Chromatin domain boundaries delimited by a histone-binding protein in yeast

(1)

HAL Id: hal-02678038

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02678038

Submitted on 31 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access

archive for the deposit and dissemination of

sci-entific research documents, whether they are

pub-lished or not. The documents may come from

teaching and research institutions in France or

abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents

scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,

émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de

recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires

publics ou privés.

Copyright

Chromatin domain boundaries delimited by a

histone-binding protein in yeast

Simone Ferrari, K. Carmine-Simmen, Y. Dussere, Kevin Muller, G. Fourel,

Eric Gilson, N. Mermod

To cite this version:

Simone Ferrari, K. Carmine-Simmen, Y. Dussere, Kevin Muller, G. Fourel, et al.. Chromatin domain

boundaries delimited by a histone-binding protein in yeast. Journal of Biological Chemistry, American

Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2004, 279 (53), pp.55520-55530. �hal-02678038�

(2)

Chromatin Domain Boundaries Delimited by a Histone-binding

Protein in Yeast*

□

S

Received for publication, September 9, 2004 Published, JBC Papers in Press, October 7, 2004, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M410346200

Se´le`ne Ferrari‡§, Katia Carmine Simmen‡§, Yves Dusserre‡, Karin Mu¨ ller‡, Genevie`ve Fourel¶, Eric Gilson¶_{, and Nicolas Mermod‡}_储

From the ‡Institute of Biotechnology, Center for Biotechnology UNIL-EPFL, University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne,

Switzerland and the¶Laboratoire de Biologie Mole´culaire et Cellulaire, UMR5665 CNRS/ENSL, Ecole Normale

Supe´rieure de Lyon, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France

When located next to chromosomal elements such as telomeres, genes can be subjected to epigenetic silenc-ing. In yeast, this is mediated by the propagation of the SIR proteins from telomeres toward more centromeric regions. Particular transcription factors can protect downstream genes from silencing when tethered be-tween the gene and the telomere, and they may thus act as chromatin domain boundaries. Here we have studied one such transcription factor, CTF-1, that binds directly histone H3. A deletion mutagenesis localized the barrier activity to the CTF-1 histone-binding domain. A saturat-ing point mutagenesis of this domain identified several amino acid substitutions that similarly inhibited the boundary and histone binding activities. Chromatin im-munoprecipitation experiments indicated that the bar-rier protein efficiently prevents the spreading of SIR pro-teins, and that it separates domains of hypoacetylated and hyperacetylated histones. Together, these results suggest a mechanism by which proteins such as CTF-1 may interact directly with histone H3 to prevent the prop-agation of a silent chromatin structure, thereby defining boundaries of permissive and silent chromatin domains.

The expression state of a eukaryotic gene depends in part on its location in the chromosome. This position effect results from the organization of eukaryotic genomes into discrete functional domains, defined by local differences in chromatin structure. The expression of genes within each domain appears to be defined and maintained by the concerted action of regulatory elements such as promoters, enhancers, silencers, and locus control regions. Individual domains may be bordered by bound-ary elements that separate regions of permissive and silent chro-matin. Experimentally, boundary elements have been defined functionally by their ability to protect against position effect when flanking the assayed gene. Examples of boundary elements in metazoans include the subtelomeric anti-silencing regions at yeast telomeres, the scs and scs⬘ elements flanking the 87A1 hsp70 locus in Drosophila, and the chicken ␤-globin boundary

elements (1– 4). Several proteins have been associated with bar-rier activities in yeast, Drosophila, and mammalian cells (5).

Transcriptional repression of the yeast Saccharomyces

cer-evisiae subtelomeric regions is one of the best-studied examples

of position-dependent gene expression. This phenomenon is referred to as telomere position effect and is similar to the position effect variegation (PEV) initially described in

Drosoph-ila (6). Transcriptional silencing at yeast telomeres is

associ-ated with a heterochromatin-like structure (7, 8). DNA wrapped in transcriptionally silent chromatin replicates late in S phase and is refractory to some modifying agents. In addi-tion, nucleosomes have reduced acetylation compared with nu-cleosomes from active region of the genome (9, 10).

Transcriptional silencing at subtelomeric regions is medi-ated by a multiprotein nucleosome binding complex called the SIR complex, composed of the Sir2, Sir3, and Sir4 proteins (11, 12). This complex is recruited to DNA by the telomere-binding protein Rap1 (13). A series of physical and genetic arguments imply that this SIR complex may nucleate from the telomere and spread along the chromosome to coat more centromeric regions and thereby silence intervening genes (14, 15). Silenc-ing in natural subtelomeric regions further involves auxiliary recruitment at protosilencer relay elements found in the mid-dle-repetitive X and Y⬘ subtelomeric elements (1, 8, 16).

