OCT4 and SOX2 Work as Transcriptional Activators in Reprogramming Human Fibroblasts.

SOX2 and OCT4, in conjunction with KLF4 and cMYC, are sufficient to reprogram human fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), but it is unclear if they function as transcriptional activators or as repressors. We now show that, like OCT4, SOX2 functions as a transcriptional activator. We substituted SOX2-VP16 (a strong activator) for wild-type (WT) SOX2, and we saw an increase in the efficiency and rate of reprogramming, whereas the SOX2-HP1 fusion (a strong repressor) eliminated reprogramming. We report that, at an early stage of reprogramming, virtually all DNA-bound OCT4, SOX2, and SOX2-VP16 were embedded in putative enhancers, about half of which were created de novo. Those associated with SOX2-VP16 were, on average, stronger than those bearing WT SOX2. Many newly created putative enhancers were transient, and many transcription factor locations on DNA changed as reprogramming progressed. These results are consistent with the idea that, during reprogramming, there is an intermediate state that is distinct from both parental cells and iPSCs.

Polycomb Responds to Low Levels of Transcription.

How is Polycomb (Pc), a eukaryotic negative regulator of transcription, targeted to specific mammalian genes? Our genome-wide analysis of the Pc mark H3K27me3 in murine cells revealed that Pc is preferentially associated with CpG island promoters of genes that are transcribed at a low level and less so with promoters of genes that are either silent or more highly expressed. Studies of the CpG island promoter of the Kit gene demonstrate that Pc is largely absent when the gene is silent in myeloid cells, as well as when the gene is highly expressed in mast cells. Manipulations that increase transcription in the former case, and reduce it in the latter, increase Pc occupancy. The average negative effect of Pc, we infer, is about 2-fold. We suggest possible biological roles for such negative effects and propose a mechanism by which Pc might be recruited to weakly transcribed genes.

Nucleosome avidities and transcriptional silencing in yeast.

A classical example of "transcriptional silencing" is found in the yeast S. cerevisiae mating-type switch [1, 2]. The gene pairs a1/a2 and α1/α2, positioned at the loci HMR and HML, respectively, are silenced by Sir proteins recruited by proteins that bind sites flanking each locus. Transfer of either gene pair to the Sir-free MAT locus, or mutation of the Sirs, allows expression of those genes at levels sufficient to foster yeast mating. Here we confirm that, in the absence of Sirs, a1 and a2 at HMR are expressed at low levels [3]. This level is low because, we show, the relevant transcriptional activators, which work from regulatory sites located between the divergently transcribed genes, are weak. That property-weak activation-is a prerequisite for effective silencing upon recruitment of Sirs. We use our quantitative nucleosome occupancy assay to show that Sirs (which bind nucleosomes) increase the avidities with which those nucleosomes form at the promoters. That increase can account for at least part of the repressive effects of the Sirs and can explain why silencing is effective in countering weak activation only. We suggest that "silencing" in higher eukaryotes (e.g., by Polycomb or HP1) follows similar rules [4, 5] and note where such effects could be important.

Regulation of a mammalian gene bearing a CpG island promoter and a distal enhancer.

A quantitative nucleosome occupancy assay revealed rules for nucleosome disposition in yeast and showed how disposition affects regulation of the GAL genes. Here, we show how those findings apply to the control of Kit, a mammalian gene. The Kit promoter lies in a CpG island, and its enhancer (active in mast cells) lies some 150 kb upstream. Nucleosomes form with especially high avidities at the Kit promoter, a reaction that, we surmise, ensures extremely low basal expression. In mast cells, transcriptional activators displace nucleosomes that are less tightly formed at the Kit enhancer. In turn, the active enhancer replaces a single Kit promoter nucleosome with the transcriptional machinery, thereby inducing transcription over 1,000-fold. As at the yeast GAL genes, the inhibitory effects of nucleosomes facilitate high factors of induction by mammalian activators working in the absence of specific repressors.

Measuring nucleosome occupancy in vivo by micrococcal nuclease.

