| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Molecular and Cellular Biology, November 2006, p. 7858-7870, Vol. 26, No. 21
0270-7306/06/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/MCB.00870-06
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Nahid Iglesias,
and
Françoise Stutz*
Department of Cell Biology, Sciences III, 30 Quai E. Ansermet, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
Received 16 May 2006/ Returned for modification 14 June 2006/ Accepted 24 August 2006
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-factor is accompanied by their
relocation from the nuclear interior to the nuclear periphery
(5,
6). INO1 gene
activation is also paralleled by its repositioning to the periphery,
and this relocation contributes to optimal INO1 gene
expression
(3). Importantly, recent studies pointed to a direct physical link between Sus1p, a component of the SAGA histone deacetylase coactivator complex, and the Sac3-Thp1 complex, which is part of the mRNA export machinery associated with pores (31). These data together suggested that transcription regulators could control the recruitment of genes to the nuclear periphery, possibly linking gene repositioning to optimal activation. However, a strict and systematic dependence of gene expression on peripheral positioning has not been demonstrated. More generally, the molecular basis of transcription-induced gene repositioning is poorly understood and whether it is the cause or consequence of transcription activation is still unclear. Several observations indicated a possible role for the nascent messenger ribonucleoprotein (mRNP) in stabilizing the association of a gene with the nuclear periphery. First, mRNP components physically interact with the NPC-associated Mlp1p and Mlp2p proteins (11, 17, 43), and the results of chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) experiments suggest that Mlp1p associates with transcribing genes in an RNA-dependent manner (5). These observations raised the possibility that Mlp proteins contribute to gene anchoring by interacting with nascent transcripts. Second, several mRNA export factors bind mRNA cotranscriptionally (28, 38, 45), consistent with a potential role for growing mRNPs in bridging active genes to the NPC. Moreover, we recently showed that the mRNA export receptor Mex67p, which promotes the translocation of mRNP complexes through the NPC (35), is also recruited cotranscriptionally (19). The association of Mex67p with transcribing genes and its ability to interact with various pore components raised the possibility that mRNP-bound Mex67p helps the anchoring of transcribing loci to the nuclear periphery.
To test the potential roles of Mlp1p and
Mex67p in gene anchoring, we compared the localization of inducible
genes in wild-type (WT) and
mlp1 or
mex67-5 mutant cells
(35). The results
indicate that both Mlp1p and Mex67p are required for efficient
anchoring of the galactose-inducible GAL10 and
stress-inducible HSP104 genes; however, gene anchoring appears
to be not essential for the transcription of these two genes. Notably,
loss of gene anchoring in the mex67-5 mutant
correlates with the inability of the mex67-5 mutant
protein to associate with the transcribing genes. Moreover, we find
that transcription-induced NPC anchoring of the GAL2 gene does
not require the mRNA-coding region, suggesting that nascent mRNP may
not be essential for bridging an interaction between an active gene and
the NPC. These data and the observation that the cotranscriptional
binding of Mex67p is RNA independent suggest that Mex67p may contribute
to gene anchoring by interacting with activated chromatin rather than
nascent RNA.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Yeast strains.
The yeast strains used in this study
are listed in
Table
1. The
mex67-5 strain contains an integrated mutant gene
(26). Wild-type and
mex67-5 genes were genomically tagged with green
fluorescent protein (GFP)-Kanr by homologous recombination
(29).
GA1320-
mlp1 and GA1320-mex67-5
strains were obtained by crossing strain GA1320 (LacI-GFP-HIS3
Nup49-GFP) with the mlp1::Kanr
(S. Gasser lab) and mex67-5
(26) strains. The
GAL10 and HSP104 loci were subsequently tagged with
LacO repeats in the GA1320, GA1320-
mlp1, and
GA1320-mex67-5 strains by transformation of
linearized pFS2913 and pFS3013, respectively, followed by selection on
Trp plates. Insertions were confirmed by PCR on
genomic DNA. The
gal2 strain was obtained by
transformation and homologous recombination of a PCR-generated
loxP-URA3 cassette
(18) carrying ends
complementary to the 5' and 3' ends of the
GAL2-coding region in the WT GAL2-LacO strain (FSY2817). The
forward and reverse primers used were GAL2-loxP-F1 (OFS1071)
(5'AACACAAGAT TAACATAATA AAAAAAATAA TTCTTTCATAC
AGCTGAAGCT TCGTACGC 3') and GAL2-loxP-R1
(OFS1072) (5'AAAATTAAGA GAGATGATGG
AGCGTCTCAC TTCAAACGCAG CATAGGCCACT
AGTGGATCTG3'), respectively.
The
gal2-3'UTR
and
3'UTR strains were constructed
using the same strategy with the forward primers GAL2-loxP-F1 (OFS1071)
and GAL2-3'UTR-loxP-F1 (OFS1113)
(5'TTACAACATG ACGACAAACC GTGGTACAAG GCCATGCTAG
AATAACAGCT GAAGCTTCGT ACGC3'), respectively, in
combination with the reverse primer GAL2-3'UTR-loxP-R1
(OFS1104) (5'GTTAGCTCAG GAATTCAACT GGAAGAAAGT
CCAGGCAAGT ACCTGACGCA TAGGCCACTA GTGGATCTG3'). The
prom-gal2 and
UAS-3'UTR strains were obtained
similarly using the forward primers 200GAL2-loxP-F1 (OFS1103)
(5'CAAACATTTC GCAGGCTAAA ATGTGGAGAT AGGATAAGTT
TTGTAGCAGC TGAAGCTTCG TACGC3') and
550GAL2-loxP-F1 (OFS1102) (5'CAAAAGGTAC
TCAACGTCAA TTCGGAAAGC TTCCTTCCGG AATGGCCAGC TGAAGCTTCG
TACGC3'), with the reverse primer GAL2-loxP-R1
(OFS1072) and GAL2-3'UTR-loxP-R1 (OFS1104), respectively. The
URA3 selective marker was subsequently excised by expression
of Cre recombinase and selection of colonies on 5-fluoroorotic acid
(18). Deletions were
confirmed by PCR on genomic DNA.