The proteins involved in silencing form extensive homotypic and heterotypic interactions. Both Sir3 and Sir4 can ho-modimerize and heterodimerize. They also bind to Sir2, Rap1 (17), and histones H3 and H4 (18, 19). In addition Sir3 interacts with histones H2A and H2B (20). Sir4 can interact with Rap1 at telomere proximal positions in the absence of Sir2 and Sir3 proteins, but Sir4 binding at telomere-distal heterochromatin is strongly dependent on other Sir proteins (21). These inter-actions and the discovery of the NAD-dependent histone deacetylase activity of Sir2 (22–24) has led to the current model for the establishment of telomeric silencing. In this model, Sir4 is the first of the SIR proteins that is recruited by Rap-1 and helps determine the subsequent association of heterochromatin proteins. The Sir4-mediated recruitment of Sir2 to the DNA is followed by deacetylation of the tails of histones H3 and H4. This then allows the binding of the Sir3 and Sir4 proteins to deacetylated histone tails and the recruitment of a new Sir2-Sir4 complex. Repetition of this binding/modification cycle would result in spreading of the SIR complex outward from the nucleation site (25, 26).

How boundary proteins protect against the encroachment of repressive chromatin complexes remains unclear. However, the activity of boundary elements is usually conserved when trans-posed into other organisms, indicating that they share an evo-lutionary conserved mechanism (27, 28). Two different models for boundary function have been discussed: the “nuclear orga-* This work was supported by the Swiss National Science

Founda-tion, the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Etat de Vaud. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertise-ment” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

□S The on-line version of this article (available at http://www.jbc.org) contains additional text and Fig. S1.

§ Both authors contributed equally to this work.

储To whom correspondence should be addressed: Laboratory of Molec-ular Biotechnology, FSB-ISP, EPFL, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. Tel.: 41-21-693-6151; Fax: 41-21-693-7610; E-mail: Nicolas.Mermod@ unil.ch.

This paper is available on line at http://www.jbc.org

55520

at INRA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique on June 15, 2018

http://www.jbc.org/

(3)

nization” and the “chromatin modifying” models (29). The nu-clear organization model suggests that boundary elements con-gregate to create a subnuclear compartment or are tethered to a nuclear structure, which then forms a physical block against the spreading of heterochromatin (30 –32). The chromatin mod-ifying model suggests that boundary proteins mediate an active process by recruiting a multiprotein complex, bearing acetyl-transferase and/or nucleosome remodeling activities, which precludes nucleosome assembly, thereby disrupting a contigu-ous array of hypoacetylated nucleosomes required for the spread of silent chromatin (27, 33, 34).

In yeast, transcriptional activation domains of various spe-cies were shown to efficiently protect reporter genes against telomeric silencing (35). These were shown to prevent the si-lencing of telomere-proximal genes, when interposed via a het-erologous GAL4 DNA-binding domain between the gene and the VII-L telomere, and to generate an apparent discontinuity in silent chromatin propagation (35). Transcriptional activity

per se appears not to be involved in these effects. One likely

interpretation for these findings is that the transcription fac-tors somehow prevent the propagation of a silent chromatin structure from the telomere. However, a direct implication of chromatin structure in this effect is currently lacking, and other interpretations are possible, including mechanisms in-volving changes in subnuclear localization.

Interestingly, one of the strongest boundary activities de-tected in this organism consisted of the transcriptional activa-tion domain of CTF-1, a member of the CTF/NF-I family of mammalian transcription and replication factors previously shown to interact directly with histone H3 (35, 36). Further-more, CTF-1 was shown to remodel reconstituted chromatin in

vitro (36) and native chromatin at yeast origins of replication in vivo (37, 38). Here, we have evaluated whether CTF-1 H3

binding activity is required for the boundary activity, whether it can modify the structure of chromatin in vivo in subtelomeric regions, and whether this may mediate the boundary effect. Saturation mutagenesis and in vivo chromatin immunoprecipi-tation assays indicate that the CTF-1 histone binding activity is required for boundary activity, and that the histone-binding domain can act as a barrier against the propagation of a SIR-containing, histone-hypoacetylated, silent chromatin structure from telomeres. This contrasts the activity of the VP16 tran-scriptional activator, which induces local histone hyperacetyl-ation bidirectionally and prevents the propaghyperacetyl-ation of SIR pro-teins, thus acting as a bidirectional anti-silencer. These results indicate that the boundary activity of transcription factors involves specific actions beyond DNA binding and that inter-action with histones is one of the mechanisms by which the propagation of silent chromatin can be blocked.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mammalian Cells Expression Vectors—Mammalian expression vec-tors for fusion polypeptides consisting of the histone H3 mutants or derivatives linked to the VP16 TAD at the N terminus are based on pMLV-VP (39) and fusions were generated as for the parental plasmid pMLV-VP-H3 (36). For VP-yH3-I and VP-mH3.2, the full-length yeast S. cerevisiae histone H3 copy I and the mouse subtype sequences were amplified by PCR from pMS191 (kindly provided by S. M. Gasser (40) and p53 H5A (gift from D. Schu¨ mperli), respectively, and inserted into the EcoRI/XhoI sites of pMLV-VP. VP-mH3.1 was derived from mouse subtype two in pBluescript (pBS-mH3.2) by site-directed mutagenesis of amino acid 98 (Ser(AGC) 3 Cys(TGT)) by PCR and similarly cloned into pML-VP plasmid.

