Brian Z Ring, William S Yarnell, Jeffrey W Roberts  Cell 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Transcription Chapter 11.
Advertisements

Bacterial Transcription
The Yeast nRNAP II Has 12 subunits, based on traditional enzyme purification and epitope tagging. Gene knockouts indicate that 10 subunits are essential,
RNA and Protein Synthesis
Transcription.
Chapter 10: Molecular Biology of Gene Expression Jones and Bartlett Publishers © 2005.
Gene Expression - Transcription
Transcription.
Volume 88, Issue 5, Pages (March 1997)
Mahadeb Pal, Alfred S. Ponticelli, Donal S. Luse  Molecular Cell 
Relationship between Genotype and Phenotype
Mark M Metzstein, H.Robert Horvitz  Molecular Cell 
The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh2 Mismatch Repair Protein Localizes to Recombination Intermediates In Vivo  Elizabeth Evans, Neal Sugawara, James E Haber,
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages (November 2002)
Daniel Chi-Hong Lin, Alan D Grossman  Cell 
RNAi Related Mechanisms Affect Both Transcriptional and Posttranscriptional Transgene Silencing in Drosophila  Manika Pal-Bhadra, Utpal Bhadra, James.
Sherif Abou Elela, Haller Igel, Manuel Ares  Cell 
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages (April 2002)
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (January 1999)
Smita Shankar, Asma Hatoum, Jeffrey W. Roberts  Molecular Cell 
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages (October 2000)
Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages (September 1998)
Volume 139, Issue 5, Pages (November 2009)
Benjamin P Callen, Keith E Shearwin, J.Barry Egan  Molecular Cell 
Heteroduplex Formation in SMN Gene Dosage Analysis
Transcriptional Control of the Mouse Col7a1 Gene in Keratinocytes: Basal and Transforming Growth Factor-β Regulated Expression  Michael Naso, Jouni Uitto,
Volume 88, Issue 5, Pages (March 1997)
John F Ross, Xuan Liu, Brian David Dynlacht  Molecular Cell 
Volume 14, Issue 19, Pages (October 2004)
Interaction with PCNA Is Essential for Yeast DNA Polymerase η Function
Regulation of CSF1 Promoter by the SWI/SNF-like BAF Complex
Hung-Ta Chen, Steven Hahn  Cell 
Tae Kook Kim, Tom Maniatis  Molecular Cell 
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages (November 1998)
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages (October 2000)
Jeffrey W Roberts, Christine W Roberts  Cell 
Andrew R. Bassett, Charlotte Tibbit, Chris P. Ponting, Ji-Long Liu 
A Shared Surface of TBP Directs RNA Polymerase II and III Transcription via Association with Different TFIIB Family Members  Xuemei Zhao, Laura Schramm,
RNA Polymerase Pausing Regulates Translation Initiation by Providing Additional Time for TRAP-RNA Interaction  Alexander V. Yakhnin, Helen Yakhnin, Paul.
Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages (January 1998)
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages (September 2002)
A T Cell–Specific Enhancer in the Interleukin-3 Locus Is Activated Cooperatively by Oct and NFAT Elements within a DNase I–Hypersensitive Site  Kym N.
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages (December 1997)
Mahadeb Pal, Alfred S. Ponticelli, Donal S. Luse  Molecular Cell 
Frpo: A Novel Single-Stranded DNA Promoter for Transcription and for Primer RNA Synthesis of DNA Replication  Hisao Masai, Ken-ichi Arai  Cell  Volume.
MyoD Targets TAF3/TRF3 to Activate Myogenin Transcription
The Mammalian RNA Polymerase II C-Terminal Domain Interacts with RNA to Suppress Transcription-Coupled 3′ End Formation  Syuzo Kaneko, James L. Manley 
Helicase and Polymerase Move Together Close to the Fork Junction and Copy DNA in One-Nucleotide Steps  Manjula Pandey, Smita S. Patel  Cell Reports  Volume.
Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages (July 1998)
Volume 84, Issue 1, Pages (January 1996)
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages (November 2006)
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages (November 2005)
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages (September 2002)
RNA Helicase A Mediates Association of CBP with RNA Polymerase II
Translocation of σ70 with RNA Polymerase during Transcription
Volume 31, Issue 5, Pages (September 2008)
Replisome Assembly at oriC, the Replication Origin of E
Polymerases and the Replisome: Machines within Machines
RNA Displacement and Resolution of the Transcription Bubble during Transcription by T7 RNA Polymerase  Manli Jiang, Na Ma, Dmitry G. Vassylyev, William.
Bart A. Jessen, Marjorie A. Phillips, Robert H. Rice 
Nucleoid Proteins Stimulate Stringently Controlled Bacterial Promoters
Vytautas Naktinis, Jennifer Turner, Mike O'Donnell  Cell 
Volume 105, Issue 7, Pages (June 2001)
Michael T Marr, Jeffrey W Roberts  Molecular Cell 
Transcriptional Termination Factors for RNA Polymerase II in Yeast
Rodney A King, Sarbani Banik-Maiti, Ding Jun Jin, Robert A Weisberg 
The Mechanism of Intrinsic Transcription Termination
Structural Organization of the RNA Polymerase-Promoter Open Complex
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (January 1999)
Characterization of Human FAST-1, a TGFβ and Activin Signal Transducer
Presentation transcript:

