Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About MCB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular and Cellular Biology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About MCB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Research Article

Mechanistic Differences in Transcription Initiation at TATA-Less and TATA-Containing Promoters

Rafal Donczew, Steven Hahn
Rafal Donczew
aFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven Hahn
aFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Steven Hahn
DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00448-17
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

A yeast in vitro system was developed that is active for transcription at both TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters. Transcription with extracts made from cells depleted of TFIID subunit Taf1 demonstrated that promoters of both classes are TFIID dependent, in agreement with recent in vivo findings. TFIID depletion can be complemented in vitro by additional recombinant TATA binding protein (TBP) at only the TATA-containing promoters. In contrast, high levels of TBP did not complement Taf1 depletion in vivo and instead repressed transcription from both promoter types. We also demonstrate the importance of the TATA-like sequence found at many TATA-less promoters and describe how the presence or absence of the TATA element is likely not the only feature that distinguishes these two types of promoters.

INTRODUCTION

An early step in transcription initiation by RNA polymerase II (Pol II) is formation of the transcription preinitiation complex (PIC) (1–4). In this step, Pol II and the basal transcription factors TBP (TATA binding protein), TFIIA, TFIIB, TFIIF, TFIIE, and TFIIH form a complex with double-stranded promoter DNA. This step is followed by ATP-dependent DNA opening, transcription start site (TSS) recognition, and initiation of RNA synthesis. PIC formation is often regulated by gene-specific transcription factors.

Much effort has been directed at determining DNA sequences that constitute a functional Pol II basal promoter, which contains sequence elements directing formation of an active PIC (5, 6). At some promoters, the 8-bp TATA element (consensus TATAWAWR) provides a specific binding site for TBP to nucleate PIC formation. At many TATA-containing promoters, mutations in this element are detrimental to transcription (see, e.g., reference 7). However, the TATA element is present at only ∼20% of eukaryotic promoters, and mutations in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast) TBP DNA binding surface that inhibit TBP-TATA binding are viable (8). These findings suggest alternative mechanisms rather than sequence-specific DNA binding for the role of TBP in PIC formation at TATA-less promoters (9).

TBP is a subunit of the TFIID complex, comprised of TBP and 14 Taf (TBP-associated factor) subunits (2, 10, 11). In metazoans, some TFIID subunits are known to recognize short promoter elements such as INR, MTE, and DPE. It is thought that sequence-specific recognition of these motifs by TFIID provides a mechanism to nucleate PIC formation in the absence of a consensus TATA (12–14). While analogous TFIID recognition sequences have not been identified in S. cerevisiae, genome-wide analysis of yeast PICs found that at TATA-less promoters, PICs are often found coincident with “TATA-like” sequences, typically containing 1 or 2 mismatches from the consensus (15). The role of these sequences and whether they are direct targets of TBP have not been systematically investigated.

The coactivator SAGA is also known to bind TBP and has been proposed to assist recruitment of TBP to many TATA-containing promoters (16–20). Prior studies have characterized the apparent TFIID and SAGA dependence of promoters using chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) to map TFIID binding (15, 21, 22) and by monitoring genome-wide changes in steady-state mRNA levels upon inactivation of TFIID or SAGA subunits (22–25). These studies suggested that SAGA and TFIID contribute to expression of many genes but that expression of most genes is dominated by either TFIID or SAGA. Genes proposed to be dominated by SAGA were generally correlated with TATA-containing promoters, while TFIID-dominated genes typically correlated with TATA-less genes (26). In contrast with this model, we recently used rapid TFIID and SAGA subunit depletion and monitoring of nascent transcription changes to show that in vivo transcription from nearly all yeast genes is dependent on both TFIID and SAGA (27, 28). Consistent with this finding, genome-wide mapping of both coactivators using chromatin endogenous cleavage and high-throughput sequencing (ChEC-seq) finds TFIID at most promoters (29) and SAGA at most upstream activation sequence (UAS) elements (28).

In light of these new findings, it is important to understand the role of TFIID and TBP at TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters. For example, can TBP promote transcription independent of TFIID in vivo? Nearly all structural studies on PIC architecture and function using purified components have been conducted on TATA-containing promoters using TBP in the absence of TFIID (see, e.g., references 11 and 30to32). As a consequence, there is little direct information on how TFIID is arranged within the PIC, the position and role of TBP at TATA-less promoters, and what promoter elements contribute to the dependence on TFIID.

To facilitate mechanistic studies, we developed a yeast in vitro system for analysis of transcription at both TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters. Here we show that both classes of yeast promoters require TFIID for transcription in vitro, validating our recently reported in vivo findings. We also investigated mechanistic differences between several TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters, including the requirements for TFIID versus TBP and the role of TATA-like sequences in regulating transcription.

RESULTS

An in vitro system for transcription of yeast TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters.To analyze mechanistic differences between yeast TATA-less and TATA-containing promoters, we first established an in vitro system to achieve robust transcription from TATA-less promoters. To simplify extract preparation and to facilitate depletion of specific factors using the auxin-inducible degron system (33), we developed a whole-cell extract (WCE) preparation that generated robust Pol II transcription at the well-characterized HIS4 TATA-containing promoter, comparable to levels previously observed with yeast nuclear extracts (34). We used this WCE to compare transcription at three TATA-containing (HIS4, CYC1, and SNR20) and three TATA-less (EFB1, HSP10, and RPS5) promoters, which were selected based on high levels of in vivo transcription (35), the presence or absence of a consensus TATA, and prior characterization of transcription factor and nucleosome binding patterns (15, 36). The latter three promoters contained a TATA-like sequence with a one-base mismatch to the TATA consensus (TATAWAWR) (15, 26). HIS4 is a well-studied promoter which contains a single mismatch to the TATA consensus in the last position (TATATAAT). Since the HIS4 TATA box is recognized and bound by TBP with high affinity and because variations in the last position of the 8-bp TATA sequence were shown to have a minimal impact on TBP-DNA interactions (37), we define this promoter as TATA containing. For this paper, we refer to the TATA consensus as TATAWAW.

