Nucleosome Remodeling at the Yeast PHO8 and PHO84 Promoters without the Putatively Essential SWI/SNF Remodeler.

Chromatin remodeling by ATP-dependent remodeling enzymes is crucial for all genomic processes, like transcription or replication. Eukaryotes harbor many remodeler types, and it is unclear why a given chromatin transition requires more or less stringently one or several remodelers. As a classical example, removal of budding yeast PHO8 and PHO84 promoter nucleosomes upon physiological gene induction by phosphate starvation essentially requires the SWI/SNF remodeling complex. This dependency on SWI/SNF may indicate specificity in remodeler recruitment, in recognition of nucleosomes as remodeling substrate or in remodeling outcome. By in vivo chromatin analyses of wild type and mutant yeast under various PHO regulon induction conditions, we found that overexpression of the remodeler-recruiting transactivator Pho4 allowed removal of PHO8 promoter nucleosomes without SWI/SNF. For PHO84 promoter nucleosome removal in the absence of SWI/SNF, an intranucleosomal Pho4 site, which likely altered the remodeling outcome via factor binding competition, was required in addition to such overexpression. Therefore, an essential remodeler requirement under physiological conditions need not reflect substrate specificity, but may reflect specific recruitment and/or remodeling outcomes.

Antisense non-coding transcription represses the PHO5 model gene at the level of promoter chromatin structure.

Pervasive transcription of eukaryotic genomes generates non-coding transcripts with regulatory potential. We examined the effects of non-coding antisense transcription on the regulation of expression of the yeast PHO5 gene, a paradigmatic case for gene regulation through promoter chromatin remodeling. A negative role for antisense transcription at the PHO5 gene locus was demonstrated by leveraging the level of overlapping antisense transcription through specific mutant backgrounds, expression from a strong promoter in cis, and use of the CRISPRi system. Furthermore, we showed that enhanced elongation of PHO5 antisense leads to a more repressive chromatin conformation at the PHO5 gene promoter, which is more slowly remodeled upon gene induction. The negative effect of antisense transcription on PHO5 gene transcription is mitigated upon inactivation of the histone deacetylase Rpd3, showing that PHO5 antisense RNA acts via histone deacetylation. This regulatory pathway leads to Rpd3-dependent decreased recruitment of the RSC chromatin remodeling complex to the PHO5 gene promoter upon induction of antisense transcription. Overall, the data in this work reveal an additional level in the complex regulatory mechanism of PHO5 gene expression by showing antisense transcription-mediated repression at the level of promoter chromatin structure remodeling.

The yeast PHO5 promoter: from single locus to systems biology of a paradigm for gene regulation through chromatin.

Chromatin dynamics crucially contributes to gene regulation. Studies of the yeast PHO5 promoter were key to establish this nowadays accepted view and continuously provide mechanistic insight in chromatin remodeling and promoter regulation, both on single locus as well as on systems level. The PHO5 promoter is a context independent chromatin switch module where in the repressed state positioned nucleosomes occlude transcription factor sites such that nucleosome remodeling is a prerequisite for and not consequence of induced gene transcription. This massive chromatin transition from positioned nucleosomes to an extensive hypersensitive site, together with respective transitions at the co-regulated PHO8 and PHO84 promoters, became a prime model for dissecting how remodelers, histone modifiers and chaperones co-operate in nucleosome remodeling upon gene induction. This revealed a surprisingly complex cofactor network at the PHO5 promoter, including five remodeler ATPases (SWI/SNF, RSC, INO80, Isw1, Chd1), and demonstrated for the first time histone eviction in trans as remodeling mode in vivo. Recently, the PHO5 promoter and the whole PHO regulon were harnessed for quantitative analyses and computational modeling of remodeling, transcription factor binding and promoter input-output relations such that this rewarding single-locus model becomes a paradigm also for theoretical and systems approaches to gene regulatory networks.

The RSC chromatin remodeling complex has a crucial role in the complete remodeler set for yeast PHO5 promoter opening.

Although yeast PHO5 promoter chromatin opening is a founding model for chromatin remodeling, the complete set of involved remodelers remained unknown for a long time. The SWI/SNF and INO80 remodelers cooperate here, but nonessentially, and none of the many tested single or combined remodeler gene mutations could prevent PHO5 promoter opening. RSC, the most abundant and only remodeler essential for viability, was a controversial candidate for the unrecognized remodeling activity but unassessed in vivo. Now we show that remodels the structure of chromatin (RSC) is crucially involved in PHO5 promoter opening. Further, the isw1 chd1 double deletion also delayed chromatin remodeling. Strikingly, combined absence of RSC and Isw1/Chd1 or Snf2 abolished for the first time promoter opening on otherwise sufficient induction in vivo. Together with previous findings, we recognize now a surprisingly complex network of five remodelers (RSC, SWI/SNF, INO80, Isw1 and Chd1) from four subfamilies (SWI/SNF, INO80, ISWI and CHD) as involved in PHO5 promoter chromatin remodeling. This is likely the first described complete remodeler set for a physiological chromatin transition. RSC was hardly involved at the coregulated PHO8 or PHO84 promoters despite cofactor recruitment by the same transactivator and RSC's presence at all three promoters. Therefore, promoter-specific chromatin rather than transactivators determine remodeler requirements.

Differential cofactor requirements for histone eviction from two nucleosomes at the yeast PHO84 promoter are determined by intrinsic nucleosome stability.