The transforming growth factor-␤ responsive domain of CTF-1 (TRD),1_{encoding amino acids 486 – 499, was extensively mutagenized}

and introduced in-frame into the pRSV GAL4 expression vector (41) coding for the first 147 amino acids of GAL4 DNA-binding domain. The pRSV GalTRD mutated fusion proteins were constructed by replacing the Oct2 (mammalian octamer factor 2) activation domain in pRSV GalOct2 (41), by double-stranded oligos using the XhoI and XbaI re-striction sites. Except for amino acid at position 486, where Asp(GAC) was mutated to Lys(AAG) (D486K), all amino acids were mutated to an aspartate, drastically changing both charge and polarity of the amino acid as compared with that of the wild type protein. The TRD mutations fused to the pRSV GAL4 DNA-binding domain are: P487D, A488D, G489D, I490D, Y491D, Q492D, A493D, Q494D, S495D, W496D, Y497D, L498D, and G499D.

Yeast Cell Expression Vectors—All mutated sequences of CTF-1 TRD were inserted in-frame at the C-terminal coding extremity of the GAL4 DNA-binding domain sequence (amino acids 1–93, abbreviated Gal). pHAC GalTRD and all TRD point mutants were constructed by inser-tion of double-stranded oligos containing XmaI/XbaI sites into the cor-responding sites of the yeast pHAC-GAL4 vector (pHAC-GalPRO, con-taining the ARS1 replication origin, the CEN4 and HIS3 genes; a gift from W. Schaffner), producing: pHAC Gal TRD, pHAC Gal D486K, pHAC Gal P487D, pHAC Gal A488D, pHAC Gal G489D, pHAC Gal I490D, pHAC Gal Y491D, pHAC Gal Q492D, pHAC Gal A493D, pHAC Gal Q494D, pHAC Gal S495D, pHAC Gal W496D, pHAC Gal Y497D, pHAC Gal L498D, and pHAC Gal G499D.

Mammalian Cell Culture and Transfection—Mouse NIH3T3 cells were grown and transfected by electroporation as described previously (36). Cells destined for both CAT (chloramphenicol acetyltransferase) and␤-galactosidase assays were harvested and lysed for 10 min at room temperature in 100␮l of 1⫻ Reporter Lysis Buffer (Promega). CAT activities were determined using standard procedures and normalized to the activity resulting from the internal control CMV-␤-galactosidase (Clontech) that gives an indication on the relative efficiency of trans-fection. Transcriptional activation assay in a chromatin context were performed in NIH3T3 cells stably transfected with the G5BCAT re-porter construct as described earlier (36).

Western Blot Analysis—Transfected NIH3T3 cells were grown at 37 °C for 30 h and lysed in 100␮l of 2⫻ loading buffer (Promega), and the remaining cells in 30␮l of reporter lysis buffer (Promega). Equal amounts of proteins, corresponding to roughly 10% of the total trans-fected cells, were loaded on a 12% SDS-polyacrylamide gel and electro-blotted for 1 h at 70 V onto a nitrocellulose membrane. Immunoblot detection was performed using standard procedures using the rabbit LA-2 polyclonal anti-GAL4-(1–147)-VP16 antibody (a gift from S. Triezenberg) diluted 5000-fold. The rabbit antibodies were detected using horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-rabbit IgG (Sigma) and the ECL kit (Amersham Biosciences) as recommended by the manufac-turers. Molecular weights were estimated by comparison with the rel-ative migration of a low range prestained SDS-PAGE marker (Bio-Rad). Gel Mobility Shift Analysis—For gel mobility shift analysis, the GalTRD mutant fusion proteins were transiently transfected into NIH3T3 cells. At 24 h post-transfection the cells were washed twice with phosphate-buffered saline, before lysis in 80␮l of extraction buffer (20 mMTris, pH 7.5, 20% glycerol, 500 mMKCl, 0.2 mM phenylmethyl-sulfonyl fluoride, and 1 mM dithiothreitol) by repeated freeze-thaw cycles (42). Alternatively, yeast cell extracts were prepared in lysis buffer (50 mMTris, pH 7.5, 10 mMMgSO4,1 mMEDTA, 10 mM potas-sium acetate, 1 mMdithiothreitol, 1 mMphenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride) by mechanical breakage using a Bead Beater (Biospec).

14␮g of protein extract was incubated on ice in 15 ␮l of reaction mixture (0.01 mMZnCl2, 4.5 ␮g of poly(dI-dC), 4.7 ␮g of sonicated salmon sperm DNA, 20 mMHepes, pH 7.9, 7.5% glycerol, 5 mMMgCl2, and 0.01% Nonidet P-40) with a32

P end-labeled double-stranded DNA probe containing the 17-bp GAL4-binding site (43). After incubation at room temperature for 10 min, the protein-DNA complexes were sepa-rated from the free probe on a native 5% polyacrylamide gel as per-formed by Armentero et al. (44) and revealed by autoradiography and phosphoimaging.