Since the core promoter is responsible for basal transcription and was suggested to be the major determinant of TFIID dependence (38, 39), we prepared a set of templates with core promoter sequences having ∼40 bp of DNA upstream from the TATA or TATA-like element. The HIS4 template used in this work contained 62 bp of HIS4 DNA downstream of the TSS, while the others contained between 226 and 534 bp of downstream DNA. In vitro transcription reactions were performed with supercoiled plasmid DNA templates and assayed by primer extension (Fig. 1). For all these promoters, we observed a clear nucleoside triphosphate (NTP)-dependent transcription signal in the area corresponding to the previously mapped in vivo TSS (indicated by blue in Fig. 1) (40). Templates containing the respective promoters and several hundred base pairs of upstream DNA resulted in similar patterns and levels of basal transcription (data not shown). Signals observed in the absence of NTPs are likely due to primer extension of nucleic acids in the WCE. Our results show that the yeast WCE is active for basal transcription of these TATA-less and TATA-containing core promoters.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

In vitro transcription from selected TATA-less and TATA-containing promoters. The transcription products were visualized by primer extension with fluorescently labeled primers. Nucleoside triphosphate mix (NTP) was added or omitted as indicated. The positions of promoter features were estimated by running the samples next to 32P-labeled standard ladders (not shown). The most prominent in vivo TSS (40) is marked by a blue bar. The positions of a TATA/TATA-like element and start codon are represented by orange and green arrowheads, respectively.

Transcription from both TATA-less and TATA-containing promoters is dependent on TFIID.Although prior work suggested that transcription of most yeast genes was dominated by either TFIID or SAGA, we recently found that most in vivo transcription from nearly all yeast promoters requires both TFIID and SAGA (27, 28). To biochemically validate this finding and to explore mechanistic differences between TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters, we utilized our in vitro transcription system to test TFIID dependence for both promoter types. First, we prepared WCEs from a strain expressing TFIID subunit Taf1 tagged with an auxin-inducible degron (AID) (27, 33). Based on the Western blot analysis, we estimate that at least 90% of Taf1 present in the cell was degraded (Fig. 2A). The WCE was prepared from cultures treated for 30 min with either dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO; control) or the auxin indole-3-acetic acid (3-IAA) to induce rapid degradation of the tagged protein. Although there is a small subset of Taf1-independent genes, nearly all TATA-containing and TATA-less genes are sensitive to Taf1 depletion in vivo (27). Consistent with this result, we found that the WCE depleted of Taf1 was deficient in transcription from all six promoters (Fig. 2B). A 2-fold or greater decrease was observed, with TATA-less promoters being slightly more sensitive to Taf1 depletion. Addition of TAP-tagged purified TFIID (TAP-TFIID) recovered transcription at all promoters to wild-type (WT) or higher levels, which indicates that the observed decrease is a direct result of TFIID depletion.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

TFIID dependence of selected TATA-less and TATA-containing promoters. (A) Western blot analysis of whole-cell extracts (WCE) prepared from cultures of a strain carrying auxin-inducible degron tag on Taf1. Cultures were either left untreated (Taf1-deg −) or treated (Taf1-deg +) with auxin indole-3-acetic acid (3-IAA) to induce rapid degradation of Taf1. The Western blot was probed with anti-Taf1 and anti-TBP antibodies. (B) In vitro transcription using either WT (Taf1-deg −) or Taf1-depleted (Taf1-deg +) WCE. Reactions were supplemented with 240 ng of TAP-TFIID as indicated. (C) In vitro transcription using WT WCE. TAP-TFIID was added (240 ng) or omitted as indicated. The log2 relative change in transcription intensity is represented as a bar plot. Standard deviation was calculated based on three independent experiments.

To test whether TFIID is a limiting factor in the WCE from wild-type cells, transcription was performed in the presence of additional TFIID. Purified TFIID was added to a final concentration ∼2-fold higher than that in WT WCEs (Fig. 2C). We observed a modest (1.5- to 2-fold) increase in transcription with excess TFIID, suggesting that TFIID in fact is a limiting factor in the WCEs. Collectively, our in vitro findings validate the in vivo results showing that TFIID is required for most transcription from both TATA-less and TATA-containing promoters. In addition, we demonstrate that the in vitro transcription system presented here is well suited for mechanistic studies of yeast transcription.

TBP can stimulate TFIID-independent transcription in vitro only at TATA-containing promoters.The essential role of TBP in supporting eukaryotic transcription is well documented. However, important mechanistic details of its function, e.g., the role of TBP in TATA-less transcription (8), are still unclear. To address this issue, we probed the function of TBP in extracts depleted of TFIID. We observed that high levels of recombinant TBP (rTBP; ∼4-fold-higher TBP concentration than in WCEs) added to Taf1-depleted extracts can only weakly complement transcription at TATA-less promoters (Fig. 3A). In contrast, adding a 0.5-fold excess of rTBP was able to completely compensate for the lack of TFIID on two TATA-containing promoters. At higher concentrations (up to ∼4-fold higher than WT levels), rTBP significantly stimulated transcription above levels observed in extracts containing TFIID (Fig. 3B). To test if this result derived from inherent differences in responsiveness to TBP between TATA-less and TATA-containing promoters, we used a wild-type WCE and supplemented reactions with the highest rTBP concentration used in the previous experiment (Fig. 4). Transcription from both TATA-containing promoters (HIS4 and SNR20) was induced 2- to 4-fold. In contrast, we did not observe significant stimulation at three TATA-less promoters (EFB1, HSP10, and RPS5). Our results illustrate differences in formation of functional PICs between TATA-less and TATA-containing promoters.