We showed previously that the strong PHO5 promoter is less dependent on chromatin cofactors than the weaker coregulated PHO8 promoter. In this study we asked if chromatin remodeling at the even stronger PHO84 promoter was correspondingly less cofactor dependent. The repressed PHO84 promoter showed a short hypersensitive region that was flanked upstream and downstream by a positioned nucleosome and contained two transactivator Pho4 sites. Promoter induction generated an extensive hypersensitive and histone-depleted region, yielding two more Pho4 sites accessible. This remodeling was strictly Pho4 dependent, strongly dependent on the remodelers Snf2 and Ino80 and on the histone acetyltransferase Gcn5, and more weakly on the acetyltransferase Rtt109. Importantly, remodeling of each of the two positioned nucleosomes required Snf2 and Ino80 to different degrees. Only remodeling of the upstream nucleosome was strictly dependent on Snf2. Further, remodeling of the upstream nucleosome was more dependent on Ino80 than remodeling of the downstream nucleosome. Both nucleosomes differed in their intrinsic stabilities as predicted in silico and measured in vitro. The causal relationship between the different nucleosome stabilities and the different cofactor requirements was shown by introducing destabilizing mutations in vivo. Therefore, chromatin cofactor requirements were determined by intrinsic nucleosome stabilities rather than correlated to promoter strength.

Redundancy of chromatin remodeling pathways for the induction of the yeast PHO5 promoter in vivo.

Induction of the yeast PHO5 and PHO8 genes leads to a prominent chromatin transition at their promoter regions as a prerequisite for transcription activation. Although induction of PHO8 is strictly dependent on Snf2 and Gcn5, there is no chromatin remodeler identified so far that would be essential for the opening of PHO5 promoter chromatin. Nonetheless, the nonessential but significant involvement of cofactors can be identified if the chromatin opening kinetics are delayed in the respective mutants. Using this approach, we have tested individually all 15 viable Snf2 type ATPase deletion mutants for their effect on PHO5 promoter induction and opening. Only the absence of Snf2 and Ino80 showed a strong delay in chromatin remodeling kinetics. The snf2 ino80 double mutation had a synthetic kinetic effect but eventually still allowed strong PHO5 induction. The same was true for the snf2 gcn5 and ino80 gcn5 double mutants. This strongly suggests a complex network of redundant and mutually independent parallel pathways that lead to the remodeling of the PHO5 promoter. Further, chromatin remodeling kinetics at a transcriptionally inactive TATA box-mutated PHO5 promoter were affected neither under wild type conditions nor in the absence of Snf2 or Gcn5. This demonstrates the complete independence of promoter chromatin opening from downstream PHO5 transcription processes. Finally, the histone variant Htz1 has no prominent role for the kinetics of PHO5 promoter chromatin remodeling.

The histone chaperone Asf1 increases the rate of histone eviction at the yeast PHO5 and PHO8 promoters.

Eukaryotic gene expression starts off from a largely obstructive chromatin substrate that has to be rendered accessible by regulated mechanisms of chromatin remodeling. The yeast PHO5 promoter is a well known example for the contribution of positioned nucleosomes to gene repression and for extensive chromatin remodeling in the course of gene induction. Recently, the mechanism of this remodeling process was shown to lead to the disassembly of promoter nucleosomes and the eviction of the constituent histones in trans. This finding called for a histone acceptor in trans and thus made histone chaperones likely to be involved in this process. In this study we have shown that the histone chaperone Asf1 increases the rate of histone eviction at the PHO5 promoter. In the absence of Asf1 histone eviction is delayed, but the final outcome of the chromatin transition is not affected. The same is true for the coregulated PHO8 promoter where induction also leads to histone eviction and where the rate of histone loss is reduced in asf1 strains as well, although less severely. Importantly, the final extent of chromatin remodeling is not affected. We have also presented evidence that Asf1 and the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex work in distinct parallel but functionally overlapping pathways, i.e. they both contribute toward the same outcome without being mutually strictly dependent.

Multiple mechanistically distinct functions of SAGA at the PHO5 promoter.

Our previous studies have shown that the rate of chromatin remodeling and consequently the rate of PHO5 activation are strongly decreased in the absence of Gcn5 histone acetyltransferase activity. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation, we demonstrate that SAGA is physically recruited to the PHO5 promoter. Recruitment is dependent on the specific activator Pho4 and occurs only under inducing conditions. Spt3, another subunit of SAGA, also plays a role in PHO5 activation but has a function that is completely different from that of Gcn5. An SPT3 deletion severely compromises the PHO5 promoter and reduces the extent of transcriptional activation by diminishing the binding of the TATA binding protein to the promoter without, however, affecting the rate or the extent of chromatin remodeling. A gcn5 spt3 double mutant shows a synthetic phenotype almost as severe as that observed for an spt7 or spt20 mutant. The latter two mutations are known to prevent the assembly of the complex and consequently lead to the loss of all SAGA functions. The absence of the Ada2 subunit causes a strong delay in chromatin remodeling and promoter activation that closely resembles the delay observed in the absence of Gcn5. A deletion of only the Ada2 SANT domain has exactly the same effect, strongly suggesting that Ada2 controls Gcn5 activity by virtue of its SANT domain. Finally, the Gcn5 bromodomain also contributes to but is not essential for Gcn5 function at the PHO5 promoter. Taken together, the results provide a detailed and differentiated description of the role of SAGA as a coactivator at the PHO5 promoter.