scholarly journals Biochemical analysis of the B subunit of the heteromeric CCAAT-binding factor. A DNA-binding domain and a subunit interaction domain are specified by two separate segments.

1992 ◽  
Vol 267 (12) ◽  
pp. 8286-8292
Author(s):  
S.N. Maity ◽  
B de Crombrugghe
1996 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 5772-5781 ◽  
Author(s):  
D E Ayer ◽  
C D Laherty ◽  
Q A Lawrence ◽  
A P Armstrong ◽  
R N Eisenman

Transcription repression by the basic region-helix-loop-helix-zipper (bHLHZip) protein Mad1 requires DNA binding as a ternary complex with Max and mSin3A or mSin3B, the mammalian orthologs of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae transcriptional corepressor SIN3. The interaction between Mad1 and mSin3 is mediated by three potential amphipathic alpha-helices: one in the N terminus of Mad (mSin interaction domain, or SID) and two within the second paired amphipathic helix domain (PAH2) of mSin3A. Mutations that alter the structure of the SID inhibit in vitro interaction between Mad and mSin3 and inactivate Mad's transcriptional repression activity. Here we show that a 35-residue region containing the SID represents a dominant repression domain whose activity can be transferred to a heterologous DNA binding region. A fusion protein comprising the Mad1 SID linked to a Ga14 DNA binding domain mediates repression of minimal as well as complex promoters dependent on Ga14 DNA binding sites. In addition, the SID represses the transcriptional activity of linked VP16 and c-Myc transactivation domains. When fused to a full-length c-Myc protein, the Mad1 SID specifically represses both c-Myc's transcriptional and transforming activities. Fusions between the GAL DNA binding domain and full-length mSin3 were also capable of repression. We show that the association between Mad1 and mSin3 is not only dependent on the helical SID but is also dependent on both putative helices of the mSin3 PAH2 region, suggesting that stable interaction requires all three helices. Our results indicate that the SID is necessary and sufficient for transcriptional repression mediated by the Mad protein family and that SID repression is dominant over several distinct transcriptional activators.


1999 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 6729-6741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin Baetz ◽  
Brenda Andrews

ABSTRACTInSaccharomyces cerevisiae, two transcription factors, SBF (SCB binding factor) and MBF (MCB binding factor), promote the induction of gene expression at the G1/S-phase transition of the mitotic cell cycle. Swi4 and Mbp1 are the DNA binding components of SBF and MBF, respectively. The Swi6 protein is a common subunit of both transcription factors and is presumed to play a regulatory role. SBF binding to its target sequences, the SCBs, is a highly regulated event and requires the association of Swi4 with Swi6 through their C-terminal domains. Swi4 binding to SCBs is restricted to the late M and G1phases, when Swi6 is localized to the nucleus. We show that in contrast to Swi6, Swi4 remains nuclear throughout the cell cycle. This finding suggests that the DNA binding domain of Swi4 is inaccessible in the full-length protein when not complexed with Swi6. To explore this hypothesis, we expressed Swi4 and Swi6 in insect cells by using the baculovirus system. We determined that partially purified Swi4 cannot bind SCBs in the absence of Swi6. However, Swi4 derivatives carrying point mutations or alterations in the extreme C terminus were able to bind DNA or activate transcription in the absence of Swi6, and the C terminus of Swi4 inhibited Swi4 derivatives from binding DNA intrans. Full-length Swi4 was determined to be monomeric in solution, suggesting an intramolecular mechanism for auto-inhibition of binding to DNA by Swi4. We detected a direct in vitro interaction between a C-terminal fragment of Swi4 and the N-terminal 197 amino acids of Swi4, which contain the DNA binding domain. Together, our data suggest that intramolecular interactions involving the C-terminal region of Swi4 physically prevent the DNA binding domain from binding SCBs. The interaction of the carboxy-terminal region of Swi4 with Swi6 alleviates this inhibition, allowing Swi4 to bind DNA.


Author(s):  
Phillip P. Minghetti ◽  
Nancy L. Weigel ◽  
William T. Schrader ◽  
Bert W. O’Malley

2002 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pei-Phen Liu ◽  
Yen-Chin Chen ◽  
Ching Li ◽  
Yu-Huei Hsieh ◽  
Shu-Wan Chen ◽  
...  

Genetics ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 158 (1) ◽  
pp. 291-307
Author(s):  
Robin R Roseman ◽  
Kelly Morgan ◽  
Daniel R Mallin ◽  
Rachel Roberson ◽  
Timothy J Parnell ◽  
...  

Abstract A tethering assay was developed to study the effects of Polycomb group (PcG) proteins on gene expression in vivo. This system employed the Su(Hw) DNA-binding domain (ZnF) to direct PcG proteins to transposons that carried the white and yellow reporter genes. These reporters constituted naive sensors of PcG effects, as bona fide PcG response elements (PREs) were absent from the constructs. To assess the effects of different genomic environments, reporter transposons integrated at nearly 40 chromosomal sites were analyzed. Three PcG fusion proteins, ZnF-PC, ZnF-SCM, and ZnF-ESC, were studied, since biochemical analyses place these PcG proteins in distinct complexes. Tethered ZnF-PcG proteins repressed white and yellow expression at the majority of sites tested, with each fusion protein displaying a characteristic degree of silencing. Repression by ZnF-PC was stronger than ZnF-SCM, which was stronger than ZnF-ESC, as judged by the percentage of insertion lines affected and the magnitude of the conferred repression. ZnF-PcG repression was more effective at centric and telomeric reporter insertion sites, as compared to euchromatic sites. ZnF-PcG proteins tethered as far as 3.0 kb away from the target promoter produced silencing, indicating that these effects were long range. Repression by ZnF-SCM required a protein interaction domain, the SPM domain, which suggests that this domain is not primarily used to direct SCM to chromosomal loci. This targeting system is useful for studying protein domains and mechanisms involved in PcG repression in vivo.


1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (7) ◽  
pp. 2844-2848 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Yamamoto ◽  
M. Horikoshi ◽  
J. Wang ◽  
S. Hasegawa ◽  
P. A. Weil ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document