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

rTBP is efficient in complementing Taf1-depleted transcription only on TATA-containing promoters. In vitro transcription using either WT (Taf1-deg −) or Taf1-depleted (Taf1-deg +) WCE was carried out. Selected TATA-less (A) and TATA-containing (B) promoters were analyzed. The following amounts of rTBP were used: 10, 20, 40, and 80 ng; these correspond to approximately 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 times the amount of TBP in WT WCE. The log2 relative change in transcription intensity is represented as a bar plot. Standard deviation was calculated based on three independent experiments.

FIG 4
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 4

Excess rTBP can stimulate basal transcription only on TATA-containing promoters. In vitro transcription was performed with WT WCE. Selected samples were supplemented with rTBP (4 times the amount of TBP in WT WCE). The log2 relative change in transcription intensity is represented as a bar plot. Standard deviation was calculated based on three independent experiments.

High in vivo levels of TBP do not compensate for TFIID depletion at either TATA-containing or TATA-less promoters.To test if overexpression of TBP can compensate for TFIID-depletion in vivo, we generated a Taf1-AID strain with TBP expressed from its WT promoter on a high-copy-number plasmid (SHY1131). Western blot quantitation showed that TBP was expressed at ∼5-fold-higher levels than in the comparable WT strain (Fig. 5A). Using 4-thiouracil RNA labeling (41–43), we isolated nascent RNA from cultures either treated or not treated with IAA and with or without TBP overexpression. Transcription at four TATA-less and four TATA-containing promoters was assayed by reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) (Fig. 5B). As expected from published results (27) and our in vitro data, we observed a significant reduction in transcription for all tested promoters following Taf1 depletion. In contrast to our in vitro observations, overexpression of TBP in vivo resulted in an ∼2-fold decrease in transcription at all genes, suggesting that excess TBP is generally detrimental to cellular Pol II transcription. Furthermore, TBP overexpression did not compensate for the loss of TFIID function due to depletion of Taf1 at either TATA-containing or TATA-less genes.

FIG 5
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 5

High TBP levels do not compensate for Taf1 depletion in vivo. (A) Western blot analysis of TBP levels in Taf1-degron strain (SHY1039) and in its derivative carrying a high-copy-number 2μ plasmid containing the gene encoding TBP (SHY1131). Samples were collected before addition of 3-IAA. Increasing volumes of SHY1039 extract were loaded to estimate the level of TBP compared to that of the SHY1131 strain. The Western blot was probed with anti-TBP and anti-Taf12 antibodies. (B) RT-qPCR analysis of changes in nascent RNA levels following Taf1 degradation and/or TBP overexpression. 4-Thiouracil-labeled RNA was isolated from cells treated with either 3-IAA (+IAA) or DMSO (−IAA). Samples were normalized by spike-in of labeled S. pombe cells before RNA purification. Results are presented as percentages of signal for a sample without 3-IAA and TBP overexpression (SHY1039-IAA). Error bars represent the standard deviations between two independent experiments.

The consensus TATA sequence is not the only determinant of promoter sensitivity to TBP.While nearly all yeast TATA-less promoters contain a TATA-like sequence (15), the role of this sequence is not clear. For example, TBP binds many TATA-like sequences with lower affinity than for the consensus TATA (37, 44). However, many nonconsensus TATA sequences can promote transcription in vivo (45). Furthermore, mutations in the TBP DNA binding surface that abolish TBP-TATA binding are viable (8), suggesting that transcription at many promoters may not require TBP-DNA interactions such as those observed in the TBP-DNA crystal structure (46, 47).

To explore the role of the TATA-like sequence in yeast transcription, we modified EFB1, HSP10, and RPS5 promoters by either randomizing the TATA-like sequence (to ACCTCGAG) or by changing the TATA-like motif to a consensus TATA (TATAWAW) (26). We first compared transcription between promoters with native (unmodified), randomized, or consensus TATA sequences (Fig. 6A). In all cases, randomization of the TATA-like sequence decreased transcription at least 2-fold. Derivatives of the EFB1 and HSP10 promoters with a consensus TATA showed ∼2-fold-increased levels of transcription compared to the wild-type promoters, while RPS5 with a consensus TATA showed no reproducible increase over unmodified RPS5. Interestingly, randomization of the TATA-like sequence in the EFB1 promoter resulted in increased transcription from a weak transcription start site located upstream from the main TSS. We next examined the properties of these modified TATA-less promoters carrying a consensus TATA (EFB1 TATA, HSP10 TATA, and RPS5 TATA). We found that all promoters still required TFIID (Fig. 6B), which agrees with the global role of TFIID in regulating transcription independently of the promoter class.

FIG 6
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 6

The sequence of the TATA element is important for TATA-less transcription but does not affect the promoter dependence on TFIID. (A) In vitro transcription using WT WCE on promoters with native, randomized, and consensus TATA sequences. (B) TFIID dependence of TATA-less promoters carrying a consensus TATA box. In vitro transcription was done with either WT (Taf1-deg −) or Taf1-depleted (Taf1-deg +) WCE. Reactions were supplemented with 240 ng of TAP-TFIID as indicated. The log2 relative change in transcription intensity is represented as a bar plot. Standard deviation was calculated based on three independent experiments.