|
mlp1 strains bearing LacO repeats downstream of
GAL10, HSP104, or GAL2 and expressing
integrated LacI-GFP repressor and Nup49-GFP fusions were grown and
induced as indicated in figure legends. Live microscopy was performed
as described previously
(41). Briefly, a Zeiss
Axioplan microscope was used to capture 21-image stacks of 95-nm step
size. In the focal plane in which the GFP spot is brightest, its
position was mapped to one of three concentric zones of equal surface
by dividing the spot-to-pore distance by the nuclear diameter. A gene
was scored as being located at the nuclear periphery when it was
present in the most peripheral zone, i.e., when the distance between
the spot and the nuclear periphery was <0.184 of 1/2 nuclear
diameter. A random distribution of the tagged gene would result in a
33% occurrence in each of the three zones. Values above 33% indicate
enrichment in this particular zone. Statistical analysis used a
proportion method to compare zone 1 percentages between two different
samples. Significance was determined with a 95% confidence
interval. Northern blot analyses. Total RNA was extracted from the cultures used for gene localization using a hot phenol method, and 10 to 15 µg was fractionated on 1% agarose-formaldehyde gels or 8% polyacrylamide-urea gels. Agarose gels were transferred to Hybond membranes by vacuum blotting, whereas polyacrylamide gels were transferred by semidry blotting as described previously (40). Membranes were hybridized with randomly primed labeled PCR fragments using standard protocols. The GAL1 and HSP104 probes correspond to protein-coding regions. The GAL2 and 3'UTR probes correspond to positions 920 to 1600 of the GAL2 protein-coding region and to positions +123 to +550 of the GAL2 3'UTR, respectively. The signals were quantified with a Bio-Rad Instant Imager and normalized to those obtained with probes specific for 18S rRNA or actin mRNA hybridized to the same membranes.
Chromatin immunoprecipitations. For ChIP analysis of HSP104, strains were grown in yeast extract-peptone-dextrose (YEPD) rich medium to an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of 0.8 to 1, divided into three equal cultures for subsequent analysis in triplicate, treated with 10% ethanol for 30 min at 25°C, and cross-linked for 10 min with formaldehyde. For ChIP analysis of GAL10, strains were grown at 25°C in yeast extract-peptone (YEP) plus 2% raffinose to an OD600 of 0.7, divided into three equal cultures, induced with 2% galactose for 2.5 h, mixed with 1 volume of YEP plus 2% galactose at 25°C or 49°C and either kept at 25°C or incubated for 15 min at 37°C, and cross-linked for 10 min at the same temperatures. For ChIP analysis of GAL2, the relevant strains were precultured in YEP plus 2% raffinose as described above, divided into three equal cultures, induced with 2% galactose for 2.5 h, and cross-linked for 10 min. Cross-linking was reduced to 5 min when preparing ChIP extracts for RNase sensitivity tests. In all cases, glass bead extracts were sonicated so as to shear the chromatin down to 300- to 400-bp fragments. Sonicated extracts (1 mg protein in 1-ml final volume) were immunoprecipitated with polyclonal antibodies against Mex67p (gift from C. Dargemont), TATA binding protein (TBP) (gift from M. Collart,) or a monoclonal antibody against RNA polymerase II (PolII) C-terminal domain (8WG16 from Covance). Each immunoprecipitation was performed three times using three independent extracts. Immunoprecipitated DNA was quantified by real-time PCR as described earlier (45) using primer pairs described at http://www.unige.ch/sciences/biologie/bicel/stutz/Dieppois_MCB06_Suppl_Mat.pdf.To calculate the increase in signal in the different gene regions, the absolute values obtained by quantitative PCR were normalized to the values obtained with the nontranscribed intergenic region, arbitrarily set to 1. To evaluate the importance of RNA in ChIP, cross-linked and sonicated extracts, prepared from the galactose-induced HA-Sub2p strain FSY1651, were immunoprecipitated with antibodies against hemagglutinin (HA) (monoclonal 16B12; Covance), RNA PolII, or Mex67p. Immunoprecipitated extracts on beads were washed and resuspended in 1 ml buffer alone or containing 15 µl RNase Cocktail TM (500 U/ml RNase A and 20,000 U/ml RNase T1; Ambion) and incubated for 30 min at room temperature. Beads were washed, and the DNA was purified and quantified as described above.
Western blotting. Total protein extracts were prepared from aliquots of cultures used for ChIP analysis prior to cross-linking, fractionated on sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gels, and examined by Western blotting with polyclonal antibodies specific for Mex67p (1:10,000) (a gift from C. Dargemont) and TBP (1:2,000) (a gift from M. Collart).
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
mlp1 cells. GAL10 is part of a cluster of
galactose-inducible genes that relocate to the nuclear periphery upon
transcriptional activation
(6), and HSP104
transcription can be activated by heat stress or ethanol at
25°C (32). To
locate the genes with respect to the nuclear periphery, LacO repeats
were inserted 600 to 700 bp downstream of the GAL10 and
HSP104 loci in wild-type or
mlp1 strains
that also expressed chromosomally encoded GFP-LacI repressor and
GFP-Nup49 (Fig.
