Eukaryotic Cell
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mennella, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Zitomer, R. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mennella, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Zitomer, R. S.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Eukaryotic Cell, December 2003, p. 1288-1303, Vol. 2, No. 6
1535-9778/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/EC.2.6.1288-1303.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Recruitment of Tup1-Ssn6 by Yeast Hypoxic Genes and Chromatin-Independent Exclusion of TATA Binding Protein

Thomas A. Mennella, Lee G. Klinkenberg, and Richard S. Zitomer*

Department of Biological Sciences, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12222

Received 2 June 2003/ Accepted 19 September 2003

The Tup1-Ssn6 general repression complex in Saccharomyces cerevisiae represses a wide variety of regulons. Regulon-specific DNA binding proteins recruit the repression complex, and their synthesis, activity, or localization controls the conditions for repression. Rox1 is the hypoxic regulon-specific protein, and a second DNA binding protein, Mot3, augments repression at tightly controlled genes. We addressed the requirements for Tup1-Ssn6 recruitment to two hypoxic genes, ANB1 and HEM13, by using chromatin immunoprecipitation assays. Either Rox1 or Mot3 could recruit Ssn6, but Tup1 recruitment required Ssn6 and Rox1. We also monitored events during derepression. Rox1 and Mot3 dissociated from DNA quickly, accounting for the rapid accumulation of ANB1 and HEM13 RNAs, suggesting a simple explanation for induction. However, Tup1 remained associated with these genes, suggesting that the localization of Tup1-Ssn6 is not the sole determinant of repression. We could not reproduce the observation that deletion of the Tup1-Ssn6-interacting protein Cti6 was required for induction. Finally, Tup1 is capable of repression through a chromatin-dependent mechanism, the positioning of a nucleosome over the TATA box, or a chromatin-independent mechanism. We found that the rate of derepression was independent of the positioned nucleosome and that the TATA binding protein was excluded from ANB1 even in the absence of the positioned nucleosome. The mediator factor Srb7 has been shown to interact with Tup1 and to play a role in repression at several regulons, but we found that significant levels of repression remained in srb7 mutants even when the chromatin-dependent repression mechanism was eliminated. These findings suggest that the repression of different regulons or genes may invoke different mechanisms.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Biological Sciences, University at Albany/SUNY, Albany, NY 12222. Phone: (518) 442-4385. Fax: (518) 442-4767. E-mail: rz144{at}albany.edu.

Eukaryotic Cell, December 2003, p. 1288-1303, Vol. 2, No. 6
1535-9778/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/EC.2.6.1288-1303.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. Infect. Immun. J. Bacteriol.
Mol. Cell Biol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. ALL ASM JOURNALS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Microbiology.