HSF1 and MOT1-expression and binding: Molecular mechanisms that distinguish TFIID housekeeping from regulatable SAGA promoters
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
ORGANISM(S): Saccharomyces cerevisiae
PROVIDER: GSE81481 | GEO | 2016/11/11
SECONDARY ACCESSION(S): PRJNA321755
REPOSITORIES: GEO
Similar Datasets
Project description:An important distinction is frequently made between constitutively expressed housekeeping genes versus regulated genes. Although generally characterized by different DNA elements, chromatin architecture and cofactors, it is not known to what degree promoter classes strictly follow regulatability rules and which molecular mechanisms dictate such differences. We show that SAGA-dominated/TATA-box promoters are more responsive to changes in the amount of activator, even compared to TFIID/TATA-like promoters that depend on the same activator Hsf1. Regulatability is therefore an inherent property of promoter class. Further analyses show that SAGA/TATA-box promoters are more dynamic because TATA-binding protein recruitment through SAGA is susceptible to removal by Mot1. In addition, the nucleosome configuration upon activator depletion shifts on SAGA/TATA-box promoters and seems less amenable to preinitiation complex formation. The results explain the fundamental difference between housekeeping and regulatable genes, revealing an additional facet of combinatorial control: an activator can elicit a different response dependent on core promoter class.
| S-EPMC5286361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An important distinction is frequently made between constitutively expressed housekeeping genes versus regulated genes. Although generally characterized by different DNA elements, chromatin architecture and cofactors, it is not known to what degree promoter classes strictly follow regulatability rules and which molecular mechanisms dictate such differences. We show that SAGA-dominated/TATA-box promoters are more responsive to changes in the amount of activator, even compared to TFIID/TATA-like promoters that depend on the same activator Hsf1. Regulatability is therefore an inherent property of promoter class. Further analyses show that SAGA/TATA-box promoters are more dynamic because TBP recruitment through SAGA is susceptible to removal by Mot1. In addition, the nucleosome configuration upon activator depletion shifts on SAGA/TATA-box promoters and seems less amenable to preinitiation complex formation. The results explain the fundamental difference between housekeeping and regulatable genes, revealing an additional facet of combinatorial control: an activator can elicit a different response dependent on core promoter class.
2016-11-11 | GSE81480 | GEO
Project description:An important distinction is frequently made between constitutively expressed housekeeping genes versus regulated genes. Although generally characterized by different DNA elements, chromatin architecture and cofactors, it is not known to what degree promoter classes strictly follow regulatability rules and which molecular mechanisms dictate such differences. We show that SAGA-dominated/TATA-box promoters are more responsive to changes in the amount of activator, even compared to TFIID/TATA-like promoters that depend on the same activator Hsf1. Regulatability is therefore an inherent property of promoter class. Further analyses show that SAGA/TATA-box promoters are more dynamic because TBP recruitment through SAGA is susceptible to removal by Mot1. In addition, the nucleosome configuration upon activator depletion shifts on SAGA/TATA-box promoters and seems less amenable to preinitiation complex formation. The results explain the fundamental difference between housekeeping and regulatable genes, revealing an additional facet of combinatorial control: an activator can elicit a different response dependent on core promoter class.
2016-11-11 | GSE81479 | GEO
Project description:An important distinction is frequently made between constitutively expressed housekeeping genes versus regulated genes. Although generally characterized by different DNA elements, chromatin architecture and cofactors, it is not known to what degree promoter classes strictly follow regulatability rules and which molecular mechanisms dictate such differences. We show that SAGA-dominated/TATA-box promoters are more responsive to changes in the amount of activator, even compared to TFIID/TATA-like promoters that depend on the same activator Hsf1. Regulatability is therefore an inherent property of promoter class. Further analyses show that SAGA/TATA-box promoters are more dynamic because TBP recruitment through SAGA is susceptible to removal by Mot1. In addition, the nucleosome configuration upon activator depletion shifts on SAGA/TATA-box promoters and seems less amenable to preinitiation complex formation. The results explain the fundamental difference between housekeeping and regulatable genes, revealing an additional facet of combinatorial control: an activator can elicit a different response dependent on core promoter class.
2016-11-11 | GSE81787 | GEO
Project description:An important distinction is frequently made between constitutively expressed housekeeping genes versus regulated genes. Although generally characterized by different DNA elements, chromatin architecture and cofactors, it is not known to what degree promoter classes strictly follow regulatability rules and which molecular mechanisms dictate such differences. We show that SAGA-dominated/TATA-box promoters are more responsive to changes in the amount of activator, even compared to TFIID/TATA-like promoters that depend on the same activator Hsf1. Regulatability is therefore an inherent property of promoter class. Further analyses show that SAGA/TATA-box promoters are more dynamic because TBP recruitment through SAGA is susceptible to removal by Mot1. In addition, the nucleosome configuration upon activator depletion shifts on SAGA/TATA-box promoters and seems less amenable to preinitiation complex formation. The results explain the fundamental difference between housekeeping and regulatable genes, revealing an additional facet of combinatorial control: an activator can elicit a different response dependent on core promoter class.