1A) (21). The
GAL10-LacO strains were grown in glucose- or
galactose-containing medium at 25°C followed by gene
localization in living cells by fluorescence microscopy. Consistent
with earlier observations
(6), transcription
activation of GAL10 in wild-type cells promoted the
repositioning of the GAL10 locus, as the percentage of cells
with the tagged gene at the periphery increased from 30% in glucose to
55% in galactose (Fig. 1B,
left panel). Similarly, transcription activation of HSP104
with ethanol in HSP104-LacO wild-type cells resulted in the
repositioning of the locus to the nuclear periphery (from 30% to 60%)
(Fig. 1B, right panel).
Ethanol is unlikely to trigger general chromatin reorganization, as it
had no effect on the localization of the GAL10 locus (data not
shown). Interestingly, for both conditions, the absence of Mlp1p
resulted in a significant loss of peripheral localization for these two
genes (from 55% to 38% for GAL10 and from 60% to 44% for
HSP104) (Fig. 1B,
left and right panels). Northern blot analyses showed that neither
GAL10 nor HSP104 mRNA levels were substantially
affected in the absence of Mlp1p (Fig.
1C and data not shown).
These results indicate first that Mlp1p contributes to
transcription-induced GAL10 and HSP104 gene anchoring
and second that GAL10 and HSP104 gene expression does
not require stable association with the
NPC.
|
|
To further examine the role of Mex67p in gene anchoring, ChIP was used to compare the association of Mex67p with the GAL10 gene in wild-type and mex67-5 mutant cells. Wild-type Mex67p was detected in association with GAL10 when cells were grown in galactose but not in glucose, confirming that cotranscriptional binding of Mex67p correlates with active transcription (Fig. 2C) (19). Mex67p was detected at very low levels at the promoter, clearly increased at the 5' end, reached a maximum at the middle of the gene, and declined towards the 3'end and 3'UTR. This profile indicates that Mex67p recruitment starts at an early phase of transcription. The mex67-5 mutant protein showed a similar binding profile at 25°C. At 37°C, however, while association of wild-type Mex67p with GAL10 was even more efficient, the recruitment of mex67-5 was strongly inhibited. Western blotting of total cell extracts confirmed that wild-type and mex67-5 proteins were present in similar amounts (Fig. 2D). These data suggest that the binding of Mex67p to GAL10 contributes to the stable association of this transcribing gene with the nuclear periphery.
Mex67p is required for transcription-induced HSP104 gene repositioning. To address the role of Mex67p in gene anchoring under different inducing conditions, HSP104-LacO was localized in wild-type and mex67-5 cells before or after a 30-min treatment with 10% ethanol at 25°C (Fig. 3A). As shown above (Fig. 1B), the number of cells with HSP104 at the nuclear periphery increased from 25% to nearly 60% after ethanol treatment in the wild-type cells. In contrast, HSP104 relocation was completely abolished in mex67-5 cells. To verify that ethanol has no indirect effects on gene positioning, the localization of the LacO-tagged PHO84 gene was examined in these cells under different conditions described at http://www.unige.ch/sciences/biologie/bicel/stutz/Dieppois_MCB06_Suppl_Mat.pdf.The PHO84 gene is located at 23 kb from the telomere of chromosome XIII. As a consequence of telomere anchoring, the LacO-tagged PHO84 gene is detected at the nuclear periphery in 60% of wild-type cells independent of its transcriptional state. Importantly, shifting the LacO-tagged mex67-5 strain to 37°C or exposing the cells to 10% ethanol for 30 min did not dissociate the PHO84 locus from the periphery. Therefore, ethanol treatment of mex67-5 cells does not induce general chromatin rearrangements.
|
The role of Mex67p in HSP104 gene anchoring was further examined by comparing the association of wild-type and mutant mex67-5 with the HSP104 gene by ChIP. These experiments showed that wild-type Mex67p was efficiently recruited to HSP104 after ethanol induction at 25°C, starting at the 5' end, reaching a maximum in the middle of the gene, and decreasing towards the 3' end (Fig. 3C). In contrast, mex67-5 was barely detectable, despite comparable Mex67p and mex67-5 protein levels in these cells (Fig. 3D). Notably, ethanol stress at 25°C does not affect mex67-5-GFP localization, in contrast to heat stress, which rapidly dissociates mex67-5-GFP from the nuclear periphery (Fig. 3E) (35). Ethanol stress therefore affects more severely the binding of mex67-5 to the HSP104 gene than to the NPC. Thus, the lack of mex67-5 cotranscriptional recruitment in ethanol is not due to the dissociation of the mutant protein from the NPC but to its inability to associate with the transcribing gene. As for GAL10, these observations suggest that Mex67p binding to HSP104 contributes to the stable association of this transcribing gene with the nuclear periphery.
Cotranscriptional recruitment of Mex67p is RNA independent. To determine whether the recruitment of Mex67p to transcribing genes is mediated by nascent mRNP, the association of Mex67p with GAL10 was examined before or after RNase treatment (Fig. 4). RNA PolII and Sub2p were used as negative and positive controls, as the cotranscriptional recruitment of these proteins is RNA independent and dependent, respectively (1). Extracts prepared from a galactose-induced strain expressing HA-Sub2p were immunoprecipitated with antibodies against RNA PolII, HA, or Mex67p. Consistent with earlier studies (1), quantification of coprecipitating DNA showed that the association of RNA PolII along the GAL10 gene was not affected by RNase treatment, whereas the binding of Sub2p was substantially reduced. Importantly, the association of Mex67p was insensitive to RNase, indicating that the early recruitment of Mex67p to transcribing genes is primarily mediated by adaptors associated with the transcription machinery.
|
gal2), the second lacks only
the 3'UTR (
3'UTR), the third
lacks the mRNA-coding and 3'UTR sequences
(
gal2-3'UTR), the fourth
lacks the promoter region encompassing the TATA box and the
protein-coding region (
prom-gal2), and the fifth
lacks the whole GAL2 gene unit, including the upstream
activation sequence (UAS), promoter region, protein-coding, and
3'UTR sequences (
UAS-3'UTR)
(22). The GAL2
locus was tagged with LacO repeats in wild-type and mutant strains, and
its position was examined in cells grown in glucose or galactose (Fig.
