses of fission yeast to environmental stress. Mol. Biol. Cell 14:214-229.
6. Coleman, S. T., E. A. Epping, S. M. Steggerda, and W. S. Moye-Rowley. 1999. Yap1p activates gene transcription in an oxidant-specific fashion. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19:8302-8313.
7. Cui, Z., T. Shiraki, D. Hirata, and T. Miyakawa. 1998. Yeast gene YRR1, which is required for resistance to 4-nitroquinoline N-oxide, mediates transcriptional activation of the multidrug resistance transporter gene SNQ2. Mol. Microbiol. 29:1307-1315.[CrossRef][Medline]
8. Delaunay, A., A. D. Isnard, and M. B. Toledano. 2000. H2O2 sensing through oxidation of the Yap1 transcription factor. EMBO J. 19:5157-5166.[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Delaunay, A., D. Pflieger, M.-B. Barrault, J. Vinh, and M. B. Toledano. 2002. A thiol peroxidase is an H2O2 receptor and redox-transducer in gene activation. Cell 111:471-481.[CrossRef][Medline]
10. DeRisi, J., B. van den Hazel, P. Marc, E. Balzi, P. Brown, C. Jacq, and A. Goffeau. 2000. Genome microarray analysis of transcriptional activation in multidrug resistance yeast mutants. FEBS Lett. 470:156-160.[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Devaux, F., P. Marc, C. Bouchoux, T. Delaveau, I. Hikkel, M. C. Potier, and C. Jacq. 2001. An artificial transcription activator mimics the genome-wide properties of the yeast Pdr1 transcription factor. EMBO Rep. 2:493-498.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Gabriel, K. R., and C. L. Odoroff. 1990. Biplots in biomedical research. Stat. Med. 9:469-485.[Medline]
13. Gasch, A. P., P. T. Spellman, C. M. Kao, O. Carmel-Harel, M. B. Eisen, G. Storz, D. Botstein, and P. O. Brown. 2000. Genomic expression programs in the response of yeast cells to environmental changes. Mol. Biol. Cell 11:4241-4257.
14. Grant, C. M., G. Perrone, and I. W. Dawes. 1998. Glutathione and catalase provide overlapping defenses for protection against hydrogen peroxide in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 253:893-898.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Hikkel, I., A. Lucau-Danila, T. Delaveau, P. Marc, F. Devaux, and C. Jacq. 2003. A general strategy to uncover transcription factor properties identifies a new regulator of drug resistance in yeast. J. Biol. Chem. 278:11427-11432.
16. Izawa, S., K. Maeda, K. Sugiyama, J. Mano, Y. Inoue, and A. Kimura. 1999. Thioredoxin deficiency causes the constitutive activation of Yap1, an AP-1-like transcription factor in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biol. Chem. 274:28459-28465.
17. Koerkamp, M. G., M. Rep, H. J. Bussemaker, G. P. M. A. Hardy, A. Mul, K. Piekarska, C. A. Szigyarto, J. M. Teixeiros de Mattos, and H. F. Tabak. 2002. Dissection of transient oxidative stress response in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by using DNA microarrays. Mol. Biol. Cell 13:2783-2794.
18. Kuge, S., N. Jones, and A. Nomoto. 1997. Regulation of yAP-1 nuclear localization in response to oxidative stress. EMBO J. 16:1710-1720.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Le Crom, S., F. Devaux, P. Marc, X. Zhang, W. S. Moye-Rowley, and C. Jacq. 2002. New insights into the pleiotropic drug resistance network from genome-wide characterization of the YRR1 transcription factor regulation system. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22:2642-2649.
20. Lucau-Danila, A., T. Delaveau, G. Lelandais, F. Devaux, and C. Jacq. 2003. Competitive promoter occupancy by two yeast paralogous transcription factors controlling the multidrug resistance phenomenon. J. Biol. Chem. 278:52641-52650.
21. Marc, P., and C. Jacq. 2002. Arrayplot for visualization and normalization of cDNA microarray data. Bioinformatics 18:888-889.
22. Moye-Rowley, W. S. 2003. Transcriptional control of multidrug resistance in the yeast Saccharomyces. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol. 73:251-279.[Medline]
23. Nguyen, D.-T., A.-M. Alarco, and M. Raymond. 2001. Multiple Yap1p-binding sites mediate induction of the yeast major facilitator FLR1 gene in response to drugs, oxidants, and alkylating agents. J. Biol. Chem. 276:1138-1145.
24. Pramila, T., S. Miles, D. GuhaThakurta, D. Jemiolo, and L. L. Breeden. 2002. Conserved homeodomain proteins interact with MADS box protein Mcm1 to restrict ECB-dependent transcription to the M/G1 phase of the cell cycle. Genes Dev. 16:3034-3045.
25. Rodrigues-Pousada, C. A., T. Nevitt, R. Menezes, D. Azevedo, J. Pereira, and C. Amaral. 2004. Yeast activator proteins and stress response: an overview. FEBS Lett. 567:80-85.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Roven, C., and H. J. Bussemaker. 2003. REDUCE: an online tool for inferring cis-regulatory elements and transcriptional module activities from microarray data. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:3487-3490.
27. Spellman, P. T., G. Sherlock, M. Q. Zhang, V. R. Iyer, K. Anders, M. B. Eisen, P. O. Brown, D. Botstein, and B. Futcher. 1998. Comprehensive identification of cell cycle-regulated genes of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae by microarray hybridization. Mol. Biol. Cell 9:3273-3297.
28. Tenreiro, S., A. R. Fernandes, and I. Sá-Correia. 2001. Transcriptional activation of FLR1 gene during Saccharomyces cerevisiae adaptation to growth with benomyl: role of Yap1p and Pdr3p. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 280:216-222.[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Troyanskaya, O., M. Cantor, G. Sherlock, P. Brown, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, D. Botstein, and R. B. Altman. 2001. Missing value estimation methods for DNA microarrays. Bioinformatics 17:520-525.
30. Veal, E. A., S. J. Ross, P. Malakasi, E. Peacock, and B. A. Morgan. 2003. Ybp1 is required for the hydrogen peroxide-induced oxidation of the Yap1 transcription factor. J. Biol. Chem. 278:30896-30904.
31. Wemmie, J. A., S. M. Steggerda, and W. S. Moye-Rowley. 1997. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae AP-1 protein discriminates between oxidative stress elicited by the oxidants H2O2 and diamide. J. Biol. Chem. 272:7908-7914.
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| J. Bacteriol. | J. Virol. | Eukaryot. Cell |
|---|
| Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. | Clin. Vaccine Immunol. | All ASM Journals |
|---|