Excess TBP did not further increase transcription of the TATA-less promoters EFB1, HSP10, and RPS5 (Fig. 4). This raised the question of whether the stimulatory effect of TBP was dependent on the TATA element. To test this idea, we assayed whether excess TBP stimulated transcription of the EFB1 TATA, HSP10 TATA, and RPS5 TATA promoter variants. We found that up to 4-fold excess rTBP did not stimulate transcription at EFB1 and HSP10 TATA-containing derivatives (Fig. 7A). At the RPS5 TATA-containing derivative, the excess rTBP increased the usage of an alternative downstream TSS while failing to stimulate transcription in the region overlapping the main in vivo TSS (Fig. 7A). Similarly, rTBP did not efficiently complement a TFIID-depleted extract for transcription at these promoters while still increasing transcription originating from the downstream area at RPS5 promoter (Fig. 7B). Our results suggest that other features of promoters, in addition to the TATA element, determine the ability of TBP to substitute for TFIID in vitro.

FIG 7
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 7

Consensus TATA is not the sole determinant of promoter sensitivity to TBP. (A) In vitro transcription using WT WCE. Selected samples were supplemented with 80 ng of rTBP, which corresponds to 4 times the amount of TBP in WT WCE. (B) In vitro transcription using either WT (Taf1-deg −) or Taf1-depleted (Taf1-deg +) WCE. The following amounts of rTBP were used: 10, 20, 40, and 80 ng; these correspond approximately to 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 times the amount of TBP in WT WCE. The log2 relative change in transcription intensity is represented as a bar plot. Standard deviation was calculated based on three independent experiments.

DISCUSSION

There is much evidence suggesting that there are different types of Pol II promoters, including highly regulated and housekeeping promoters (23, 48–52). These two promoter types typically differ in promoter sequence elements, UAS-to-transcription start site (TSS) distance, chromatin modifications, nucleosome positioning, and the response to stress and signaling pathways. Yeast TATA-containing promoters are typically targeted by signaling pathways and often utilize regulated chromatin remodeling and modifications for efficient activation. Yeast promoters lacking the TATA consensus are often classified as housekeeping genes, which are typically less regulated and contain a TATA-like sequence (1- or 2-bp mismatch from the consensus) overlapping the site of PIC formation (15, 26). These TATA-less promoters also typically respond differently to transcription activators, and are often arranged with the TSS adjacent to the +1 nucleosome.

From a combination of genetic, biochemical, and structural approaches, much is known about the function and architecture of the minimal Pol II PIC at TATA-containing promoters assembled with TBP. However, much less is known about the role of TBP at TATA-less promoters and how TFIID assembles within the PIC and modulates transcriptional regulation at these promoters. As more than 80% of genes do not contain a TATA element, it is essential to understand how transcription initiation at these genes is facilitated and regulated. One barrier to the study of TATA-less promoters has been the lack of a suitable in vitro transcription system. While efficient yeast in vitro transcription from TATA-containing promoters was observed many years ago (53), demonstration of in vitro transcription from TATA-less promoters is scarce (8, 54).

In this study, we optimized a rapid whole-cell extract system that is active for basal transcription at examples of both promoter types. The method also allows for testing of the role of specific factors and subunits in vitro by efficient in vivo depletion methods, followed by rapid extract preparation. Using this approach, we depleted cells of TFIID subunit Taf1 using the auxin-dependent degron system and created WCEs that allowed us to test the role of TFIID, TBP, and promoter features. In agreement with recent in vivo findings that show that most transcription is TFIID dependent (27) and that near equivalent TFIID levels are observed at nearly all promoters (29), we found that most in vitro transcription from TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters was decreased at least 2-fold upon depletion of TFIID from these extracts.

Based on the ratio of TBP/Tafs observed at different promoters in ChIP assays, it was proposed that there are at least two forms of TBP that can promote Pol II transcription in vivo: TFIID and a Taf-independent form that might be TBP alone (21, 22). To test this model, we examined TFIID-independent expression in vitro after Taf1 depletion and whether excess TBP could complement these depleted extracts. These experiments revealed a distinction between the tested TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters. While transcription in WCEs is largely TFIID dependent at both promoter types, rTBP can restore transcription from the TFIID-depleted extracts only at TATA-containing promoters. The ability of TBP to promote transcription at TATA-containing promoters is in agreement with earlier findings showing that functional PICs can be assembled at TATA-containing promoters using TBP in the absence of TFIID (55).

However, in contrast to earlier models, overexpression of TBP in vivo repressed transcription at both TATA-containing and TATA-less genes. Upon Taf1 depletion, neither gene class showed increased transcription compared to that in wild-type cells. This result contradicts the simple idea that there is a balance between TBP and TFIID-driven transcription. If there is TFIID-independent transcription in vivo, our results suggest that this is promoted by TBP in a more complex form than TBP alone. We do not yet understand why high levels of TBP decrease specific mRNA transcription. One possibility is that high TBP levels overwhelm Mot1, the ATP-dependent factor that mobilizes TBP (56). In this model, overexpression of TBP could lead to much longer-lived nonspecifically bound TBP-DNA complexes resulting in less specific transcription initiation.

