HSF1 and MOT1-expression and binding: Molecular mechanisms that distinguish TFIID housekeeping from regulatable SAGA promoters
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJNA321755 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
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 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: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:TFIID and SAGA share a common set of TAFs, regulate chromatin, and deliver TBP to promoters. Here we examine their relationship within the context of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome-wide regulatory network. We find that while TFIID and SAGA make overlapping contributions to the expression of all genes, TFIID function predominates at ~90% and SAGA at ~10% of the measurable genome. Strikingly, SAGA-dominated genes are largely stress-induced and TAF-independent, and are down-regulated by the coordinate action of a variety of chromatin, TBP, and RNA polymerase II regulators. In contrast, the TFIID-dominated class is less regulated, but is highly dependent upon TAFs including those shared between TFIID and SAGA. These two distinct modes of transcription regulation might reflect the need to balance inducible stress responses with the steady output of housekeeping genes. Keywords = Taf1 Keywords = Spt3 Keywords = Gcn5
2004-02-26 | E-GEOD-885 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:TFIID and SAGA share a common set of TAFs, regulate chromatin, and deliver TBP to promoters. Here we examine their relationship within the context of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome-wide regulatory network. We find that while TFIID and SAGA make overlapping contributions to the expression of all genes, TFIID function predominates at ~90% and SAGA at ~10% of the measurable genome. Strikingly, SAGA-dominated genes are largely stress-induced and TAF-independent, and are down-regulated by the coordinate action of a variety of chromatin, TBP, and RNA polymerase II regulators. In contrast, the TFIID-dominated class is less regulated, but is highly dependent upon TAFs including those shared between TFIID and SAGA. These two distinct modes of transcription regulation might reflect the need to balance inducible stress responses with the steady output of housekeeping genes. Keywords = Taf1 Keywords = Spt3 Keywords = Gcn5 Keywords: other
2004-02-27 | GSE885 | GEO
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: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 “TAF-independent” 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 Keywords: other
2004-03-01 | GSE1061 | GEO
Project description:MOT1-expression: Molecular mechanisms that distinguish TFIID housekeeping from regulatable SAGA promoters
| PRJNA321756 | ENA
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