Eukaryotic genomes are wrapped in nucleosomes. These nucleosomes could be a barrier or could help facilitate the binding of transcription or replication factors. To understand what biological role nucleosomes play, an accurate and reliable method for measuring not only the position of a nucleosome but the fraction of the population that is bound by a nucleosome is needed. Here is described a method for determining nucleosome occupancy that takes advantage of the difference in the rate of digestion of DNA by micrococcal nuclease when naked DNA is compared to the same DNA bound by a nucleosome. Curve fitting to a function that describes the amount of DNA remaining following a series of digestions over a broad range of micrococcal nuclease allows the calculation of nucleosome occupancy anywhere in the genome under many different conditions in vivo.

Nucleosomes and the accessibility problem.

Eukaryotic DNA is packaged in nucleosomes. How does this sequestration affect the ability of transcription regulators to access their sites? We cite evidence against the idea that nucleosome positioning is determined primarily by the intrinsic propensities of DNA sequences to form nucleosomes--such that, for example, regulatory sites would be 'nucleosome-free'. Instead, studies in yeast show that nucleosome positioning is primarily determined by specific DNA-binding proteins. Where nucleosomes would otherwise compete with regulatory protein binding (a modest but potentially biologically important effect), this obstacle can be relieved by at least two strategies for exposing regulatory sites. In contrast to their lack of effect on nucleosome positioning, DNA sequence differences do directly affect both the efficiencies with which nucleosomes form in regions flanking regulatory sites before induction, and the extent of their removal upon induction. These nucleosomes, evidently, inhibit basal transcription but are poised to be removed quickly upon command.

An effect of DNA sequence on nucleosome occupancy and removal.

A barrier phases nucleosomes at the yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) GAL1-GAL10 genes. Here we separate nucleosome positioning from occupancy and show that the degree of occupancy of these phased sites is predictably determined by the underlying DNA sequences. As this occupancy is increased (by sequence alteration), nucleosome removal upon induction is decreased, as is mRNA production. These results explain why promoter sequences have evolved to form nucleosomes relatively inefficiently.

A RSC/nucleosome complex determines chromatin architecture and facilitates activator binding.

How is chromatin architecture established and what role does it play in transcription? We show that the yeast regulatory locus UASg bears, in addition to binding sites for the activator Gal4, sites bound by the RSC complex. RSC positions a nucleosome, evidently partially unwound, in a structure that facilitates Gal4 binding to its sites. The complex comprises a barrier that imposes characteristic features of chromatin architecture. In the absence of RSC, ordinary nucleosomes encroach over the UASg and compete with Gal4 for binding. Taken with our previous work, the results show that both prior to and following induction, specific DNA-binding proteins are the predominant determinants of chromatin architecture at the GAL1/10 genes. RSC/nucleosome complexes are also found scattered around the yeast genome. Higher eukaryotic RSC lacks the specific DNA-binding determinants found on yeast RSC, and evidently Gal4 works in those organisms despite whatever obstacle broadly positioned nucleosomes present.

Activator control of nucleosome occupancy in activation and repression of transcription.

