Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “REPRESSION”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Promoter-dependent roles for the Srb10 cyclin-dependent kinase and the Hda1 deacetylase in Tup1-mediated repression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

The Tup1-Ssn6 complex has been well characterized as a Saccharomyces cerevisiae general transcriptional repressor with functionally conserved homologues in metazoans. These homologues are essential for cell differentiation and many other developmental processes. The mechanism of repression of all of these proteins remains poorly understood. Srb10 (a cyclin-dependent kinase associated with the Mediator complex) and Hda1 (a class I histone deacetylase) have each been implicated in Tup1-mediated repression. We present a statistically based genome-wide analysis that reveals that Hda1 partially represses roughly 30% of Tup1-repressed genes, whereas Srb10 kinase activity contributes to the repression of approximately 15% of Tup1-repressed genes. These effects only partially overlap, suggesting that different Tup1-repression mechanisms predominate at different promoters. We also demonstrate a distinction between histone deacetylation and transcriptional repression. In an HDA1 deletion, many Tup1-repressed genes are hyperacetylated at lysine 18 of histone H3, yet are not derepressed, indicating deacetylation alone is not sufficient to repress most Tup1-controlled genes. In a strain lacking both Srb10 and Hda1 functions, more than half of the Tup1-repressed genes are still repressed, suggesting that Tup1-mediated repression occurs by multiple, partially overlapping mechanisms, at least one of which is unknown.

Acetylation↗
PubMed2000

Repressive-defensive style and physiological reactivity among children and adolescents with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the concordance of two self-report methods of operationalizing repressive-defensive style in children with asthma. It was hypothesized that, compared with low-anxious children, repressive-defensive children would exhibit increased physiological reactivity during a stressful laboratory task, despite comparable self-reports of state anxiety. METHODS: Ninety-one children and adolescents (mean age = 11.5 years) with asthma participated in the study. Repressive-defensiveness was operationalized as self-reported low distress coupled with high defensiveness or restraint. Self-report data reflecting trait anxiety, defensiveness, and personality style were used to classify children as repressive-defensive by two independent methods. Physiological reactivity was operationalized as standardized changes in peripheral temperature, heart rate, and/or skin conductance from baseline to a stressful task. For the stressful task, children spoke into a tape recorder about a stressful or embarrassing event. RESULTS: Each method classified 20% of children as repressive-defensive. However, of the children classified as repressive-defensive by either method (n = 26), only 38% (n = 10) were classified as repressive-defensive by both methods. In addition, regardless of the classification method, repressive-defensive children did not consistently differ from low-anxious children with respect to physiological reactivity under stress, one of the hallmarks of repressive-defensiveness in adults. CONCLUSION: These results cast doubt on our ability to measure repressive-defensiveness reliably using self-report measures. Future research should determine whether children and adolescents can be reliably classified as repressive-defensive, whether this classification is related to physiological reactivity as in adults, and whether repressive-defensiveness plays a role in emotionally triggered asthma symptoms.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Novel alleles of yeast hexokinase PII with distinct effects on catalytic activity and catabolite repression of SUC2.

In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, glucose or fructose represses the expression of a large number of genes. The phosphorylation of glucose or fructose is catalysed by hexokinase PI (Hxk1), hexokinase PII (Hxk2) and a specific glucokinase (Glk1). The authors have shown previously that either Hxk1 or Hxk2 is sufficient for a rapid, sugar-induced disappearance of catabolite-repressible mRNAs (short-term catabolite repression). Hxk2 is specifically required and sufficient for long-term glucose repression and either Hxk1 or Hxk2 is sufficient for long-term repression by fructose. Mutants lacking the TPS1 gene, which encodes trehalose 6-phosphate synthase, can not grow on glucose or fructose. In this study, suppressor mutations of the growth defect of a tps1delta hxk1delta double mutant on fructose were isolated and identified as novel HXK2 alleles. All six alleles studied have single amino acid substitutions. The mutations affected glucose and fructose phosphorylation to a different extent, indicating that Hxk2 binds glucose and fructose via distinct mechanisms. The mutations conferred different effects on long- and short-term repression. Two of the mutants showed very similar defects in catabolite repression, despite large differences in residual sugar-phosphorylation activity. The data show that the long- and short-term phases of catabolite repression can be dissected using different hexokinase mutations. The lack of correlation between in vitro catalytic hexokinase activity, in vivo sugar phosphate accumulation and the establishment of catabolite repression suggests that the production of sugar phosphate is not the sole role of hexokinase in repression. Using the set of six hxk2 mutants it was shown that there is a good correlation between the glucose-induced cAMP signal and in vivo hexokinase activity. There was no correlation between the cAMP signal and the short- or long-term repression of SUC2, arguing against an involvement of cAMP in either stage of catabolite repression.