5B). In the wild-type
GAL2 strain, the number of cells with the tagged gene at the
periphery increased from 25% in glucose to nearly 45% in galactose. In
contrast, no galactose-induced repositioning was observed in the
UAS-3'UTR mutant, confirming that
the relocation observed in wild-type cells is exclusively due to
GAL2 gene activation. Surprisingly, deletion of the
protein-coding region (
gal2) or 3'UTR
(
3'UTR) or both
(
gal2-3'UTR) did not
substantially affect GAL2 gene anchoring (locus repositioning
from 25% in glucose to more than 40% in galactose), indicating that the
protein-coding and 3'UTR regions are not essential for
GAL2 gene anchoring. In contrast, repositioning was completely
lost in the
prom-gal2 cells. These experiments
indicate that the promoter region containing the TATA box is required
and that the UAS alone is not sufficient for the association of
GAL2 with the nuclear periphery.
|
gal2,
3'UTR, and
gal2-3'UTR mutant loci
following galactose induction (Fig.
5C). Interestingly, TBP is
recruited to similar levels to the GAL2 promoter region
encompassing the TATA box in all four strains, indicating that
GAL2 transcription activation is not affected in the absence
of the mRNA-coding regions. These results together with the gene
localizations suggest that the mRNA-coding region is not essential for
GAL2 gene anchoring, and that transcription activation and TBP
recruitment are both necessary and sufficient for transcription-induced
GAL2 gene repositioning.
Stable mRNP biogenesis is not required for early recruitment of Mex67p.
To define the nature
and amounts of transcripts encoded by the GAL2 locus in the
absence of the protein-coding region or the 3'UTR, total RNA
from galactose-induced wild-type,
gal2,
3'UTR, and
prom-gal2 strains was analyzed by Northern blotting
with probes spanning either the protein-coding region (probe
GAL2) or the 3'UTR (probe 3'UTR) (Fig.
6A). The GAL2 probe detects GAL2
transcripts encoded in the wild type and the mutant lacking the
3'UTR, whereas the 3'UTR probe detects transcripts
encoded in the wild type and the
gal2 mutant. Neither
probe should generate a signal in the mutant lacking the promoter and
coding region. The GAL2 probe detected no transcript in the
gal2 strain and showed that in the absence of the
3'UTR, GAL2 transcripts were expressed at roughly 20%
of wild-type GAL2 mRNA levels (Fig.
6A, left panel),
indicating that correct 3'-end formation contributes to optimal
GAL2 mRNA levels. Notably, the 3'UTR probe detected a
low-abundance 450-base-long transcript in strain
gal2
(Fig. 6A, right panel,
lane 2). Since the 5' end of the GAL2 mRNA has been
mapped to position 97 upstream of the ATG codon,
and the LoxP-derived sequence is 106 bp
(18,
22), the 3'end of
this short 450-base transcript is predicted to lie around position
+250 of the 3'UTR. Northern blot quantification as well
as reverse transcription combined with real-time
PCR (see
http://www.unige.ch/sciences/biologie/bicel/stutz/Dieppois_MCB06_Suppl_Mat.pdf)indicate that this small transcript accumulates to roughly 10% of
wild-type GAL2 mRNA levels. The low level of expression of
this short transcript despite wild-type levels of TBP recruitment at
the promoter (Fig. 5C)
suggests that this small RNA is very unstable.
|
gal2 locus despite the
production of very limited amounts of RNA suggests that mRNP does not
play a major role in transcription-induced gene repositioning.
Furthermore, the RNase-insensitive recruitment of Mex67p (Fig.
4) raises the possibility
that Mex67p contributes to gene anchoring in the absence of stable mRNP
formation. To define whether Mex67p is recruited to the
gal2 gene, ChIP was used to compare the recruitment
of TBP, RNA PolII, and Mex67p on the wild-type and
gal2 genes after galactose induction (Fig.
6B). Four primer pairs
were used to examine the association of these proteins with chromatin:
one corresponds to the GAL2 promoter region, another to the
LoxP sequence present only in the
gal2 mutant, and
two others are specific for the 3'untranslated region and
amplify gene segments from +145 to +257
(3'UTR1) and +238 to +328 (3'UTR2)
(Fig. 6B, top). As shown
in Fig. 5C, similar levels of TBP were recruited to the GAL2
promoter in the two strains. TBP was barely detectable at the LoxP site
located less than 200 bp downstream from the promoter region in
gal2. The very low level of TBP at this site
demonstrates the high resolution of these ChIP analyses and is
consistent with efficient shearing of chromatin in the extracts. RNA
PolII levels were comparable within the promoter and 3'UTR
regions of the two strains. The RNA PolII signal was higher at the LoxP
site in the
gal2 strain, consistent with the
increased levels of RNA polymerase at the 5' end of
GAL10 (Fig. 2C).
Finally, Mex67p was detected at very low levels at the
GAL2 promoter in both strains, increased at the LoxP site, and
reached a fourfold enrichment in the 3'UTR1 region of both
strains, before dropping in the 3'UTR2 region. Notably, the
size of the short transcript produced in
gal2 cells
predicts that 3'-end formation occurs somewhere between the
3'UTR1 and 3'UTR2 regions (Fig.