Yeast Strains and Media—All yeast media were used as described by Adams et al. (45). Yeast cells were always grown in selective minimal media (Stratagene Inc.) at 30 °C. The boundary assay of telomeric genes in yeast were performed using yeast strains W303-1a (MATa, ade2-1, ura3-1, his3-11, 15 leu2-3, 112 trp-1, can1-100 containing the TRP1 GAL4UAS URA3 inserted at telomere VII-L) for the boundary assay and with Y187 (MAT␣, TRP1-901, leu2-3, ade2-101, lacZ, URA3-52, His3, gal4, gal80, URA3::GAL1-lacZ) to assess transcriptional activity of Gal-TRD fusions.

Analysis of URA3 Expression—The variegated expression of URA3 was monitored by scoring the fraction of yeast cells from a culture 1_{The abbreviations used are: TRD, transforming growth factor-}_␤

responsive domain; CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase; 5-FOA, 5-fluoroorotic acid.

http://www.jbc.org/

(4)

pre-grown in non-selective conditions either expressing or not the URA3 gene. Cells with a repressed URA3 gene were identified as those able to form colonies in the presence of 5-FOA, a compound toxic for cells expressing a functional URA3 gene product (46). After overnight growth to saturation, 10-␮l drops of serial dilutions were plated onto SC and SC⫹ 5-FOA (1 g/liter), as well as onto SC-Trp and SC-Trp ⫹ 5-FOA for a strain carrying both URA3 and TRP1 reporter genes.

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation—Yeast cells containing the URA3 gene and the TRP1 gene deleted of its promoter were grown as above. 50 ml of cells (2.0⫻ 107

cells/ml) were cross-linked with 1% formalde-hyde for 15 min at room temperature. Glycine was added to a final concentration of 125 mMand the incubation continued for 5 min. The cross-linked cells were washed twice with digestion buffer (1Msorbitol,

1⫻ XbaI buffer, 0.05 mMphenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 10␮g/ml apro-tinin, 20␮g/ml antipain, 1 ␮g/ml leupeptine, and 1 ␮g/ml pepstatin) and sonicated to obtain chromatin fragments of⬃500 bp. Chromatin was then digested by adding 50 units of XbaI for 45 min at 37 °C to cleave the DNA between the URA3 and the TRP1 genes. Immunoprecipitation was performed with precoated Dynabeads overnight at 4 °C and using specific antibodies against tetra-acetylated histone H4 (K5, 8, 12, 16), diacetylated histone H3 (K9, 14) (Upstate), or against SIR2, SIR3, and SIR4 proteins (Santa Cruz). An aliquot of each sample was not immu-noprecipitated (Input). Input and immuimmu-noprecipitated samples were incubated 6 h at 65 °C to revert the formaldehyde cross-linking, prior to DNA purification and quantitative PCR analysis.

Quantitative PCR Analysis of Immunoprecipitated DNA—Quantita-tive PCR was performed using the qPCR Core Kit for Sybr Green I from Eurogentec and the ABI Prism 7700 sequence detector. PCR were carried out in a 25-␮l volume with 1/1000 of the immunoprecipitated material and 1/10,000 of the input material. Enrichment ratios were measured using the absolute quantification method, as described by Arnold et al. (47).

Primers used are specific for the reporter URA3 gene (5 ⬘-GTT-TCAGCTTTCCGCAACAGT-3⬘ and 5⬘-TGCTCCTTCCTTCGTTCTTCC-3⬘), producing a 179-bp fragment, and for the reporter TRP1 gene (5⬘-GCGGAGGTGTGGAGACAAAT-3⬘ and 5⬘-GACAGTCCTCCGTC-GAGATCTG-3⬘), producing a 142-bp fragment. Both include specific junctions generated in the cloning process. Additional PCRs were per-formed on the telomere distal ADH4 gene (5⬘-GTGCAAAGCCTTGAT-GGTTTC-3⬘ and 5⬘-TGTTCAAGAGGCCAACATGC-3⬘) producing a 1112-bp fragment.

Control PCRs of each immunoprecipitated DNA were performed in the MATa locus (5⬘-GAATTGGCTATACGGGACGGA-3⬘ and 5⬘-AAGT-CATGTGAACCGCATGG-3⬘), producing a 103-bp fragment, and in the HMRa locus (5⬘-CCCCGTCCAAGTTATGAGCTT-3⬘ and 5⬘-CCT-GCGCTTATTCTCAAACGT-3⬘), producing a 140-bp fragment.

RESULTS

Chromatin Boundary Activity of the CTF-1 Transcriptional Activation Domain—The CTF-1 transcription activation

do-main was previously shown to display strong boundary activity in yeast (Fig. 1A and Ref. 35). To investigate the possibility that CTF-1 histone interaction might be involved in its boundary activity, we first evaluated whether the histone-binding por-tion of CTF-1 might bear the boundary activity.