Our system allowed testing of the role of the TATA-like sequences found at most TATA-less promoters. We found that this sequence is important for normal levels of initiation and proper TSS selection, as randomizing the sequence at three promoters led to at least a 2-fold decrease in transcription and resulted in utilization of an alternative upstream TSS at EFB1 promoter. In contrast, converting the TATA-like sequence to a consensus TATA increased in vitro transcription at two out of three promoters. The importance of the TATA-like sequence does not prove that this is a direct TBP binding site. However, one model consistent with our results is that this sequence presents a weak TBP interaction site which is supplemented by Taf-promoter interactions. In this model, a consensus TATA would increase overall TFIID affinity and transcription at promoters where TFIID binding is limiting. Although we found that the TATA-like sequence is important, at the three promoters tested, it is not the only sequence feature that distinguishes the two promoter classes. When TFIID-depleted extracts were supplemented with high TBP levels, the TATA-less promoter derivatives with a consensus TATA did not show efficient TBP-driven transcription. Thus, we propose that there are additional promoter features that distinguish these two gene classes, consistent with earlier observations (39). In summary, we have developed a new in vitro system that can be utilized to examine transcription at both TATA-containing and TATA-less promoters, clarify the mechanism of TFIID-dependent and TFIID-independent transcription, and be used to identify promoter regions in addition to TATA element that distinguish these promoter types.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Yeast strains and culture.Strains and plasmids utilized are listed in Table 1. All Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains were grown in YPD medium (1% [wt/vol] yeast extract, 2% [wt/vol] peptone, 3% [wt/vol] dextrose, and 0.004% [wt/vol] adenine) or, for SHY1131, glucose complete (GC) medium (0.17% [wt/vol] yeast nitrogen base, 0.5% [wt/vol] ammonium sulfate, 2% [wt/vol] dextrose, and amino acid mix lacking leucine to sustain the selection for cells carrying the pSH223 plasmid). SHY1039 strain carries the IAA7 degron tag on Taf1 (27), which allows for fast and controlled protein degradation. For whole-cell-extract preparation and nascent RNA isolation, strains were grown to an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of ∼1.0 and cells were treated with either indole-3-acetic acid (3-IAA; 500 μM final concentration in DMSO) or an equal volume of DMSO for 30 min before further processing. Following incubation with 3-IAA, cultures grown for nascent RNA isolation were additionally treated with 4-thiouracil (5 mM final concentration) or an equal volume of DMSO for 6 min. Schizoaccharomycespombe, used as a spike-in control for nascent RNA isolation, was grown in YE medium (0.5% [wt/vol] yeast extract, 3% [wt/vol] dextrose) and treated with 4-thiouracil as described above.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Strains and plasmids used in this work

WCE preparation.Whole-cell extracts (WCE) were prepared as previously described (8), with the following modifications. For cell lysis, cells were resuspended in equal weight/volume ratios of cold lysis buffer and transferred to 5-ml capped tubes (57 by 15.3 mm; Sarstedt) half-filled with 0.5-mm zirconia-silica beads. The lysis buffer had the following composition: 200 mM Tris-acetate (pH 7.9; 23°C), 390 mM ammonium sulfate, 20% glycerol, 1 mM EDTA. 3 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF), 2 mM benzamidine, 0.28 μg/ml of leupeptin, and 1.37 μg/ml of pepstatin were added immediately before use. The cells were lysed in a Mini-Beadbeater-96 (BioSpec Products) with five 3-min pulses and 8-min rests in an ice bath to keep the cells cool during the procedure. Tubes were centrifuged for 2 min at 2,000 × g, and crude extracts were removed. Pelleted beads were washed with a 0.5× volume of cold lysis buffer, and the two supernatants were combined. Crude extracts were supplemented with 5 M potassium acetate to a final concentration of 0.5 M, followed by a 15-min incubation on a tube roller at 4°C. Samples were centrifuged in an FL21 rotor (12,000 × g for 15 min) to remove cell debris, followed by centrifugation for 2 h at 200,000 × g in a Beckman 50.2 Ti rotor. Proteins in the clarified extract were precipitated by addition of 0.337 g/ml of ammonium sulfate. The mixtures were stirred for 1 h at 4°C. After centrifugation, proteins in the pellet were resuspended in cold resuspension buffer (20 mM HEPES-KOH [pH 7.9], 20% glycerol, 10 mM magnesium sulfate, 10 mM EGTA, 5 mM DTT, and protease inhibitors as listed for the composition of the lysis buffer) at 0.1 ml of buffer per gram of starting cell pellet. The suspension was dialyzed at 4°C against three 0.5-liter changes of dialysis buffer (resuspension buffer plus 75 mM ammonium sulfate) using a 10,000-molecular-weight-cutoff (MWCO) dialysis chamber. The first dialysis was carried out overnight, followed by two 1-h dialyses the next day. The resulting WCE was clarified by centrifugation for 5 min at 10,000 × g, flash-frozen, and stored at −80°C.

TFIID and TBP purification.TAP-TFIID was purified as described previously (8) from strain SHY626 harboring a tandem affinity purification tag on Taf13. Recombinant yeast TBP (rTBP) was purified as described previously (57).

In vitro transcription and primer extension. In vitro transcription mixtures (25 μl) contained 10 mM HEPES (pH 7.6), 100 mM potassium glutamate, 10 mM magnesium acetate, 3.5% glycerol, 3 mM DTT, 38 mM creatine phosphate, 0.03 U of creatine phosphokinase, and 4 U of RNase Out (Invitrogen). A total of 150 ng of supercoiled plasmid DNA and 100 μg of whole-cell extract were added to each mixture, followed by 10 min of preincubation at 23°C. Transcription was initiated by the addition of nucleoside triphosphate mix (0.4 mM final concentration of each nucleoside triphosphate) and allowed to proceed for 30 min at room temperature. Reactions were stopped by the addition of 10 mM sodium acetate, 1 mM EDTA, and 0.05% SDS. Samples were assayed by primer extension as described previously (57). Each experiment was repeated at least three times. Sequences of oligonucleotides used in primer extension assays are listed in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Oligonucleotides used in this work

Nascent RNA purification and RT-qPCR analysis.Nascent RNA was purified and assayed by RT-qPCR as described previously (27). Sequences of oligonucleotides used are listed in Table 2.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank J. Fishburn for help with in vitro transcription assay, whole-cell-extract preparation, and TBP purification, L. Warfield for help with nascent RNA purification, and S. Grünberg for help with TFIID purification and for comments on the manuscript.