6A). These results suggest
that 3'-end processing may coincide with the loss of Mex67p
from the chromatin. More importantly, the association of Mex67p with
the
gal2 locus strengthens the view that early
recruitment of Mex67p depends on the transcription machinery rather
than mRNP formation and that Mex67 may act as a trans-acting
factor in NPC gene anchoring by virtue of an RNA-independent
process. | DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
GAL2 gene anchoring does not require the mRNA-coding region.
Our analyses of GAL2 gene
anchoring in strains lacking various portions of the GAL2 gene
show that the protein-coding and 3'UTR regions are dispensable,
while the UAS and promoter region encompassing the TATA box are
necessary for GAL2 association with the nuclear periphery
(Fig. 5A and B). The
results of ChIP experiments confirmed that similar amounts of TBP and
RNA PolII associate with the GAL2 promoter of wild-type,
gal2,
3'UTR, and
gal2-3'UTR cells,
indicating that transcription activation and initiation occur
efficiently in the absence of the protein-coding and 3'UTR
regions (Fig. 5C and
6B; also data not shown).
Despite efficient TBP recruitment, GAL2 transcripts encoded by
the
3'UTR mutant were poorly
expressed (20% of wild-type levels), probably due to message
instability as a result of improper 3'-end processing. Notably,
the short 450-base transcript encoded by the
gal2
mutant was present at even lower levels (10% of wild-type levels).
Thus, the poor expression of this short RNA together with the efficient
transcription-induced repositioning of the
gal2 gene
suggests that RNA is unlikely to act as a major determinant in
GAL2 gene anchoring. However, the possibility that the
GAL2 mRNA encoded in the wild-type strain contributes to the
maintenance of the induced gene at the periphery cannot be excluded.
This possibility could be tested by comparing the dissociation kinetics
of wild-type GAL2,
gal2, or
3'UTR loci from the nuclear envelope
after transcriptional shut-off.
So far, our data on GAL2 support the view that transcription activation but not mRNA production plays a major role in NPC anchoring of this gene. Accordingly, physical interactions have been identified between Sus1p, a component of the SAGA coactivator complex recruited upstream of galactose-inducible genes, and components of the mRNA export machinery associated with pores (31). Moreover, a recent study showed that the promoter regions of numerous active genes, including the GAL genes, physically interact with the NPC component Nup2p. Notably, these interactions are independent of transcription, suggesting that early activating events might be sufficient for connecting a gene to the NPC (33, 34). The results of our gene localization experiments on GAL2 deletion strains are consistent with the results of these biochemical studies, but this may not be the case for all genes. Indeed, a recent study shows that efficient repositioning of the HXK1 gene requires the 3'UTR (42). One possibility is that gene-to-pore interactions involve a number of partially redundant interactions, which may occur simultaneously or sequentially during the tethering process. Thus, the contribution of the mRNP to gene anchoring may depend on the strength of other, i.e., transcription linked, interactions.
How do Mex67p and Mlp1p contribute to gene anchoring? To identify trans-acting factors implicated in gene anchoring and following up on the initial hypothesis that anchoring may be mediated by factors interacting with nascent mRNPs, we found that both Mex67p and Mlp1p contribute to GAL10 and HSP104 gene anchoring (Fig. 1B, 2A, and 3A). Indeed, the activated GAL10 gene rapidly dissociated from the periphery in mex67-5 cells shifted to 37°C. Similarly, ethanol-induced HSP104 gene anchoring observed in wild-type cells at 25°C was abolished in mex67-5 cells at this temperature. Importantly, the loss of gene anchoring was paralleled by the loss of cotranscriptional binding of the mex67-5 protein to ethanol-induced HSP104, a condition under which the mex67-5 protein remains at the nuclear periphery (Fig. 3C and E). These observations indicate that maintenance of the mex67-5 protein at the periphery is not sufficient for gene anchoring and that productive interaction of Mex67p with the gene is required. Although we cannot exclude the possibility that gene movement is restricted in a mex67-5 mutant heated to 37°C or exposed to ethanol or distinguish whether Mex67p cotranscriptional recruitment is the cause or consequence of peripheral gene association, the results of both the GAL10 and HSP104 experiments support the view that Mex67p contributes to NPC anchoring by physical association with activated genes.
Our ChIP analyses show that association of Mex67p with GAL10 and HSP104 is clearly detectable at the 5' end, reaches a maximum in the middle part, and decreases at the 3' end of these genes (Fig. 2C and 3C). Importantly, the interaction of Mex67p with the GAL10 gene is not sensitive to RNase treatment, indicating that the early recruitment of Mex67p to transcribing genes is not mediated by RNA (Fig. 4). Thus, Mex67p is likely to be recruited via adaptors associated with the transcription machinery. Despite the good resolution of our ChIP experiments, the Mex67p signal detected at the promoter is too weak to conclude that Mex67p already binds in this region. The ChIP profile more likely indicates that Mex67p becomes associated with activated genes at a very early step of transcription, possibly within the transition from initiation to elongation.
Notably, Mex67p is efficiently
recruited to the
gal2 gene, which does not produce a
stable mRNP (Fig. 6A and
B). This observation further supports the view that the
early recruitment of Mex67p is not mediated by RNA, but by an
adaptor(s) associated with the transcription machinery. Mex67p is
probably transferred to the mRNA at a later step, an event not easily
detected by ChIP. Notably, analysis of Mex67p recruitment on the
wild-type GAL2 and
gal2 genes indicated a
drop in Mex67p binding around position +250 within the
3'UTR. Interestingly, this site corresponds to the region
within which the 450-base transcript encoded by the
gal2 gene is predicted to end (Fig.