The GAL4 DNA-binding domain, either alone or tethered to various portions of the CTF-1 activation domain was expressed in yeast cells containing an URA3 gene inserted in a telomeric position (35). As shown in Fig. 1B, the GalPRO fusion protein containing the complete transcriptional activation domain of CTF-1 prevented URA3 silencing when interposed between the telomere and the reporter gene, but not when located in a telomere-distal position. Similarly, when placed between the telomeric TRP1 and URA3 genes, it selectively prevents silenc-ing of the telomere distal TRP1 gene but not that of the te-lomere-proximal URA3 gene (Fig. 1C), in agreement with Fourel et al. (35). Thus, the CTF-1 transcriptional activation domain functions as a boundary element that prevents the silencing of telomere distal genes, irrespective of the gene and promoter type but in a position dependent fashion. Thus it acts effectively as a boundary element between active and inactive chromosomal domains. In contrast, the VP16 transcriptional activator induced the expression of both the TRP1 and URA3

genes, thus acting as a bidirectional anti-silencer (Fig. 1C and Ref. 35).

Another fusion of the GAL4 DNA-binding domain to the C-terminal 14 amino acids of CTF-1, known to contain the minimal interaction domain for histone H3 (36, 41), was simi-larly able to prevent silencing of the URA3 gene when recruited to telomere-proximal UAS elements and it similarly acted as a boundary element (Fig. 1, B and C). A point mutation in this subdomain, previously shown to decrease interaction with hi-stone H3 (GalTRD Y497D (36)), significantly impaired its abil-ity to counteract silencing. These data taken together gave a first indication that the histone interaction ability of CTF-1 may be linked to its barrier properties.

Specificity of the Histone Binding Activity of CTF-1—The

possibility that the CTF-1 boundary activity may be mediated by its histone H3 binding activity was further addressed by evaluating if CTF-1 can indeed interact with the yeast histone H3. Previous studies had demonstrated that the CTF-1 tran-scriptional activation domain selectively interacts with the mammalian histone H3.3 variant but not with H1, H2A, H2B, and H4, both in vivo using two-hybrid assays, and in vitro in co-precipitation studies (36). However, whether it can also in-teract with the yeast histone H3, although probable given the extremely high degree of conservation of histone sequences across species, has not been reported as yet. This was tested in

vivo using a two-hybrid assay where the GAL4 CTF-1 hybrid

protein was co-expressed in mammalian cells together with either a fusion of histone H3 and the strong activation domain of the viral VP16 activator, or with the unfused VP16 moiety as a control. In this assay, interaction of GalPRO with the VP16-H3 fusion leads to increased transcriptional activation, as mediated by the recruitment of the strong viral VP16 acti-vator, in comparison to the activation mediated by GalPRO alone, when expressed with unfused VP16 (36). Expression of GalPRO together with a fusion of VP16 to the mammalian H3.3 protein induces a strong increase in the activity of the reporter promoter (Fig. 2A), which was not observed with the GAL4 DNA-binding domain alone (Ref. 36, see also Fig. 3A, left

panel), conveying specific interaction between the CTF-1

acti-vation domain and histone H3.3. Mammalian cells contain several other forms of histone H3, termed H3.2 and H3.1. These did not interact significantly with GalPRO in this assay, although they were expressed at similar levels as the H3.3 fusion protein (Fig. 2B), demonstrating the high specificity of the interaction. Yeast cells possess only one H3 variant, which was found to interact well with GalPRO (Fig. 2A). This corre-lates well with the fact that yeast H3 is most related to the mammalian H3.3 variant. Similar results were obtained with two-hybrid assays performed in yeast cells (data not shown). Altogether, these data indicate that the CTF-1 activation do-main is capable of interacting specifically with yeast histone H3.

Correlation of the Histone Binding and Boundary Activities of GalPRO—Having determined that the activation domain of

CTF-1 interacts with the yeast histone H3, and that it displays boundary activity, we set up to assess whether the two effects may be linked. Because the N-terminal extremity of the CTF-1 activation domain contains a weaker histone H3 interaction domain (41) and displays moderate boundary activity (35), we rather focused on the shorter and more potent C-terminal TRD domain. We approached this by performing a saturation mu-tagenesis of the TRD domain, and by probing its histone bind-ing and boundary activities. Each of the 14 amino acids of the minimal histone-binding TRD domain was mutated independ-ently. To ascertain strong phenotypic effects, negatively charged amino acids were introduced, except at position 486

http://www.jbc.org/

(5)

where the negatively charged aspartic acid was replaced by a lysine. These mutants were first assayed in the mammalian cell two-hybrid assay by transient transfections as above.

Mutations in two regions of the TRD affected most signifi-cantly H3 binding, namely the regions encompassing the D486K and Y496D/L497D mutations, whereas mutation of res-idues I490D and Y491D had a milder but significant effect (Fig. 3A, compare light and dark gray columns of the left panel). These effects are specific and cannot be ascribed to lower ex-pression levels and/or to lower DNA binding activities of the mutated proteins, as each mutant displays similar or higher activities than the wild type TRD parental construct in mobil-ity shift assays (Fig. 3B). Overall, lack of interaction of these mutants with VP16-H3 cannot be ascribed either to a generally lower transcriptional activation potential, as determined in transient transfection assays (Fig. 3A, light gray columns of the

left panel). In contrast, the L498D mutant is more difficult to

interpret. It allows a significant increase of the reporter gene expression in the presence of the VP16-H3 fusion as compared with the control with unfused VP16, suggesting efficient inter-action with H3. The L498D mutant does not display intrinsic transcriptional activity in the absence of VP16-H3, which can account for the overall low expression in presence of VP16-H3 (Fig. 3A, left panel, light and dark gray columns, respectively), as the two types of domains cannot synergize to activate tran-scription. However, weaker interaction with H3 is an alterna-tive interpretation that cannot be formally excluded, and the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.