Function of E. coli RNA Polymerase σ Factor- σ70 in Promoter-Proximal Pausing  Brian Z Ring, William S Yarnell, Jeffrey W Roberts  Cell  Volume 86, Issue 3, Pages 485-493 (August 1996) DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X

Figure 1 DNA Structures of Open and Paused Promoter Complexes of the Phage λ Late Gene Promoter pR′ Melted regions of the open promoter were determined by Kainz and Roberts 1992. Matches to consensus of promoter elements in the −35 and −10 regions are shown. This “extended −10” sequence contains the most important bases for promoter function (Kumar et al. 1993); its match to the pause-inducing sequence is also shown. Cell 1996 86, 485-493DOI: (10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X)

Figure 2 Match of Lambdoid Bacteriophage Late Gene Promoter Pause-Inducing Sequences to Important Elements of the Extended −10 Consensus Pause sites and DNA sequences for λ, 21, and phage 82 were described (Grayhack et al. 1985; Goliger and Roberts 1989; Guo 1990; Guo et al. 1990); the DNA sequence for phage 80 was determined by L. Matthews, D. Kadosh, and J. W. R. (unpublished data), and its features were surmised by analogy with λ. The initiation site is designated by the arrow, and the pause site is underlined. Cell 1996 86, 485-493DOI: (10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X)

Figure 3 Effect of the Extended −10 Sequence on Pausing at 10 bp Displacement The autoradiogram shows a gel resolution of transcripts of λ+ pR′ DNA, a λ pR′ variant with 10 bp of extraneous DNA introduced just before the site of the first transcribed base (X10#1), and a further variant in which the 10 bp insert DNA is modified to match the extended −10 consensus in the region that induces pausing (X10#1 con). In addition to changes made to match the consensus T-TG-TATAAT, there is a change to pyrimidine at −10 (Kumar et al. 1993) and an irrelevant change at +5. Matches to the extended −10 sequence are shown by bullets. RNAs below the +16/17 pause RNAs are abortive initiation products, which vary in pattern and intensity with different initial transcribed sequences. Cell 1996 86, 485-493DOI: (10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X)

Figure 6 Effect of Displacing the Pause-Inducing Sequence of the λ pR′ Promoter Downstream, and Replacing Displaced Sequences with the Extended −10 Consensus Insertions of 2 to 11 bp in insertion series #1 contain successive segments from the 5′ end of the sequence ATTGGTAGTGA inserted before +1 of the wild-type sequence; the 1 bp insertion of series #1 has T inserted between +1 and +2. The variant 8 bp insertion is AATTACTC placed before +1, and two variant 10 bp insertions are GGAATTACTC (#2) and AAGGTTACTC (#3), both placed before +1. The +6 extended −10 consensus insertion contains TTATGCTATAAT replacing the wild-type sequence from +1 to +6; the +10 extended −10 consensus insertion (template X10#1con) is described in Figure 3; the +20 extended −10 consensus insertion contains ATTGGTAGTGAATTATATGCTATAAT, substituted for the wild-type pR′ sequence from +1 to +6. Templates were PCR copies made with the primer described for synthesis of heteroduplex bubble templates. The “fraction RNA polymerase paused per minute” is the sum for all sampled times (0.5′, 1′, 2′, 5′, 10′) of the mole fraction of transcripts at the pause site, divided by the total time of the reaction; it is an arbitrary measure that gives weight to both the fraction captured at the pause and the half-time of the pause. A substantially similar view is obtained by plotting the fraction that decays between 0.5 min and 5 min, or the fraction initially captured at 0.5 min. Error bars indicate variance over several experiments. Cell 1996 86, 485-493DOI: (10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X)

Figure 4 The +16/17 Pause Transcript Depends upon the Presence of σ70, and upon the Pause-Inducing Sequence, in Transcription from Bubble Templates Templates were PCR products made and transcribed as described. The substituent sequence was ATCTCGACTGAGT in place of the wild-type TAAATTTGACTCA in positions −12 to +1 of the nontemplate strand mutant bubble, or ACTCAGTCGAGAT in place of the wild-type TGAGTCAAATTTA in the template strand mutant bubble. (A) Transcripts of both bubbles by RNA polymerase holoenzyme (+σ70) and core (−σ70), compared with pause transcripts of wild-type DNA. The prominent runoff derives from rightward initiation at the bubble; a larger leftward transcript (not shown) is present at ⩽20% of this level. (B) Transcripts of nontemplate strand altered 13 bp bubbles, as above, but with the (double-stranded) pausing sequence displaced downstream by a 6 bp insertion, and converted to consensus −10 sequence (in these bubbles TTATGCTATAAT—with consensus elements underlined—replaces nucleotides +1 to +6 of the wild-type sequence); and a bubble with a +6 T to G change in the nontemplate strand of the early transcribed segment. This single base heteroduplex at +6 of the nontemplate strand is expected to express the nonpausing mutant phenotype (Ring and Roberts 1994). (C) Effect of σ70 fragments on pausing at +16/+17 in the wild-type configuration, and at +23 in the extended −10 sequence with 6 bp insert. Numbers at top designate amino acids present in σ70 fragments; the 360–528 fragment also contains GST fused to its N-terminus (Dombroski et al. 1992). Cell 1996 86, 485-493DOI: (10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X)