6A and B). This
observation suggests that transfer of Mex67p from chromatin to mRNA may
coincide with 3'-end processing. This view is consistent with
an earlier study proposing that binding of Mex67p to mRNA is coupled to
3'-end processing and release of the mRNP from the transcribing
gene
(15).
The finding that early recruitment of Mex67p is RNA independent raises the question of the nature of the adaptor(s) mediating the association of Mex67p to active genes. One candidate is Npl3p, an hnRNP protein interacting with Mex67p and recruited to active genes by the RNA PolII complex at an early step of transcription (15, 28). Another is the hnRNP-like protein Yra1p, which interacts with the N-terminal domain of Mex67p (37, 39, 44). The association of Yra1p with transcribing genes is largely RNase insensitive, suggesting that this mRNA export adaptor is first recruited via interaction with the transcription machinery and subsequently transferred to mRNA (1, 28, 45). Thus, Mex67p could be recruited via interaction of its N-terminal domain with Yra1p. However, the results of our recent studies indicate that the early recruitment of Mex67p largely depends on its C-terminal UBA domain (19). Interestingly, Hpr1p, a component of the THO complex implicated in transcription elongation and mRNA export (7, 38, 45), directly interacts with the Mex67p UBA domain, and this interaction facilitates the recruitment of Mex67p to the GAL10 gene (19). Future studies will address whether early Mex67p recruitment is mediated via multiple, possibly sequential, adaptors associated with the transcription initiation and elongation machineries.
This work also shows that
the NPC-attached Mlp1 protein contributes to efficient
transcription-induced GAL10 and HSP104 gene anchoring
(Fig. 1B). Genome-wide
mapping of Mlp1p-bound DNA sequences suggested that interaction of
Mlp1p with chromatin occurs according to different modes. Whereas the
association of Mlp1p with induced genes is RNA dependent and biased
towards the 3' end, the binding to subtelomeric regions is
largely RNA independent
(5). Mlp1p has also been
found in association with components of the SAGA coactivator and
mediator complexes implicated in transcription activation
(14). Thus, Mlp proteins
may contribute to stable GAL10 and HSP104 gene
tethering at an early step by interaction with chromatin-associated
transcription regulators, or at a later step by interacting with
nascent transcripts, or both. In contrast to our observations, a recent
report identified no effect of
mlp1 on gene anchoring
(4). It is presently
unclear whether this discrepancy results from strain background or
experimental differences. Importantly, this recent study identified
additional factors implicated in gene anchoring, including Ada2p and
Sus1p, two components of the SAGA coactivator complex, as well as Nup1
and Sac3, two factors belonging to the mRNA export machinery associated
with pores (4). Whether
these factors, as well as Mex67p and Mlp1p, act in the same pathway and
in a defined chronological order during the anchoring process are
questions for the future. It is possible that both early
transcription-linked and later potentially mRNP-dependent tethers
contribute to gene anchoring. However, the relative importance of
individual tethers may vary from gene to
gene.
Relationship between gene expression and anchoring.
Although
peripheral localization has been proposed to optimize the expression of
some inducible genes (3,
42), our analyses
indicate that gene anchoring may not be a general requirement for gene
expression. Indeed, whereas HSP104 gene anchoring was strongly
inhibited in the mex67-5 mutant (Fig.
3A), HSP104 mRNA
levels were even higher in mex67-5 cells than in the
wild-type cells (Fig. 3B).
ChIP analyses of TBP and RNA PolII indicated similar transcription
rates for HSP104 in wild-type and mex67-5
cells exposed to ethanol, indicating that dissociation of
HSP104 from the periphery affects mRNA turnover rather than
transcription rates (Fig.
3C). In contrast, a shift
of mex67-5 cells to 37°C led to a slight
decrease in GAL10 mRNA levels and RNA PolII recruitment to
this gene (Fig. 2B and C).
Whether this decrease is due to indirect effects of
mex67-5 on transcription and/or a decrease in mRNA
stability as a result of the mRNA export block is unclear. However, the
slow and modest effect on mRNA levels compared to the rapid and strong
effect on GAL10 gene localization suggests that NPC anchoring
does not influence the expression of this gene. This conclusion is
consistent with the report by Cabal et al.
(4) showing that the
changes in GAL locus positioning, observed in strains lacking
the SAGA components Ada2p or Sus1p or the pore-associated mRNA export
factors Nup1 or Sac3, do not affect GAL1 mRNA transcription
levels. Our analyses with
mlp1 cells led to similar
conclusions. As this mutant presents no mRNA export defect
(27,
36), the relationship
between gene localization and expression could be examined without
potential indirect effects of an export block. Neither GAL10
nor HSP104 levels were affected in
mlp1
cells despite a clear effect on gene repositioning (Fig.
1B and C; also data not
shown). At this time, it is unclear whether the increased expression of
INOI and HXKI, observed when these genes were
positioned at the periphery, reflects a natural regulatory pathway or
results from their artificial tethering to the nuclear envelope
(3,
42).
