Transcriptional activation by artificial recruitment in yeast is influenced by promoter architecture and downstream sequences

The idea that recruitment of the transcriptional machinery to a promoter suffices for gene activation is based partly on the results of "artificial recruitment" experiments performed in vivo. Artificial recruitment can be effected by a "nonclassical" activator comprising a DNA bi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS 1999-03, Vol.96 (6), p.2668-2673
Main Authors: Gaudreau, L, Keaveney, M, Nevado, J, Zaman, Z, Bryant, G.O, Struhl, K, Ptashne, M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
adh1 promoter
beta-galactosidase
Binding sites
Biological Sciences
Deoxyribonucleic acid
DNA
DNA conformation
DNA-directed DNA polymerase
Gene Expression Regulation, Fungal
Genes
Genetic vectors
pho4 promoter
pho5 gene
Phosphatases
Plasmids
Promoter regions
Promoter Regions, Genetic - genetics
Proteins
recombinant DNA
regulator genes
reporter genes
RNA
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Saccharomyces cerevisiae - genetics
transcription (genetics)
transcription factor tfiid
transcription factors
Transcriptional Activation
transcriptional activators
Yeast
Yeasts
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The idea that recruitment of the transcriptional machinery to a promoter suffices for gene activation is based partly on the results of "artificial recruitment" experiments performed in vivo. Artificial recruitment can be effected by a "nonclassical" activator comprising a DNA binding domain fused to a component of the transcriptional machinery. Here we show that activation by artificial recruitment in yeast can be sensitive to any of three factors: position of the activator-binding elements, sequence of the promoter, and coding sequences downstream of the promoter. In contrast, classical activators worked efficiently at all promoters tested. In all cases the "artificial recruitment" fusions synergized well with classical activators. A classical activator evidently differs from a nonclassical activator in that the former can touch multiple sites on the transcriptional machinery, and we propose that the difference accounts for the broader spectrum of activity of the typical classical activator. A similar conclusion is reached from studies in mammalian cells in the accompanying paper.
ISSN:0027-8424
1091-6490
DOI:10.1073/pnas.96.6.2668