2016-11-11 | GSE81987 | GEO
Project description:HSF1 and MOT1-expression and binding: Molecular mechanisms that distinguish TFIID housekeeping from regulatable SAGA promoters
| PRJNA321755 | ENA
Project description:Genome-wide, little is understood about how proteins organize at inducible promoters before and after induction and to what extent inducible and constitutive architectures depend on cofactors. We report that sequence-specific transcription factors and their tethered cofactors (e.g., SAGA [Spt-Ada-Gcn5-acetyltransferase], Mediator, TUP, NuA4, SWI/SNF, and RPD3-L) are generally bound to promoters prior to induction ("poised"), rather than recruited upon induction, whereas induction recruits the preinitiation complex (PIC) to DNA. Through depletion and/or deletion experiments, we show that SAGA does not function at constitutive promoters, although a SAGA-independent Gcn5 acetylates +1 nucleosomes there. When inducible promoters are poised, SAGA catalyzes +1 nucleosome acetylation but not PIC assembly. When induced, SAGA catalyzes acetylation, deubiquitylation, and PIC assembly. Surprisingly, SAGA mediates induction by creating a PIC that allows TFIID (transcription factor II-D) to stably associate, rather than creating a completely TFIID-independent PIC, as generally thought. These findings suggest that inducible systems, where present, are integrated with constitutive systems.
| S-EPMC9732905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:TFIID and SAGA are the only two known yeast complexes that modify chromatin and deliver TBP to promoters. Previous genome wide expression studies indicated that TFIID and SAGA positively regulate most but not all yeast genes. Using a relatively low noise microarray approach, we have re-examined the genome-wide dependence on TFIID and SAGA. We find that TFIID and SAGA contribute to the expression of virtually the entire genome, with TFIID being preferred at ~90% of the genes, and SAGA being preferred at ~10%. SAGA-dominated genes were found to overlap substantially with a previously described set of highly active genes that are attenuated in part by the TBP regulator NC2, and an auto-inhibitory function of TFIID. These SAGA-dominated genes also encompass most of the previously reported âTAF-independentâ genes. These results build upon and refine the generally held view that activators recruit either TFIID or SAGA to promoters which then bind and acetylate nucleosomes locally, thereby enhancing TBP delivery to the TATA box. Promoter-specific differences in the ability to alleviate auto-inhibitory activities associated with TFIID and SAGA might contribute to the preferential use one complex versus the other. Keywords = Chromatin Immunoprecipitation Keywords = genome-wide binding
2010-06-09 | E-GEOD-1061 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:The basal transcription factor TFIID is central for RNA polymerase II-dependent transcription. Human TFIID is endowed with chromatin reader and DNA-binding domains and protein interaction surfaces. Fourteen TFIID TATA-binding protein (TBP)-associated factor (TAF) subunits assemble into the holocomplex, which shares subunits with the Spt-Ada-Gcn5-acetyltransferase (SAGA) coactivator. Here, we discuss the structural and functional evolution of TFIID and its divergence from SAGA. Our orthologous tree and domain analyses reveal dynamic gains and losses of epigenetic readers, plant-specific functions of TAF1 and TAF4, the HEAT2-like repeat in TAF2, and, importantly, the pre-LECA origin of TFIID and SAGA. TFIID evolution exemplifies the dynamic plasticity in transcription complexes in the eukaryotic lineage.
| S-EPMC6672047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Swi2/Snf2 family ATPase Mot1 displaces TATA-binding protein (TBP) from DNA in vitro, but the global relationship between Mot1 and TBP in vivo is unclear. In particular, how Mot1 activates transcription is poorly understood. To address these issues, we mapped the distribution of Mot1 and TBP on native chromatin at base pair resolution. Mot1 and TBP binding sites coincide throughout the genome, and depletion of TBP results in a global decrease in Mot1 binding. We find evidence that Mot1 approaches TBP from the upstream direction, consistent with its in vitro mode of action. Strikingly, inactivation of Mot1 leads to both increases and decreases in TBP-genome association. Sites of TBP gain tend to contain robust TATA boxes, while sites of TBP loss contain poly(dA-dT) tracts that may contribute to nucleosome exclusion. Sites of TBP gain are associated with increased gene expression, while decreased TBP binding is associated with reduced gene expression. We propose that the action of Mot1 is required to clear TBP from intrinsically preferred (TATA-containing) binding sites, ensuring sufficient soluble TBP to bind intrinsically disfavored (TATA-less) sites.
| S-EPMC3889552 | biostudies-literature