The transcriptional activation property of these mutants in a chromatin context was determined in parallel using a reporter gene stably integrated in a long-term transfection experiment. Transcriptional activities in this assay correlated well with his-tone interaction properties, with mutations around positions 486, 491, and 496 – 498 displaying the most prominent effects (Fig. 3A,

right hand panel). Thus, the histone interaction portions of

CTF-1 TRD colocalize with the determinants of transcriptional activity in a mammalian chromatin context. This contrast with the intrinsic transcriptional activities of the mutants when as-sayed in conjunction with a transiently transfected reporter plas-mid, which does not lead to properly assembled chromatin (48), where mutants W496D, L498D, and G499D were most severely affected (Fig. 3A, see light gray columns of the left panel). Thus, the transcriptional activity of the TRD mutants correlates well with their interaction with H3 in stable but not in transient

CTF-1 complete proline-rich activation domain (PRO) in the GalPRO protein, or fused to the minimal activation domain (TRD) in GalTRD. Positions of the main histone binding determinant (TRD) and of the accessory histone H3-binding domain, as well as of the GalTRD-Y497D point mutation that inhibits binding to H3 are as indicated (36, 41). B, anti-silencing activities of GAL4-CTF-1 fusion proteins. Yeast strain W303-1a containing the URA3 gene integrated at the VII-L telomeric locus, in the presence or absence of a GAL4 DNA binding array con-taining four copies of GAL4 UAS sequences, were transformed with plasmids coding for GalDBD, GalPRO, GalTRD, and GalTRD-Y497D as shown in A. The transformants were assayed for URA3 expression by plating serial dilutions of cells on 5-FOA containing solid media as outlined under “Materials and Methods.” The ratio of the population that is repressed for URA3 gene transcription and forms colonies in the presence of 5-FOA is represented by a histogram bar as a fraction of the total yeast cell number. Thus a ratio of 1 on the logarithmic scale indicates that 100% of the cells have a silenced URA3 gene. C, boundary activities of GAL4-CTF-1 fusion proteins. Yeast W303-1a pER5 cells, containing the TRP1 and URA3 genes inserted at telomere VII-L in opposite orientation and separated by four copies of GAL4 UAS se-quences, were transformed with expression vectors for the indicated fusion proteins. The ratio of cells that are both silent for the URA3 gene and active for TRP1 expression were counted after growth on 5-FOA containing but tryptophan-deprived solid media, and are expressed as a ratio to the total number of cells that grew on non-selective media. FIG. 1. Anti-silencing and boundary activities of CTF-1 fusion

proteins at telomere. A, maps of the GAL4-CTF-1 fusions proteins

used in this study. The GAL4 93 N-terminal amino acids comprising the DNA-binding domain were expressed alone (GalDBD), or as fusions to

http://www.jbc.org/

(6)

assays. Moreover, this shows that the observed effects are spe-cific, as for instance, mutant D486K is affected for histone H3 binding and transcriptional activation in a proper chromatin context, whereas it retains significant transcriptional activity in the transient assay. We conclude that the two types of assays may reflect different modes of activation, which depend or not on a proper chromatin structure.

These mutant proteins were then tested in yeast cells using the␤-galactosidase gene driven by the Gal4 responsive GAL1 promoter as a reporter construct integrated at a non-telomeric position, to assess their transcriptional activity in a yeast chro-matin context. Alternatively, they were tested for their anti-silencing activity on a telomere proximal TRP1 reporter gene (construct pER5 as in Fig. 1C). The two assays correlate well with comparable effects of the point mutations (Fig. 4A, com-pare light and dark gray columns of the left panel), and again mutations at positions 486, 496, and 497 were most deleterious. These mutants were similarly affected in their ability to define chromatin domains, when tested as before for their boundary activity at telomere VII-L (Fig. 4A, right panel). The pattern of DNA binding activities of these mutants was similar to that of the fused wild type TRD domain, thus excluding that those particular mutants may score as negative in these assays

be-cause of insufficient expression and/or DNA binding activity (Fig. 4B).

As noted previously by Ku¨ nzler et al. (49), GalPRO is a very weak transcriptional activator in yeast (Fig. 4A). However, it displays high H3 binding, anti-silencing, and boundary activi-ties. In contrast, the shorter TRD domain displays high tran-scriptional activity, whereas it shows relatively lower H3 bind-ing, anti-silencbind-ing, and boundary activities. This indicates that the latter activities can be, in some cases, separated from transcriptional activation. The anti-silencing activity of the various fusions correlates well with their boundary activities, with the exceptions of the Q494D and S495D mutants, which showed high anti-silencing but reduced boundary activities. This is explained by a gain-of-function ability of these mutants to activate the expression of the telomere-proximal URA3 gene (data not shown), which thus behave in part as bidirec-tional anti-silencers as noted previously for the GAL-VP16 fusion (35).