Alleles↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Determinants for the repression of estrogen receptor transcriptional activity by ligand-occupied progestin receptors.

There is considerable evidence for cross-talk between the estrogen and progestin signaling pathways, including examples of repression or attenuation of estrogen-stimulated endpoints by progestin receptor (PR) agonists and antagonists. We have previously described an experimental system for examining aspects of this cross-talk, namely the repression of estrogen receptor (ER) transcriptional activity by liganded PR (Kraus, W. L., Weis, K. E., Katzenellenbogen, B. S., Mol. Cell. Biol. 15 (1995) 1847-1857). Under promoter and cell type conditions where liganded PR was not a good activator of transcription, PR isoforms were shown to act as potent ligand-dependent repressors of ER transcriptional activity. In the current study, we have identified multiple determinants of this repression by systematically manipulating potentially important variables in this system (e.g. PR A:PR B ratio, sequence of the response elements, receptor structure, and ligand type). Alterations in several of these parameters had profound effects on the ability of PR to repress the activity of ER. Decreases in the PR A:PR B ratio and changes in the sequence of the progestin response element in the reporter gene construct abolished the repressive action of agonist-occupied PR A on ER transcriptional activity. In addition, point or deletion mutations in the amino-terminal A/B region of ER, including a triple point mutation which eliminates phosphorylation sites previously shown to be important in the activity of the receptor, made the ER more sensitive to the repressive actions of liganded PR. The PR ligands that promoted the most potent repression of ER activity were those with 11beta phenyl substitutions, suggesting that the phenyl moiety in the 11beta position is the important structural feature leading to strong repression. Interestingly, changes in the structure of the ER ligand and the sequence of the estrogen response element did not influence the magnitude of repression by PR. The fact that alterations in these check points along the estrogen signaling pathway had little or no effect on the magnitude of repression suggests that liganded PR interferes with the ability of ER to interact productively with the transcriptional machinery; in other words, PR-mediated repression occurs downstream of the events leading to the ligand-dependent conversion of ER to a transcriptionally active form. Our results indicate that a number of parameters which are naturally varied in vivo, such as the sequence of PR DNA binding sites and the PR A:PR B ratio, can dramatically alter the repression of ER activity by liganded PR, and may explain the differential affects of progestin-occupied PR on the expression of different estrogen regulated genes.

3T3 Cells↗
PubMed2005

Steady-state analysis of glucose repression reveals hierarchical expression of proteins under Mig1p control in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Glucose repression is a global transcriptional regulatory mechanism commonly observed in micro-organisms for the repression of enzymes that are not essential for glucose metabolism. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Mig1p, a homologue of Wilms' tumour protein, is a global repressor protein dedicated to glucose repression. Mig1p represses genes either by binding directly to the upstream repression sequence of structural genes or by indirectly repressing a transcriptional activator, such as Gal4p. In addition, some genes are repressed by both of the above mechanisms. This raises a fundamental question regarding the physiological relevance of the varied mechanisms of repression that exist involving Mig1p. We address this issue by comparing two well-known glucose-repression systems, that is, SUC2 and GAL gene expression systems, which encompass all the above three mechanisms. We demonstrate using steady-state analysis that these mechanisms lead to a hierarchical glucose repression profile of different family of genes. This switch over from one carbon source to another is well-calibrated as a function of glucose concentration through this hierarchical transcriptional response. The mechanisms prevailing in this repression system can achieve amplification and sensitivity, as observed in the well-characterized MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) cascade system, albeit through a different structure. A critical feature of repression predicted by our steady-state model for the mutant strain of S. cerevisiae lacking Gal80p agrees well with the data reported here as well as that available in the literature.

