Article

Non-DNA-binding cofactors enhance DNA-binding specificity of a transcriptional regulatory complex

Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Molecular Systems Biology (Impact Factor: 14.1). 12/2011; 7(1):555. DOI: 10.1038/msb.2011.89
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recruitment of cofactors to specific DNA sites is integral for specificity in gene regulation. As a model system, we examined how targeting and transcriptional control of the sulfur metabolism genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is governed by recruitment of the transcriptional co-activator Met4. We developed genome-scale approaches to measure transcription factor (TF) DNA-binding affinities and cofactor recruitment to >1300 genomic binding site sequences. We report that genes responding to the TF Cbf1 and cofactor Met28 contain a novel 'recruitment motif' (RYAAT), adjacent to Cbf1 binding sites, which enhances the binding of a Met4-Met28-Cbf1 regulatory complex, and that abrogation of this motif significantly reduces gene induction under low-sulfur conditions. Furthermore, we show that correct recognition of this composite motif requires both non-DNA-binding cofactors Met4 and Met28. Finally, we demonstrate that the presence of an RYAAT motif next to a Cbf1 site, rather than Cbf1 binding affinity, specifies Cbf1-dependent sulfur metabolism genes. Our results highlight the need to examine TF/cofactor complexes, as novel specificity can result from cofactors that lack intrinsic DNA-binding specificity.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Trevor Siggers, Aug 08, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
136 Views
  • Source
    • "As a rule, TFs function through interactions with a wide range of proteins, including other TFs, cofactors, and chromatin modifiers (D'Alessio et al., 2009; Grove and Walhout 2008; Nä a ¨ r et al., 2001; Spitz and Furlong 2012). The biological activity of each TF depends upon these protein interactions, which ultimately govern DNA-binding affinity, activation of chromatin remodeling, and DNA-binding-sequence specificity (Siggers et al., 2011; Slattery et al., 2011). Given the importance of the cooperative action of TFs, defining their protein interaction profile is essential for understanding the regulation of cellular gene expression. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Highlights: Direct physical interactions for the majority of Drosophila TFs are analyzed TF protein interactions are integrated with existing genomic data sets A resource for studying the biology of transcription factors is provided TF interactions are used to functionally interrogate the master-mind signaling network In Brief In this study, Rhee et al. systematically identify protein interactions for Drosophila transcription factors using a co-affinity purification/mass spectrometry approach. These data are integrated with existing genomic data sets to probe aspects of the Notch signaling pathway, and they provide a rich resource for forming biological hypotheses.
    Cell Reports 09/2014; 8(6):1-13. DOI:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.08.038 · 8.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In contrast, binding to the preferred sites of the other proteins was significantly lower (e.g., Com2 bound 10.7-fold more weakly to the Usv1-preferred site than its own). These results demonstrate that the PBM data correspond well with traditional equilibrium binding affinities, as has been shown in previous studies (Siggers et al., 2011). Furthermore, the data show that binding affinities to the common and TF-preferred sites are of comparable magnitude. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A major challenge in obtaining a full molecular description of evolutionary adaptation is to characterize how transcription factor (TF) DNA-binding specificity can change. To identify mechanisms of TF diversification, we performed detailed comparisons of yeast C2H2 ZF proteins with identical canonical recognition residues that are expected to bind the same DNA sequences. Unexpectedly, we found that ZF proteins can adapt to recognize new binding sites in a modular fashion whereby binding to common core sites remains unaffected. We identified two distinct mechanisms, conserved across multiple Ascomycota species, by which this molecular adaptation occurred. Our results suggest a route for TF evolution that alleviates negative pleiotropic effects by modularly gaining new binding sites. These findings expand our current understanding of ZF DNA binding and provide evidence for paralogous ZFs utilizing alternate modes of DNA binding to recognize unique sets of noncanonical binding sites.
    Molecular Cell 08/2014; 55(4). DOI:10.1016/j.molcel.2014.06.019 · 14.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Exd-Hox has also been described in yeast: the Cbf1-dependent sulfur metabolism genes are specified by an RYAAT DNA motif found adjacent to the Cbf1 sites, recognition of which requires the Met4 and Met28 subunit cofactors of the Met4-Met28-Cbf1 complex (Siggers et al. 2011). The Met4 and Met28 proteins contain bZIP domains, but they do not have any inherent sequence specificity either alone or in combination with each other; instead, they appear to require Cbf1 binding to an adjacent site to exhibit sequence-specific DNA-binding activity (Siggers et al. 2011). TFs can also inherently cooperate with each other to compete with nucleosomes (Adams and Workman 1995; Polach and Widom 1996). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The term "transcriptional network" refers to the mechanism(s) that underlies coordinated expression of genes, typically involving transcription factors (TFs) binding to the promoters of multiple genes, and individual genes controlled by multiple TFs. A multitude of studies in the last two decades have aimed to map and characterize transcriptional networks in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We review the methodologies and accomplishments of these studies, as well as challenges we now face. For most yeast TFs, data have been collected on their sequence preferences, in vivo promoter occupancy, and gene expression profiles in deletion mutants. These systematic studies have led to the identification of new regulators of numerous cellular functions and shed light on the overall organization of yeast gene regulation. However, many yeast TFs appear to be inactive under standard laboratory growth conditions, and many of the available data were collected using techniques that have since been improved. Perhaps as a consequence, comprehensive and accurate mapping among TF sequence preferences, promoter binding, and gene expression remains an open challenge. We propose that the time is ripe for renewed systematic efforts toward a complete mapping of yeast transcriptional regulatory mechanisms.
    Genetics 09/2013; 195(1):9-36. DOI:10.1534/genetics.113.153262 · 4.87 Impact Factor
Show more