Overall, these results show that mutants that have clearly lost their ability to interact with histone H3, such as D486K, W496D, and Y497D, are correspondingly inhibited in their ability to mediate a boundary effect in a non-permissive chro-matin context (compare the left panel of Fig. 3A with the right

panel of Fig. 4A). Furthermore, several mutants that have

reduced interaction with H3 but maintain significant intrinsic transcriptional activity in yeast, such P487D, I490D, and Y491D, also display correspondingly decreased boundary activ-ity, implying that interaction with histone H3 contributes to the boundary activity of the TRD. However, an implication of other TRD functions in the boundary activities cannot be ex-cluded, as the correlation is not always absolute. For instance, mutant G499D has normal anti-silencing and activation func-tions in a chromatin context and it interacts efficiently with H3. Nevertheless, this mutant displays a reduced boundary activity. Thus, the histone H3-binding function of the TRD domain appears to be required for the boundary effect, but other as yet unidentified TRD functions may also contribute to the full boundary activity.

Chromatin Remodeling Activities of GAL4 Fusion Proteins—

The possibility that CTF-1 boundary activity is mediated by its histone H3 binding and chromatin remodeling activities was evaluated by directly probing the chromatin structure of the

URA3 and TRP1 telomeric reporter genes in vivo. First,

spheroblasts generated from yeast cells expressing the various GAL4 fusion proteins were treated with micrococcal nuclease I, and genomic DNA was extracted and probed to determine nucleosomal positioning. Expression of GAL VP16 and GalPRO mediated a general increase in micrococcal nuclease I accessi-bility over the TRP1 promoter and TRP1 gene, consistent with the increase of the accessibility of telomere-distal nucleosomal DNA next to the GAL4 DNA binding sequences (see Supple-mental Materials). However, nucleosomes appeared to be poorly positioned overall on the silent or active TRP1 gene locus.

To further characterize the mechanism by which CTF-1 pre-vents telomeric repression, we set up to determine the struc-ture and composition of chromatin on each side of the GAL4 fusion proteins. Given that yeast repressive chromatin is char-acterized by histone hypoacetylation and that acetylated his-tone tails inhibit SIR complex binding (9, 50), we examined the histone H3 and H4 acetylation levels by chromatin immuno-precipitation assays using specific antibodies against tetra-acetylated H4 (H4 Lys-5, Lys-8, Lys-12, and Lys-16) and di-acetylated H3 (H3 K9, 14). Yeast cells containing telomeric

URA3 and TRP1 genes, separated by four GAL4-binding sites

as before, were assayed, except that the promoter of TRP1 gene FIG. 2. Interaction of GAL4-CTF-1 fusion proteins with histone

H3 variants. A, a mammalian two-hybrid was used to assess

interac-tion between the CTF-1 activainterac-tion domain and histone H3 variants. NIH3T3 cells were transiently transfected with the pG5BCAT reporter plasmid, GalPRO expression vector, and plasmid expressing the VP16 activation domain fused to the indicated histone H3 variants. The transactivator domain of VP16 was either expressed alone (minus sign) or fused to histone H3 variants as indicated under the histogram bars, where yH3 indicate yeast histone H3 copy one, and mH3.1, mH3.2, and mH3.3 indicate fusions to the natural mouse histone variants H3.1, H3.2, and H3.3, respectively. CAT activities were normalized to the basal level of CAT expression measured with cells transfected with the VP16 expression vector alone, which was set to 100. The mean⫾ S.D. were inferred from at least 5 transient transfection experiments. The amount of VP16-H3 fusion expression vectors were adjusted such that the different fusion proteins are expressed at similar levels, as shown in B. B, fusion proteins were expressed in transiently transfected NIH3T3 as in A and total cell extracts were analyzed by Western blot and revealed using a polyclonal antibody recognizing both the VP16 moiety of the VP-H3 fusions and the GalDBD portion of GalPRO, as indicated by arrows. The top-most band represents a cross-reaction of the anti-body with an unknown NIH3T3 cell protein.

http://www.jbc.org/

(7)

was deleted to avoid any changes in the chromatin structure that may result from transcription rather than from the bound-ary effect. Chromatin was subjected to cross-linking in vivo,

followed by sonication and digestion with the restriction en-zyme XbaI to dissociate the URA3 and the TRP1 reporter genes, as well as the telomere-distal ADH4 gene (Fig 5A). FIG. 3. Scanning of CTF-1 TRD domain by point mutagenesis and analysis of the mutants histone H3 binding and transcriptional

activities. A, the left-hand panel shows a two-hybrid assay of the interaction of GalPRO and GalTRD wild type and mutant derivatives with a