DNA-Binding Proteins↗
PubMed2002

Heat shock factor 1 contains two functional domains that mediate transcriptional repression of the c-fos and c-fms genes.

Heat shock factor 1 (HSF1), in addition to its pivotal role as a regulator of the heat shock response, functions as a versatile gene repressor. We have investigated the structural domains involved in gene repression using mutational analysis of the hsf1 gene. Our studies indicate that HSF1 contains two adjacent sequences located within the N-terminal half of the protein that mediate the repression of c-fos and c-fms. One region (NF) appears to be involved in quenching transcriptional activation factors on target promoters and binds to the basic zipper transcription factor NF-IL6 required for activation of c-fms and IL-1beta. The NF domain encompasses the leucine zipper 1 and 2 sequences as well as the linker domain between the DNA binding and leucine zipper regions. The function of this domain in gene repression is highly specific for HSF1, and the homologous region from conserved family member HSF2 does not restore repressive function in HSF2/HSF1 chimeras. In addition, HSF2 is not capable of binding to NF-IL6. The NF domain, although necessary for repression, is not sufficient, and a second region (REP) occupying a portion of the regulatory domain is required for repression. Neither domain functions independently, and both are required for repression. Furthermore, we constructed dominant inhibitors of c-fos repression by HSF1, which also blocked the repression of c-fms and IL-1beta, suggesting a shared mechanism for repression of these genes by HSF1. Our studies suggest a complex mechanism for gene repression by HSF1 involving the binding to and quenching of activating factors on target promoters. Mapping the structural domains involved in this process should permit further characterization of molecular mechanisms that mediate repression.

Animals↗
PubMed1994

Mechanism of catabolite repression of tryptophanase synthesis in Escherichia coli.

Repression of tryptophanase (tryptophan indole-lyase) by glucose and its non-metabolizable analogue methyl alpha-glucoside has been studied employing a series of isogenic strains of Escherichia coli lacking cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase and altered for two of the proteins of the phosphoenolpyruvate:sugar phosphotransferase system (PTS), Enzyme I and Enzyme IIAGlc. Basal activity of tryptophanase was depressed mildly by inclusion of glucose in the growth medium, but inducible tryptophanase synthesis was subject to strong glucose repression in the parental strain, which exhibited normal PTS enzyme activities. Methyl alpha-glucoside was without effect in this strain. Loss of Enzyme I decreased sensitivity to repression by glucose but enhanced sensitivity to repression by methyl alpha-glucoside. Loss of Enzyme IIAGlc activity largely abolished repression by methyl alpha-glucoside but had a less severe effect on glucose repression. The repressive effects of both sugars were fully reversed by inclusion of cyclic AMP in the growth medium. Tryptophan uptake under the same conditions was inhibited weakly by glucose and more strongly by methyl alpha-glucoside in the parental strain. Inhibition by both sugars was alleviated by partial loss of Enzyme I. Inhibition by methyl alpha-glucoside appeared to be largely due to energy competition and was not responsible for repression of tryptophanase synthesis. Measurement of net production of cyclic AMP as well as intracellular concentrations of cyclic AMP revealed a good correlation with intensity of repression. The results suggest that while basal tryptophanase synthesis is relatively insensitive to catabolite repression, inducible synthesis is subject to strong repression by two distinct mechanisms, one dependent on enzyme IIAGlc of the PTS and the other independent of this protein. Both mechanisms are attributable to depressed rates of cyclic AMP synthesis. No evidence for a cyclic-AMP-independent mechanism of catabolite repression was obtained.

3',5'-Cyclic-AMP Phosphodiesterases↗
PubMed1993

Retinoic acid repression of cell-specific helix-loop-helix-octamer activation of the calcitonin/calcitonin gene-related peptide enhancer.