The relationship between chromatin structure and gene expression is a subject of intense study. The universal transcriptional activator Gal4 removes promoter nucleosomes as it triggers transcription, but how it does so has remained obscure. The reverse process, repression of transcription, has often been correlated with the presence of nucleosomes. But it is not known whether nucleosomes are required for that effect. A new quantitative assay describes, for any given location, the fraction of DNA molecules in the population that bears a nucleosome at any given instant. This allows us to follow the time courses of nucleosome removal and reformation, in wild-type and mutant cells, upon activation (by galactose) and repression (by glucose) of the GAL genes of yeast. We show that upon being freed of its inhibitor Gal80 by the action of galactose, Gal4 quickly recruits SWI/SNF to the genes, and that nucleosome "remodeler" rapidly removes promoter nucleosomes. In the absence of SWI/SNF, Gal4's action also results in nucleosome removal and the activation of transcription, but both processes are significantly delayed. Addition of glucose to cells growing in galactose represses transcription. But if galactose remains present, Gal4 continues to work, recruiting SWI/SNF and maintaining the promoter nucleosome-free despite it being repressed. This requirement for galactose is obviated in a mutant in which Gal4 works constitutively. These results show how an activator's recruiting function can control chromatin structure both during gene activation and repression. Thus, both under activating and repressing conditions, the activator can recruit an enzymatic machine that removes promoter nucleosomes. Our results show that whereas promoter nucleosome removal invariably accompanies activation, reformation of nucleosomes is not required for repression. The finding that there are two routes to nucleosome removal and activation of transcription-one that requires the action of SWI/SNF recruited by the activator, and a slower one that does not-clarifies our understanding of the early events of gene activation, and in particular corrects earlier reports that SWI/SNF plays no role in GAL gene induction. Our finding that chromatin structure is irrelevant for repression as studied here-that is, repression sets in as efficiently whether or not promoter nucleosomes are allowed to reform-contradicts the widely held, but little tested, idea that nucleosomes are required for repression. These findings were made possible by our nucleosome occupancy assay. The assay, we believe, will prove useful in studying other outstanding issues in the field.

HSP90/70 chaperones are required for rapid nucleosome removal upon induction of the GAL genes of yeast.

Induction of transcription of the GAL genes of yeast by galactose is a multistep process: Galactose frees the activator Gal4 of its inhibitor, Gal80, allowing Gal4 to recruit proteins required to transcribe the GAL genes. Here, we show that deletion of components of either the HSP90 or the HSP70 chaperone machinery delays this induction. This delay remains when the galactose-signaling pathway is bypassed, and it cannot be explained by a chaperone requirement for DNA binding by Gal4. Removal of promoter-bound nucleosomes is delayed in a chaperone mutant, and our findings suggest an involvement of HSP90 and HSP70 in this early step in gene induction.

A common site on TBP for transcription by RNA polymerases II and III.

The TATA-binding protein (TBP) is involved in all nuclear transcription. We show that a common site on TBP is used for transcription initiation complex formation by RNA polymerases (pols) II and III. TBP, the transcription factor IIB (TFIIB)-related factor Brf1 and the pol III-specific factor Bdp1 constitute TFIIIB. A photochemical cross-linking approach was used to survey a collection of human TBP surface residue mutants for their ability to form TFIIIB-DNA complexes reliant on only the TFIIB-related part of Brf1. Mutations impairing complex formation and transcription were identified and mapped on the surface of TBP. The most severe effects were observed for mutations in the C-terminal stirrup of TBP, which is the principal site of interaction between TBP and TFIIB. Structural modeling of the Brf1-TBP complex and comparison with its TFIIB-TBP analog further rationalizes the close resemblance of the TBP interaction with the N-proximal part of Brf1 and TFIIB, and establishes the conserved usage of a TBP surface in pol II and pol III transcription for a conserved function in the initiation of transcription.

Independent recruitment in vivo by Gal4 of two complexes required for transcription.

We use a modified form of ChIP to analyze the recruitment of seven sets of proteins to the yeast GAL genes upon induction. We resolve three stages of recruitment: first SAGA, then Mediator, and finally Pol II along with four other proteins (including TBP) bind the promoter. In a strain lacking SAGA, Mediator is recruited with a time course indistinguishable from that observed in wild-type cells. Our results are consistent with the notion that a single species of activator, Gal4, separately contacts, and thereby directly recruits, SAGA and Mediator.

Responses of four yeast genes to changes in the transcriptional machinery are determined by their promoters.

Many yeast genes are distinguished by their specific requirements for different components of the transcriptional machinery. Here we examine four genes that fall into two classes as defined by their dependence on specific components of the transcriptional machinery. We describe a series of hybrid constructs, each of which bears activator binding sites that are associated with a promoter other than that with which they are usually affiliated. We examine expression of these reporters in strains bearing three modifications of the transcriptional machinery. Our results indicate that, in each of these cases, the promoter (and not the activator) determines which components of the transcriptional machinery are required. These and additional results, including those of others, clarify how disparate activators can work at many different promoters.