Figure 4 The +16/17 Pause Transcript Depends upon the Presence of σ70, and upon the Pause-Inducing Sequence, in Transcription from Bubble Templates Templates were PCR products made and transcribed as described. The substituent sequence was ATCTCGACTGAGT in place of the wild-type TAAATTTGACTCA in positions −12 to +1 of the nontemplate strand mutant bubble, or ACTCAGTCGAGAT in place of the wild-type TGAGTCAAATTTA in the template strand mutant bubble. (A) Transcripts of both bubbles by RNA polymerase holoenzyme (+σ70) and core (−σ70), compared with pause transcripts of wild-type DNA. The prominent runoff derives from rightward initiation at the bubble; a larger leftward transcript (not shown) is present at ⩽20% of this level. (B) Transcripts of nontemplate strand altered 13 bp bubbles, as above, but with the (double-stranded) pausing sequence displaced downstream by a 6 bp insertion, and converted to consensus −10 sequence (in these bubbles TTATGCTATAAT—with consensus elements underlined—replaces nucleotides +1 to +6 of the wild-type sequence); and a bubble with a +6 T to G change in the nontemplate strand of the early transcribed segment. This single base heteroduplex at +6 of the nontemplate strand is expected to express the nonpausing mutant phenotype (Ring and Roberts 1994). (C) Effect of σ70 fragments on pausing at +16/+17 in the wild-type configuration, and at +23 in the extended −10 sequence with 6 bp insert. Numbers at top designate amino acids present in σ70 fragments; the 360–528 fragment also contains GST fused to its N-terminus (Dombroski et al. 1992). Cell 1996 86, 485-493DOI: (10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X)

Figure 4 The +16/17 Pause Transcript Depends upon the Presence of σ70, and upon the Pause-Inducing Sequence, in Transcription from Bubble Templates Templates were PCR products made and transcribed as described. The substituent sequence was ATCTCGACTGAGT in place of the wild-type TAAATTTGACTCA in positions −12 to +1 of the nontemplate strand mutant bubble, or ACTCAGTCGAGAT in place of the wild-type TGAGTCAAATTTA in the template strand mutant bubble. (A) Transcripts of both bubbles by RNA polymerase holoenzyme (+σ70) and core (−σ70), compared with pause transcripts of wild-type DNA. The prominent runoff derives from rightward initiation at the bubble; a larger leftward transcript (not shown) is present at ⩽20% of this level. (B) Transcripts of nontemplate strand altered 13 bp bubbles, as above, but with the (double-stranded) pausing sequence displaced downstream by a 6 bp insertion, and converted to consensus −10 sequence (in these bubbles TTATGCTATAAT—with consensus elements underlined—replaces nucleotides +1 to +6 of the wild-type sequence); and a bubble with a +6 T to G change in the nontemplate strand of the early transcribed segment. This single base heteroduplex at +6 of the nontemplate strand is expected to express the nonpausing mutant phenotype (Ring and Roberts 1994). (C) Effect of σ70 fragments on pausing at +16/+17 in the wild-type configuration, and at +23 in the extended −10 sequence with 6 bp insert. Numbers at top designate amino acids present in σ70 fragments; the 360–528 fragment also contains GST fused to its N-terminus (Dombroski et al. 1992). Cell 1996 86, 485-493DOI: (10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X)

Figure 5 σ70 Is Present in Complexes Stopped at the Pausing Site of λ and 82 Promoter Segments, But Reduced in Amount about 5-fold when the Pause-Inducing Sequence Is Altered Complexes were made and analyzed as described; a photograph of a silver-stained SDS gel is shown. The σ70 content relative to RNA polymerase holoenzyme standard is shown. The λ sequences have been described (Yarnell and Roberts 1992). The phage 82 sequence is a variant with transcript cytidines removed up to +25, so that complexes stopped at the pause site can be constructed. Mutants of this variant are a deletion at +11, which removes the highly conserved T at +14 of the natural transcript (see Figure 2), and a +10G change of this site; both are defective in pausing (W. S. Y. and J. W. R., unpublished data). Cell 1996 86, 485-493DOI: (10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X)

Figure 7 Model of σ70 Function in Promoter Opening and Pausing, and the Interaction λ Q Protein with the Paused Complex Details are described in the text. (A), (B), and (C) represent formation of closed promoter complex, open promoter complex, and paused complex; (D) represents the interaction of λ Q protein with the paused complex. Region 2 of σ70 is placed to bind the upstream end of the extended −10 consensus as duplex DNA, in agreement with KMnO4 mapping (Kainz and Roberts 1992). A pronounced stop in upstream exonuclease digestion characteristic of complex containing the wild-type pause sequence (Yarnell and Roberts 1992) could reflect such a structure. Cell 1996 86, 485-493DOI: (10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80121-X)