We have investigated the mechanism underlying repression of calcitonin/calcitonin gene-related peptide (CT/CGRP) gene expression by retinoic acid. Retinoic acid treatment of the CA77 thyroid C-cell line decreased CT/CGRP promoter activity two- to threefold, which correlates well with the decrease in calcitonin and CGRP mRNA levels. Repression is mediated through the nuclear retinoic acid receptors (RAR) on the basis of the retinoid specificity, the sensitivity of repression (half-maximal repression at 0.2 nM), and the additional repression caused by cotransfection of an alpha-RAR expression vector. The sequences required for retinoic acid repression were localized to an 18-bp element containing cell-specific enhancer activity. The enhancer binds helix-loop-helix (HLH) and octamer transcription factors that act synergistically to activate transcription. Retinoic acid repression requires both these factors since mutations in either motif resulted in the loss of repression. Furthermore, repression was observed only in cell lines containing enhancer activity. We have used electrophoretic mobility shift assays to show that repression does not involve direct DNA binding of RAR or RAR-retinoid X receptor heterodimers. Instead, repression appears to involve interactions with the stimulatory enhancer factors. Following retinoic acid treatment, there was a specific decrease in an enhancer complex containing both HLH and octamer proteins. Formation of the HLH-octamer complex was also specifically blocked by the addition of exogenous RAR-retinoid X receptor protein. These results demonstrate that RAR can repress CT/CGRP gene transcription by interfering with combinatorial activation by cell-specific HLH and octamer proteins.

Animals↗
PubMed1997

Multiple mechanisms of transcriptional repression by YY1.

The four C-terminal GLI-Krüppel type zinc fingers of YY1 have been identified as a transcriptional repression domain. Previous reports have proposed DNA-bending and activator-quenching mechanisms for this zinc finger-mediated repression. In addition, previous work indicated that p300 and CBP might be involved in YY1-mediated repression. We have analyzed these possible models for the zinc finger-mediated repression. The role of each zinc finger in the repression and DNA-binding functions was determined by using a structure-and-function approach. We show that zinc finger 2 of YY1 plays a central role in both DNA binding and transcriptional repression. However, a survey of a panel of YY1 mutants indicates that these two functions can be separated, which argues against the DNA-bending model for repression. We show that the physical interaction between YY1 and p300, a coactivator for CREB, is not sufficient for repression of CREB-mediated transcription. Our studies indicate that YY1 functions as an activator-specific repressor. Repression of CTF-1-directed transcription may be accomplished through direct physical interaction between YY1 and this activator. In contrast, physical interaction is not necessary for YY1 to repress Sp1- and CREB-mediated transcription. Rather, the repression likely reflects an ability of YY1 to interfere with communication between these activators and their targets within the general transcription machinery. Taken together, our results suggest that YY1 employs multiple mechanisms to achieve activator-specific repression.

CCAAT-Enhancer-Binding Proteins↗
PubMed1993

A structure-function analysis of transcriptional repression mediated by the WT1, Wilms' tumor suppressor protein.

The chromosome 11p13 Wilms' tumor locus (wt1) encodes a zinc finger-containing transcription factor (WT1). WT1 binds to the consensus sequence (5'-GCGGGGGCG-3') and represses transcription when bound to this site in vivo. The mechanism of repression is not yet defined. To investigate the mechanisms of transcriptional repression and map the domains of WT1 responsible, we constructed hybrid proteins between the yeast GAL4 1-147 DNA binding domain and WT1. Fusion of a 298 amino acid glutamine-proline-rich N-terminal segment of WT1 to the GAL4 DNA binding domain created a potent transcriptional repressor. The use of N- and C-terminal truncations of this segment demonstrated that as few as 96 amino acids were required for active repression by GAL4-WT1 hybrid proteins in NIH3T3 fibroblasts. However, the truncated GAL4-WT1 fusion proteins functioned poorly as repressors in embryonic kidney-derived 293 cells, suggesting cell type-specific requirements for transcriptional repression. Site-directed mutagenesis of the WT1 repression domain revealed that deletion of homopolymeric proline and glycine regions, as well as single amino acid changes, partially inactivated the repression function. Single repressor binding sites placed upstream of the transcription start site conferred WT1-mediated repression to a heterologous promoter, whereas multiple sites resulted in additive (non-synergistic) increases in transcriptional repression. Significant repression of transcription was observed when binding sites were placed 760 base pairs upstream or 1000 base pairs downstream relative to the site of transcription initiation. We conclude that the transcriptional repression function of WT1 is contained in the N-terminal, non-DNA binding domain of the protein and that repression can be functionally transferred to a heterologous DNA binding domain.