This work was supported by NIH grant GM053451 to S.H. and an EMBO long-term fellowship to R.D. (ALTF 1575-2015), which was cofunded by Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (LTFCOFUND2013, GA-2013-609409).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 18 August 2017.
    • Returned for modification 25 September 2017.
    • Accepted 6 October 2017.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 16 October 2017.
  • Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Hahn S,
    2. Young ET
    . 2011. Transcriptional regulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: transcription factor regulation and function, mechanisms of initiation, and roles of activators and coactivators. Genetics189:705–736. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.127019.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Sainsbury S,
    2. Bernecky C,
    3. Cramer P
    . 2015. Structural basis of transcription initiation by RNA polymerase II. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol16:129–143. doi:10.1038/nrm3952.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Thomas MC,
    2. Chiang C-M
    . 2006. The general transcription machinery and general cofactors. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol41:105–178. doi:10.1080/10409230600648736.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Grünberg S,
    2. Hahn S
    . 2013. Structural insights into transcription initiation by RNA polymerase II. Trends Biochem Sci38:603–611. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2013.09.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Juven-Gershon T,
    2. Kadonaga JT
    . 2010. Regulation of gene expression via the core promoter and the basal transcriptional machinery. Dev Biol339:225–229. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.08.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kadonaga JT
    . 2012. Perspectives on the RNA polymerase II core promoter. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol1:40–51. doi:10.1002/wdev.21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Chen W,
    2. Struhl K
    . 1988. Saturation mutagenesis of a yeast his3 “TATA element”: genetic evidence for a specific TATA-binding protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A85:2691–2695. doi:10.1073/pnas.85.8.2691.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Kamenova I,
    2. Warfield L,
    3. Hahn S
    . 2014. Mutations on the DNA binding surface of TBP discriminate between yeast TATA and TATA-less gene transcription. Mol Cell Biol34:2929–2943. doi:10.1128/MCB.01685-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Martinez E,
    2. Zhou Q,
    3. L'Etoile ND,
    4. Oelgeschläger T,
    5. Berk AJ,
    6. Roeder RG
    . 1995. Core promoter-specific function of a mutant transcription factor TFIID defective in TATA-box binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A92:11864–11868. doi:10.1073/pnas.92.25.11864.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Gupta K,
    2. Sari-Ak D,
    3. Haffke M,
    4. Trowitzsch S,
    5. Berger I
    . 2016. Zooming in on transcription preinitiation. J Mol Biol428:2581–2591. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2016.04.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Louder RK,
    2. He Y,
    3. López-Blanco JR,
    4. Fang J,
    5. Chacón P,
    6. Nogales E
    . 2016. Structure of promoter-bound TFIID and model of human pre-initiation complex assembly. Nature531:604–609. doi:10.1038/nature17394.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Burke TW,
    2. Kadonaga JT
    . 1997. The downstream core promoter element, DPE, is conserved fromDrosophila to humans and is recognized by TAFII60 of Drosophila. Genes Dev11:3020–3031. doi:10.1101/gad.11.22.3020.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Cianfrocco MA,
    2. Kassavetis GA,
    3. Grob P,
    4. Fang J,
    5. Juven-Gershon T,
    6. Kadonaga JT,
    7. Nogales E
    . 2013. Human TFIID binds to core promoter DNA in a reorganized structural state. Cell152:120–131. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.12.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Theisen JWM,
    2. Lim CY,
    3. Kadonaga JT
    . 2010. Three key subregions contribute to the function of the downstream RNA polymerase II core promoter. Mol Cell Biol30:3471–3479. doi:10.1128/MCB.00053-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Rhee HS,
    2. Pugh BF
    . 2012. Genome-wide structure and organization of eukaryotic pre-initiation complexes. Nature483:295–301. doi:10.1038/nature10799.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Eisenmann DM,
    2. Arndt KM,
    3. Ricupero SL,
    4. Rooney JW,
    5. Winston F
    . 1992. SPT3 interacts with TFIID to allow normal transcription in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Dev6:1319–1331. doi:10.1101/gad.6.7.1319.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Han Y,
    2. Luo J,
    3. Ranish J,
    4. Hahn S
    . 2014. Architecture of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae SAGA transcription coactivator complex. EMBO J33:2534–2546. doi:10.15252/embj.201488638.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Laprade L,
    2. Rose D,
    3. Winston F
    . 2007. Characterization of New Spt3 and TATA-binding protein mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Spt3-TBP allele-specific interactions and bypass of Spt8. Genetics177:2007–2017.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Mohibullah N,
    2. Hahn S
    . 2008. Site-specific cross-linking of TBP in vivo and in vitro reveals a direct functional interaction with the SAGA subunit Spt3. Genes Dev22:2994–3006. doi:10.1101/gad.1724408.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Sermwittayawong D,
    2. Tan S
    . 2006. SAGA binds TBP via its Spt8 subunit in competition with DNA: implications for TBP recruitment. EMBO J25:3791–3800. doi:10.1038/sj.emboj.7601265.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kuras L,
    2. Kosa P,
    3. Mencia M,
    4. Struhl K
    . 2000. TAF-containing and TAF-independent forms of transcriptionally active TBP in vivo. Science288:1244–1248. doi:10.1126/science.288.5469.1244.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Li XY,