The functional significance of GAL10 and HSP104 gene anchoring is an open question, as gene repositioning appears to be the consequence rather than the cause of their transcriptional activity. Peripheral localization may be more important for the efficient expression of other types of genes under different physiological or inducing conditions. Another likely possibility is that gene anchoring contributes to gene expression efficiency by facilitating mRNA export through nuclear pores. Since Mlp proteins have been implicated in the nuclear retention of unprocessed pre-mRNAs (11), an interesting view is that gene anchoring also contributes to this late step of mRNA surveillance at the nuclear periphery.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF grant 102235 to F.S.) and support from the SNF program "Frontiers in Genetics" to F.S.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Published
ahead of print on 5 September 2006. ![]()
These
authors contributed equally to this work. ![]()
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Andrulis, E. D., A. M. Neiman, D. C. Zappulla, and R. Sternglanz. 1998. Perinuclear localization of chromatin facilitates transcriptional silencing. Nature 394:592-595.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Brickner, J. H., and P. Walter. 2004. Gene recruitment of the activated INO1 locus to the nuclear membrane. PLoS Biol. 2:e342.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Cabal, G. G., A. Genovesio, S. Rodriguez-Navarro, C. Zimmer, O. Gadal, A. Lesne, H. Buc, F. Feuerbach-Fournier, J. C. Olivo-Marin, E. C. Hurt, and U. Nehrbass.2006 . SAGA interacting factors confine subdiffusion of transcribed genes to the nuclear envelope. Nature 441:770-773.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Casolari,
J. M., C. R. Brown, D. A. Drubin,
O. J. Rando, and P. A. Silver.2005
. Developmentally induced changes in transcriptional
program alter spatial organization across chromosomes. Genes
Dev.
19:1188-1198.
6. Casolari, J. M., C. R. Brown, S. Komili, J. West, H. Hieronymus, and P. A. Silver. 2004. Genome-wide localization of the nuclear transport machinery couples transcriptional status and nuclear organization. Cell 117:427-439.[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Chavez, S., T. Beilharz, A. G. Rondon, H. Erdjument-Bromage, P. Tempst, J. Q. Svejstrup, T. Lithgow, and A. Aguilera.2000 . A protein complex containing Tho2, Hpr1, Mft1 and a novel protein, Thp2, connects transcription elongation with mitotic recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. EMBO J. 19:5824-5834.[CrossRef][Medline]
8. Cockell, M., and S. M. Gasser. 1999. Nuclear compartments and gene regulation. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9:199-205.[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Dilworth,
D. J., A. J. Tackett, R. S. Rogers,
E. C. Yi, R. H. Christmas, J. J. Smith,
A. F. Siegel, B. T. Chait, R. W. Wozniak,
and J. D. Aitchison. 2005. The mobile
nucleoporin Nup2p and chromatin-bound Prp20p function in endogenous
NPC-mediated transcriptional control. J. Cell
Biol.
171:955-965.
10. Feuerbach, F., V. Galy, E. Trelles-Sticken, M. Fromont-Racine, A. Jacquier, E. Gilson, J. C. Olivo-Marin, H. Scherthan, and U. Nehrbass.2002 . Nuclear architecture and spatial positioning help establish transcriptional states of telomeres in yeast. Nat. Cell Biol. 4:214-221.[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Galy, V., O. Gadal, M. Fromont-Racine, A. Romano, A. Jacquier, and U. Nehrbass. 2004. Nuclear retention of unspliced mRNAs in yeast is mediated by perinuclear Mlp1. Cell 116:63-73.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Galy, V., J. C. Olivo-Marin, H. Scherthan, V. Doye, N. Rascalou, and U. Nehrbass. 2000. Nuclear pore complexes in the organization of silent telomeric chromatin. Nature 403:108-112.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Gasch, A. P., and M. Werner-Washburne. 2002. The genomics of yeast responses to environmental stress and starvation.Funct. Integr. Genomics 2:181-192.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Gavin, A. C., M. Bosche, R. Krause, P. Grandi, M. Marzioch, A. Bauer, J. Schultz, J. M. Rick, A. M. Michon, C. M. Cruciat, M. Remor, C. Hofert, M. Schelder, M. Brajenovic, H. Ruffner, A. Merino, K. Klein, M. Hudak, D. Dickson, T. Rudi, V. Gnau, A. Bauch, S. Bastuck, B. Huhse, C. Leutwein, M. A. Heurtier, R. R. Copley, A. Edelmann, E. Querfurth, V. Rybin, G. Drewes, M. Raida, T. Bouwmeester, P. Bork, B. Seraphin, B. Kuster, G. Neubauer, and G. Superti-Furga.2002 . Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 415:141-147.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Gilbert, W., and C. Guthrie. 2004. The Glc7p nuclear phosphatase promotes mRNA export by facilitating association of Mex67p with mRNA. Mol. Cell 13:201-212.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. 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.
17. Green,
D. M., C. P. Johnson, H. Hagan, and A. H.
Corbett. 2003. The C-terminal domain of myosin-like
protein 1 (Mlp1p) is a docking site for heterogeneous nuclear
ribonucleoproteins that are required for mRNA export. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
100:1010-1015.
18. Gueldener,
U., J. Heinisch, G. J. Koehler, D. Voss, and
J. H. Hegemann. 2002. A second set of loxP
marker cassettes for Cre-mediated multiple gene knockouts in budding
yeast. Nucleic Acids Res.
30:e23.
19. Gwizdek, C., I. Iglesias, M. S. Rodriguez, B. Ossareh-Nazari, M. Hobeika, G. Divita, F. Stutz, and C. Dargemont. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, in press.
20. Hediger, F., and S. M. Gasser. 2002. Nuclear organization and silencing: putting things in their place. Nat. Cell Biol. 4:E53-E55.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Heun,
P., T. Laroche, K. Shimada, P. Furrer, and S. M. Gasser.2001
. Chromosome dynamics in the yeast interphase nucleus.Science
294:2181-2186.
22. Huibregtse,
J. M., P. D. Good, G. T. Marczynski,
J. A. Jaehning, and D. R. Engelke.1993
. Gal4 protein binding is required but not sufficient
for derepression and induction of GAL2 expression. J.
Biol. Chem.
268:22219-22222.
23. Hurt,
E., K. Strasser, A. Segref, S. Bailer, N. Schlaich, C. Presutti, D.