3T3 Cells↗
PubMed1968

Catabolite repression in Escherichia coli. A study of two hypotheses.

1. Two hypotheses to account for general catabolite repression of the lactose enzymes in Escherichia coli were tested: the dilution model of Palmer & Moses (1967), and the specific catabolite repressor model of Loomis & Magasanik (1965, 1967). 2. The dilution model predicts that in mutants lacking the i-o regulation system the differential rate of beta-galactosidase synthesis should increase when amino acid-synthesizing enzymes are repressed by the presence of amino acids in the medium. It also predicts that with such mutants the total absence of P(i) from the medium should not result in the complete cessation of beta-galactosidase synthesis that is observed with wild-type cells. 3. Neither prediction was confirmed experimentally, and it is concluded that this model cannot explain catabolite repression. 4. The specific repressor hypothesis depends on the properties of a strain of E. coli carrying the CR(-) mutation. It requires both that cells of this genotype should be totally resistant to general catabolite repression and that this resistance should be specific for the lactose enzymes. 5. In fact the synthesis of beta-galactosidase by CR(-) cells, though showing resistance to catabolite repression by growth on glucose, was found to be repressed in several other circumstances. 6. Two other inducible enzymes, l-tryptophanase and d-serine deaminase, also showed resistance to repression by glucose in CR(-) cells. 7. It is concluded that this model, too, does not account for general catabolite repression. 8. Strains carrying deletions at either end of the lactose operon that extend into the structural genes of the operon continue to exhibit catabolite repression. 9. These experiments appear to eliminate the possibility that catabolite repression operates at the level of DNA transcription, and suggest that repression affects instead the translation of messenger RNA into protein.

Caseins↗
PubMed1992

Glucose repression in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Understanding the mechanism of glucose repression in yeast has proved to be a difficult and challenging problem. A multitude of genes in different pathways are repressed by glucose at the level of transcription. The SUC2 gene, which encodes invertase, is an excellent reporter gene for glucose repression, since its expression is controlled exclusively by this pathway. Genetic analysis has identified numerous regulatory mutations which can either prevent derepression of SUC2 or render its expression insensitive to glucose repression. These mutations allow us to sketch the outlines of a pathway for general glucose repression, which has several key elements: hexokinase PII, encoded by HXK2, which seems to play a role in the sensing of glucose levels; the protein kinase encoded by SNF1, whose activity is required for derepression of many glucose-repressible genes; and the MIG1 repressor protein, which binds to the upstream regions of SUC2 and other glucose-repressible genes. Repression by MIG1 requires the activity of the CYC8 and TUP1 proteins. Glucose repression of other sets of genes seems to be controlled by the general glucose repression pathway acting in concert with other mechanisms. In the cases of the GAL genes and possibly CYC1, regulation is mediated by a cascade in which the general pathway represses expression of a positive transcriptional activator.

Cytochrome c Group↗
PubMed1994

Loss of protein kinase-catalyzed phosphorylation of HPr, a phosphocarrier protein of the phosphotransferase system, by mutation of the ptsH gene confers catabolite repression resistance to several catabolic genes of Bacillus subtilis.