    2. Bhaumik SR,
    3. Green MR
    . 2000. Distinct classes of yeast promoters revealed by differential TAF recruitment. Science288:1242–1244. doi:10.1126/science.288.5469.1242.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Huisinga KL,
    2. Pugh BF
    . 2004. A genome-wide housekeeping role for TFIID and a highly regulated stress-related role for SAGA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell13:573–585. doi:10.1016/S1097-2765(04)00087-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. Lee TI,
    2. Causton HC,
    3. Holstege FC,
    4. Shen WC,
    5. Hannett N,
    6. Jennings EG,
    7. Winston F,
    8. Green MR,
    9. Young RA
    . 2000. Redundant roles for the TFIID and SAGA complexes in global transcription. Nature405:701–704. doi:10.1038/35015104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Shen W-C,
    2. Bhaumik SR,
    3. Causton HC,
    4. Simon I,
    5. Zhu X,
    6. Jennings EG,
    7. Wang T-H,
    8. Young RA,
    9. Green MR
    . 2003. Systematic analysis of essential yeast TAFs in genome-wide transcription and preinitiation complex assembly. EMBO J22:3395–3402. doi:10.1093/emboj/cdg336.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  26. 26.↵
    1. Basehoar AD,
    2. Zanton SJ,
    3. Pugh BF
    . 2004. Identification and distinct regulation of yeast TATA box-containing genes. Cell116:699–709. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(04)00205-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. Warfield L,
    2. Ramachandran S,
    3. Baptista T,
    4. Devys D,
    5. Tora L,
    6. Hahn S
    . 2017. Transcription of nearly all yeast RNA polymerase II-transcribed genes is dependent on transcription factor TFIID. Mol Cell68:118–129.e5. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2017.08.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Baptista T,
    2. Grünberg S,
    3. Minoungou N,
    4. Koster MJE,
    5. Timmers HTM,
    6. Hahn S,
    7. Devys D,
    8. Tora L
    . 2017. SAGA is a general cofactor for RNA polymerase II transcription. Mol Cell68:130–143.e5. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2017.08.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. Grünberg S,
    2. Henikoff S,
    3. Hahn S,
    4. Zentner GE
    . 2016. Mediator binding to UASs is broadly uncoupled from transcription and cooperative with TFIID recruitment to promoters. EMBO J35:2435–2446. doi:10.15252/embj.201695020.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    1. He Y,
    2. Yan C,
    3. Fang J,
    4. Inouye C,
    5. Tjian R,
    6. Ivanov I,
    7. Nogales E
    . 2016. Near-atomic resolution visualization of human transcription promoter opening. Nature533:359–365. doi:10.1038/nature17970.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Plaschka C,
    2. Larivière L,
    3. Wenzeck L,
    4. Seizl M,
    5. Hemann M,
    6. Tegunov D,
    7. Petrotchenko EV,
    8. Borchers CH,
    9. Baumeister W,
    10. Herzog F,
    11. Villa E,
    12. Cramer P
    . 2015. Architecture of the RNA polymerase II-mediator core initiation complex. Nature518:376–380. doi:10.1038/nature14229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Robinson PJ,
    2. Trnka MJ,
    3. Bushnell DA,
    4. Davis RE,
    5. Mattei P-J,
    6. Burlingame AL,
    7. Kornberg RD
    . 2016. Structure of a complete mediator-RNA polymerase II pre-initiation complex. Cell166:1411–1422.e16. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.050.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Nishimura K,
    2. Fukagawa T,
    3. Takisawa H,
    4. Kakimoto T,
    5. Kanemaki M
    . 2009. An auxin-based degron system for the rapid depletion of proteins in nonplant cells. Nat Methods6:917–922. doi:10.1038/nmeth.1401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    1. Ranish JA,
    2. Yudkovsky N,
    3. Hahn S
    . 1999. Intermediates in formation and activity of the RNA polymerase II preinitiation complex: holoenzyme recruitment and a postrecruitment role for the TATA box and TFIIB. Genes Dev13:49–63. doi:10.1101/gad.13.1.49.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Churchman LS,
    2. Weissman JS
    . 2011. Nascent transcript sequencing visualizes transcription at nucleotide resolution. Nature469:368–373. doi:10.1038/nature09652.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    1. Thurtle DM,
    2. Rine J
    . 2014. The molecular topography of silenced chromatin in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Dev28:245–258. doi:10.1101/gad.230532.113.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Patikoglou GA,
    2. Kim JL,
    3. Sun L,
    4. Yang SH,
    5. Kodadek T,
    6. Burley SK
    . 1999. TATA element recognition by the TATA box-binding protein has been conserved throughout evolution. Genes Dev13:3217–3230. doi:10.1101/gad.13.24.3217.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Lubliner S,
    2. Regev I,
    3. Lotan-Pompan M,
    4. Edelheit S,
    5. Weinberger A,
    6. Segal E
    . 2015. Core promoter sequence in yeast is a major determinant of expression level. Genome Res25:1008–1017. doi:10.1101/gr.188193.114.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Shen WC,
    2. Green MR
    . 1997. Yeast TAF(II)145 functions as a core promoter selectivity factor, not a general coactivator. Cell90:615–624. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80523-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    1. Pelechano V,
    2. Wei W,
    3. Steinmetz LM
    . 2013. Extensive transcriptional heterogeneity revealed by isoform profiling. Nature497:127–131. doi:10.1038/nature12121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    1. Bonnet J,
    2. Wang C-Y,
    3. Baptista T,
    4. Vincent SD,
    5. Hsiao W-C,
    6. Stierle M,
    7. Kao C-F,
    8. Tora L,
    9. Devys D
    . 2014. The SAGA coactivator complex acts on the whole transcribed genome and is required for RNA polymerase II transcription. Genes Dev28:1999–2012. doi:10.1101/gad.250225.114.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Duffy EE,
    2. Rutenberg-Schoenberg M,
    3. Stark CD,
    4. Kitchen RR,