Tollervey, and R. Jansen. 2000. Mex67p mediates
nuclear export of a variety of RNA polymerase II transcripts.J. Biol. Chem.
275:8361-8368.
24. Ishii, K., G. Arib, C. Lin, G. Van Houwe, and U. K. Laemmli.2002 . Chromatin boundaries in budding yeast: the nuclear pore connection. Cell 109:551-562.[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Isogai, Y., and R. Tjian. 2003. Targeting genes and transcription factors to segregated nuclear compartments. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 15:296-303.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Jimeno, S., A. G. Rondon, R. Luna, and A. Aguilera.2002 . The yeast THO complex and mRNA export factors link RNA metabolism with transcription and genome instability. EMBO J. 21:3526-3535.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Kosova,
B., N. Pante, C. Rollenhagen, A. Podtelejnikov, M. Mann, U. Aebi, and
E. Hurt. 2000. Mlp2p, a component of nuclear pore
attached intranuclear filaments, associates with nic96p.J. Biol. Chem.
275:343-350.
28. Lei,
E. P., H. Krebber, and P. A. Silver.2001
. Messenger RNAs are recruited for nuclear export
during transcription. Genes Dev.
15:1771-1782.
29. 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]
30. Marshall, W. F., A. Straight, J. F. Marko, J. Swedlow, A. Dernburg, A. Belmont, A. W. Murray, D. A. Agard, and J. W. Sedat. 1997. Interphase chromosomes undergo constrained diffusional motion in living cells.Curr. Biol. 7:930-939.[CrossRef][Medline]
31. Rodriguez-Navarro, S., T. Fischer, M. J. Luo, O. Antunez, J. E. Perez-Ortin, R. Reed, and E. Hurt. 2004. Sus1, a functional component of the SAGA histone acetylase complex and the nuclear pore-associated mRNA export machinery. Cell 116:75-86.[CrossRef][Medline]
32. Sanchez, Y., J. Taulien, K. A. Borkovich, and S. Lindquist.1992 . Hsp104 is required for tolerance to many forms of stress. EMBO J. 11:2357-2364.[Medline]
33. Schmid, M., G. Arib, C. Laemmli, J. Nishikawa, T. Durussel, and U. K. Laemmli. 2006. Nup-PI: the nucleopore-promoter interaction of genes in yeast. Mol. Cell 21:379-391.[CrossRef][Medline]
34. Schmid, M., T. Durussel, and U. K. Laemmli. 2004. ChIC and ChEC: genomic mapping of chromatin proteins. Mol. Cell 16:147-157.[Medline]
35. Segref, A., K. Sharma, V. Doye, A. Hellwig, J. Huber, R. Luhrmann, and E. Hurt. 1997. Mex67p, a novel factor for nuclear mRNA export, binds to both poly(A)+ RNA and nuclear pores.EMBO J. 16:3256-3271.[CrossRef][Medline]
36. Strambio-de-Castillia,
C., G. Blobel, and M. P. Rout. 1999.
Proteins connecting the nuclear pore complex with the nuclear interior.J. Cell Biol.
144:839-855.
37. Strasser, K., and E. Hurt. 2000. Yra1p, a conserved nuclear RNA-binding protein, interacts directly with Mex67p and is required for mRNA export. EMBO J. 19:410-420.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. Strasser, K., S. Masuda, P. Mason, J. Pfannstiel, M. Oppizzi, S. Rodriguez-Navarro, A. G. Rondon, A. Aguilera, K. Struhl, R. Reed, and E. Hurt. 2002. TREX is a conserved complex coupling transcription with messenger RNA export. Nature 417:304-308.[CrossRef][Medline]
39. Stutz, F., A. Bachi, T. Doerks, I. C. Braun, B. Seraphin, M. Wilm, P. Bork, and E. Izaurralde. 2000. REF, an evolutionary conserved family of hnRNP-like proteins, interacts with TAP/Mex67p and participates in mRNA nuclear export. RNA 6:638-650.[Abstract]
40. Stutz,
F., E. Gouilloud, and S. G. Clarkson. 1989.
Oocyte and somatic tyrosine tRNA genes in Xenopus laevis. Genes
Dev.
3:1190-1198.
41. Taddei, A., M. R. Gartenberg, F. R. Neumann, F. Hediger, and S. M. Gasser. 2005. Multiple pathways tether telomeres and silent chromatin at the nuclear periphery: functional implications for sir-mediated repression. Novartis Found. Symp. 264:140-156, 156-165, 227-230.[Medline]
42. Taddei, A., G. Van Houwe, F. Hediger, V. Kalck, F. Cubizolles, H. Schober, and S. M. Gasser. 2006. Nuclear pore association confers optimal expression levels for an inducible yeast gene.Nature 441:774-778.[CrossRef][Medline]
43. Vinciguerra, P., N. Iglesias, J. Camblong, D. Zenklusen, and F. Stutz.2005 . Perinuclear Mlp proteins downregulate gene expression in response to a defect in mRNA export. EMBO J. 24:813-823.[CrossRef][Medline]
44. Zenklusen,
D., P. Vinciguerra, Y. Strahm, and F. Stutz. 2001. The
yeast hnRNP-like proteins Yra1p and Yra2p participate in mRNA export
through interaction with Mex67p. Mol. Cell. Biol.
21:4219-4232.
45. Zenklusen,
D., P. Vinciguerra, J. C. Wyss, and F. Stutz.2002
. Stable mRNP formation and export require
cotranscriptional recruitment of the mRNA export factors Yra1p and
Sub2p by Hpr1p. Mol. Cell. Biol.
22:8241-8253.
This article has been cited by other articles:
| ||||||