In gram-positive bacteria, HPr, a phosphocarrier protein of the phosphoenolpyruvate:sugar phosphotransferase system (PTS), is phosphorylated by an ATP-dependent, metabolite-activated protein kinase on seryl residue 46. In a Bacillus subtilis mutant strain in which Ser-46 of HPr was replaced with a nonphosphorylatable alanyl residue (ptsH1 mutation), synthesis of gluconate kinase, glucitol dehydrogenase, mannitol-1-P dehydrogenase and the mannitol-specific PTS permease was completely relieved from repression by glucose, fructose, or mannitol, whereas synthesis of inositol dehydrogenase was partially relieved from catabolite repression and synthesis of alpha-glucosidase and glycerol kinase was still subject to catabolite repression. When the S46A mutation in HPr was reverted to give S46 wild-type HPr, expression of gluconate kinase and glucitol dehydrogenase regained full sensitivity to repression by PTS sugars. These results suggest that phosphorylation of HPr at Ser-46 is directly or indirectly involved in catabolite repression. A strain deleted for the ptsGHI genes was transformed with plasmids expressing either the wild-type ptsH gene or various S46 mutant ptsH genes (S46A or S46D). Expression of the gene encoding S46D HPr, having a structure similar to that of P-ser-HPr according to nuclear magnetic resonance data, caused significant reduction of gluconate kinase activity, whereas expression of the genes encoding wild-type or S46A HPr had no effect on this enzyme activity. When the promoterless lacZ gene was put under the control of the gnt promoter and was subsequently incorporated into the amyE gene on the B. subtilis chromosome, expression of beta-galactosidase was inducible by gluconate and repressed by glucose. However, we observed no repression of beta-galactosidase activity in a strain carrying the ptsH1 mutation. Additionally, we investigated a ccpA mutant strain and observed that all of the enzymes which we found to be relieved from carbon catabolite repression in the ptsH1 mutant strain were also insensitive to catabolite repression in the ccpA mutant. Enzymes that were repressed in the ptsH1 mutant were also repressed in the ccpA mutant.

Bacillus subtilis↗
PubMed1992

Multiple mechanisms mediate glucose repression of the yeast GAL1 gene.

Several mechanisms contribute to the glucose repression of the GAL1 gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We show that one mechanism involves the transcriptional down-regulation of the GAL4 gene and a second requires the GAL80 gene. We also examine the contribution of cis-acting negative elements in the GAL1 promoter to glucose repression. In an otherwise wild-type strain disruption of any one of these three mechanisms alleviates repression of GAL1 only 2- to 4-fold. However, in the absence of the other two mechanisms the transcriptional down-regulation of GAL4 is sufficient to repress GAL1 expression 40- to 60-fold and the GAL80-dependent mechanism is sufficient to repress GAL1 expression 20- to 30-fold. These first two mechanisms constitute a functionally redundant system of repression and both must be disrupted in order to abolish glucose repression of GAL1. In contrast, negative elements in the GAL1 promoter are effective in repressing GAL1 expression 2- to 4-fold in glucose medium only when at least one of the other two mechanisms of repression is present. Thus, glucose repression of GAL1 is mediated primarily by the first two mechanisms, whereas the third mechanism supplements repression severalfold.

DNA Mutational Analysis↗
PubMed2002

Functional dissection of the global repressor Tup1 in yeast: dominant role of the C-terminal repression domain.

In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Tup1, in association with Cyc8 (Ssn6), functions as a general repressor of transcription. Tup1 and Cyc8 are required for repression of diverse families of genes coordinately controlled by glucose repression, mating type, and other mechanisms. This repression is mediated by recruitment of the Cyc8-Tup1 complex to target promoters by sequence-specific DNA-binding proteins. We created a library of XhoI linker insertions and internal in-frame deletion mutations within the TUP1 coding region. Insertion mutations outside of the WD domains were wild type, while insertions within the WD domains induced mutant phenotypes with differential effects on the target genes SUC2, MFA2, RNR2, and HEM13. Deletion mutations confirmed previous findings of two separate repression domains in the N and C termini. The cumulative data suggest that the C-terminal repression domain, located near the first WD repeat, plays the dominant role in repression. Although the N-terminal repression domain is sufficient for partial repression, deletion of this region does not compromise repression. Surprisingly, deletion of the majority of the histone-binding domain of Tup1 also does not significantly reduce repression. The N-terminal region containing potential alpha-helical coiled coils is required for Tup1 oligomerization and association with Cyc8. Association with Cyc8 is required for repression of SUC2, HEM13, and RNR2 but not MFA2 and STE2.