    5. Gerstein MB,
    6. Simon MD
    . 2015. Tracking distinct RNA populations using efficient and reversible covalent chemistry. Mol Cell59:858–866. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2015.07.023.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Sun M,
    2. Schwalb B,
    3. Pirkl N,
    4. Maier KC,
    5. Schenk A,
    6. Failmezger H,
    7. Tresch A,
    8. Cramer P
    . 2013. Global analysis of eukaryotic mRNA degradation reveals Xrn1-dependent buffering of transcript levels. Mol Cell52:52–62. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2013.09.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. 44.↵
    1. Hahn S,
    2. Buratowski S,
    3. Sharp PA,
    4. Guarente L
    . 1989. Yeast TATA-binding protein TFIID binds to TATA elements with both consensus and nonconsensus DNA sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A86:5718–5722. doi:10.1073/pnas.86.15.5718.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Singer VL,
    2. Wobbe CR,
    3. Struhl K
    . 1990. A wide variety of DNA sequences can functionally replace a yeast TATA element for transcriptional activation. Genes Dev4:636–645. doi:10.1101/gad.4.4.636.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Kim Y,
    2. Geiger JH,
    3. Hahn S,
    4. Sigler PB
    . 1993. Crystal structure of a yeast TBP/TATA-box complex. Nature365:512–520.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Kim JL,
    2. Nikolov DB,
    3. Burley SK
    . 1993. Co-crystal structure of TBP recognizing the minor groove of a TATA element. Nature365:520–527.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.↵
    1. Eisenberg E,
    2. Levanon EY
    . 2013. Human housekeeping genes, revisited. Trends Genet29:569–574. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2013.05.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 49.↵
    1. de Jonge WJ,
    2. O'Duibhir E,
    3. Lijnzaad P,
    4. van Leenen D,
    5. Groot Koerkamp MJ,
    6. Kemmeren P,
    7. Holstege FC
    . 2017. Molecular mechanisms that distinguish TFIID housekeeping from regulatable SAGA promoters. EMBO J36:274–290. doi:10.15252/embj.201695621.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    1. Mencía M,
    2. Moqtaderi Z,
    3. Geisberg JV,
    4. Kuras L,
    5. Struhl K
    . 2002. Activator-specific recruitment of TFIID and regulation of ribosomal protein genes in yeast. Mol Cell9:823–833. doi:10.1016/S1097-2765(02)00490-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    1. Ohtsuki S,
    2. Levine M,
    3. Cai HN
    . 1998. Different core promoters possess distinct regulatory activities in the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev12:547–556.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Zabidi MA,
    2. Stark A
    . 2016. Regulatory enhancer-core-promoter communication via transcription factors and cofactors. Trends Genet32:801–814. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2016.10.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Lue NF,
    2. Kornberg RD
    . 1987. Accurate initiation at RNA polymerase II promoters in extracts from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A84:8839–8843.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Seizl M,
    2. Hartmann H,
    3. Hoeg F,
    4. Kurth F,
    5. Martin DE,
    6. Söding J,
    7. Cramer P
    . 2011. A conserved GA element in TATA-less RNA polymerase II promoters. PLoS One6:e27595. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027595.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Burley SK,
    2. Roeder RG
    . 1996. Biochemistry and structural biology of transcription factor IID (TFIID). Annu Rev Biochem65:769–799.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    1. Viswanathan R,
    2. Auble DT
    . 2011. One small step for Mot1; one giant leap for other Swi2/Snf2 enzymes?Biochim Biophys Acta1809:488–496. doi:10.1016/j.bbagrm.2011.05.012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Fishburn J,
    2. Hahn S
    . 2012. Architecture of the yeast RNA polymerase II open complex and regulation of activity by TFIIF. Mol Cell Biol32:12–25. doi:10.1128/MCB.06242-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.
    1. Brachmann CB,
    2. Davies A,
    3. Cost GJ,
    4. Caputo E,
    5. Li J,
    6. Hieter P,
    7. Boeke JD
    . 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 Chichester Engl14:115–132. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0061(19980130)14:2<115::AID-YEA204>3.0.CO;2-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.
    1. Reddy P,
    2. Hahn S
    . 1991. Dominant negative mutations in yeast TFIID define a bipartite DNA-binding region. Cell65:349–357. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(91)90168-X.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Mechanistic Differences in Transcription Initiation at TATA-Less and TATA-Containing Promoters
Rafal Donczew, Steven Hahn
Molecular and Cellular Biology Dec 2017, 38 (1) e00448-17; DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00448-17

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Molecular and Cellular Biology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mechanistic Differences in Transcription Initiation at TATA-Less and TATA-Containing Promoters
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular and Cellular Biology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular and Cellular Biology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Mechanistic Differences in Transcription Initiation at TATA-Less and TATA-Containing Promoters
Rafal Donczew, Steven Hahn
Molecular and Cellular Biology Dec 2017, 38 (1) e00448-17; DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00448-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

DNA, Fungal
Promoter Regions, Genetic
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
TATA Box
Transcription Initiation, Genetic
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
TATA
TATA-less
promoters
transcription

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About MCB
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #MCBJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0270-7306; Online ISSN: 1098-5549