Base Sequence↗
PubMed2003

Synergistic repression of anaerobic genes by Mot3 and Rox1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Two groups of anaerobic genes (genes induced in anaerobic cells and repressed in aerobic cells) are negatively regulated by heme, a metabolite present only in aerobic cells. Members of both groups, the hypoxic genes and the DAN/TIR/ERG genes, are jointly repressed under aerobic conditions by two factors. One is Rox1, an HMG protein, and the second, originally designated Rox7, is shown here to be Mot3, a global C2H2 zinc finger regulator. Repression of anaerobic genes results from co-induction of Mot3 and Rox1 in aerobic cells. Repressor synthesis is triggered by heme, which de-represses a mechanism controlling expression of both MOT3 and ROX1 in anaerobic cells; it includes Hap1, Tup1, Ssn6 and a fourth unidentified factor. The constitutive expression of various anaerobic genes in aerobic rox1Delta or mot3Delta cells directly implies that neither factor can repress by itself at endogenous levels and that stringent aerobic repression results from the concerted action of both. Mot3 and Rox1 are not essential components of a single complex, since each can repress independently in the absence of the other, when artificially induced at high levels. Moreover, the two repression mechanisms appear to be distinct: as shown here repression of ANB1 by Rox1 alone requires Tup1-Ssn6, whereas repression by Mot3 does not. Though artificially high levels of either factor can repress well, the absolute efficiency observed in normal cells when both are present-at much lower levels-demonstrates a novel inhibitory synergy. Evidently, expression levels for the two mutually dependent repressors are calibrated to permit a range of variation in basal aerobic expression at different promoters with differing operator site combinations.

Aerobiosis↗
PubMed2006

Different modes and potencies of translational repression by sequence-specific RNA-protein interaction at the 5'-UTR.

To determine whether sequence-specific RNA-protein interaction at the 5'-untranslated region (5'-UTR) can potently repress translation in mammalian cells, a bicistronic translational repression assay was developed to permit direct assessment of RNA-protein interaction and translational repression in transiently transfected living mammalian cells. Changes in cap-dependent yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) and internal ribosome entry sequence (IRES)-dependent cyan fluorescent protein (CFP) translation were monitored by fluorescence microscopy. Selective repression of YFP or coordinate repression of both YFP and CFP translation occurred, indicating two distinct modes by which RNA-binding proteins repress translation through the 5'-UTR. Interestingly, a single-stranded RNA-binding protein from Bacillus subtilis, tryptophan RNA-binding attenuation protein (TRAP), showed potent translational repression, dependent on the level of TRAP expression and position of its cognate binding site within the bicistronic reporter transcript. As the first of its class to be examined in mammalian cells, its potency in repression of translation through the 5'-UTR may be a general feature for this class of single-stranded RNA-binding proteins. Finally, a one-hybrid screen based on translational repression through the 5'-UTR identified linkers supporting full-translational repression as well as a range of partial repression by TRAP within the context of a fusion protein.

5' Untranslated Regions↗
PubMed2003

Histone deacetylation of RB-responsive promoters: requisite for specific gene repression but dispensable for cell cycle inhibition.

The retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein (RB) is targeted for inactivation in the majority of human tumors, underscoring its critical role in attenuating cellular proliferation. RB inhibits proliferation by repressing the transcription of genes that are essential for cell cycle progression. To repress transcription, RB assembles multiprotein complexes containing chromatin-modifying enzymes, including histone deacetylases (HDACs). However, the extent to which HDACs participate in transcriptional repression and are required for RB-mediated repression has not been established. Here, we investigated the role of HDACs in RB-dependent cell cycle inhibition and transcriptional repression. We find that active RB mediates histone deacetylation on cyclin A, Cdc2, topoisomerase IIalpha, and thymidylate synthase promoters. We also demonstrate that this deacetylation is HDAC dependent, since the HDAC inhibitor trichostatin A (TSA) prevented histone deacetylation at each promoter. However, TSA treatment blocked RB repression of only a specific subset of genes, thereby demonstrating that the requirement of HDACs for RB-mediated transcriptional repression is promoter specific. The HDAC-independent repression was not associated with DNA methylation or gene silencing but was readily reversible. We show that this form of repression resulted in altered chromatin structure and was dependent on SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling activity. Importantly, we find that cell cycle inhibitory action of RB is not intrinsically dependent on the ability to recruit HDAC activity. Thus, while HDACs do play a major role in RB-mediated repression, they are dispensable for the repression of critical targets leading to cell cycle arrest.

Acetylation↗