VP16-H3 fusion. NIH3T3 cells were transiently transfected with the VP16 activation domain, either alone (light gray bars) or fused to mouse histone H3.3 variant (dark gray bars), together with the indicated GalTRD derivatives, as described in the legend to Fig. 2. The light gray columns illustrate the intrinsic transcriptional activities of the GalTRD derivatives in transient transfection experiments. The dark gray columns show the additional activation of the reporter gene resulting from the interaction of the TRD with the VP16 histone H3 fusion. In the right hand panel, the indicated GalCTF-1 fusion proteins were expressed in a polyclonal NIH3T3 cell population containing the chromosomally integrated G5BCAT reporter construct (36). Expression of this reporter is thus indicative the transcriptional activity of the different GalCTF-1 fusion proteins in a native chromatin. Mean⫾ S.D. values of normalized CAT activities are shown in arbitrary units relative to that GalTRD, which was assigned a value of 100. B, NIH3T3 cells transfected transiently with GalPRO or GalTRD wild type and mutant expression constructs as in A, and total cell extracts were probed by gel mobility shift assays using a probe containing a 17-mer GAL4 DNA binding sequence. The position of the GalPRO and GalTRD complexes are as indicated. N.S. indicates a nonspecific complex also observed with extracts of untransfected cells (not shown).

http://www.jbc.org/

(8)

FIG. 4. Scanning of the CTF-1 minimal activation domain point mutant for transcriptional, anti-silencing, and boundary activities

in yeast cells. A, yeast strain Y187 (light gray columns) and W303-1a pER5 (dark gray columns) were transformed with expression vectors for

the indicated Gal-CTF1 fusion proteins. The intrinsic transcriptional activity of GAL fusions was estimated with the Y187 strain that contains the ␤-galactosidase gene driven by the UAS containing GAL1 promoter, inserted within the chromosomal URA3 gene at its native position. Cells were grown in non-selective conditions and␤-galactosidase activities quantified as described under “Experimental Procedures,” are shown as arbitrary units. Anti-silencing and boundary activities of Gal fusions were estimated, using the W303-1a strain that contains the TRP1 and URA3 genes separated by four tandem UAS inserted at the telomere VII-L, as represented in Fig. 1C. Anti-silencing activities were determined by plating cells on tryptophan-depleted medium to probe for TRP1-expressing cells over the total cell population (dark gray columns of left hand panel). Whereas cells were plated on tryptophan-depleted medium containing 5-FOA to determine the proportion of cells being silenced for the telomere proximal URA3 gene but expressing the telomere distal TRP1 gene, as shown in Fig. 1C, reflects the boundary effect (right hand panel). B, the expression levels of various fusion proteins in yeast strains, used in A, in a gel mobility shift assay were estimated using equivalent protein amounts of total yeast cell extracts and a GAL4 DNA probe. Reactions performed with extracts of cells expressing wild type GalTRD fusions (TRD), the indicated TRD mutants, or untransformed cells (minus sign) were loaded as indicated.

http://www.jbc.org/

(9)

Complete digestion was confirmed in each assay by quantita-tive PCR with primers flanking the XbaI sites. In each exper-iment, immunoprecipitations were also performed on the silent

HMRa locus and on the active MATa locus as controls for

immunoprecipitation and quantitative PCR efficiencies. As expected, histones H3 and H4 were hyperacetylated in the MATa locus, and hypoacetylated at the repressed HMRa locus, and this was not affected by the expression of the GAL4 fusion proteins (Fig. 5, B and C). In cells expressing the un-fused GAL4 DNA-binding domain, histones H3 and H4 were hypoacetylated over both the URA3 and TRP1 genes, as ob-served for the silenced HMRa locus. In the presence of GalPRO, a 6-fold increase in the acetylation levels of both H3 and H4 was observed over the TRP1 gene, but not on the URA3 gene that remains transcriptionally silent in these conditions. Inter-estingly, a similar increase in histone acetylation was detected on the telomere-distal ADH4 gene, indicating that chromatin acetylation induced by GalPRO is maintained over the entire region centromeric to its binding site.

The extent of acetylation seen on the TRP1 and ADH4 genes in the presence of GalPRO is weaker than that obtained at the

MATa locus. This difference might be because of the absence of

transcription of both genes compared with the fully transcribed

MATa locus. Alternatively, the degree of acetylation might

vary between a telomeric region and a more centromeric locus. To determine whether the chromatin centromeric to GalPRO is fully acetylated, we used the GalVP16 fusion protein, as it is known to recruit histone acetyltransferases and thereby in-duces high histone acetylation levels. A 7-fold increase in acetyl-ation over the URA3 and TRP1 genes was obtained in the presence of GalVP16, indicating that it induces histone acetyl-ation on both sides of its binding site independently of gene expression. Interestingly, GalPRO and GalVP16 induced a sim-ilar increase in histone acetylation on the TRP1 and ADH4 genes. Thus, the chromatin protected from telomeric silencing by GalPRO is strongly hyperacetylated. Furthermore, acetyla-tion levels observed on the TRP1 gene in the presence of Gal-PRO and GalVP16 were similar to those obtained with SIR4-deficient cells, thus reflecting the maximal acetylation level of this non-transcribed gene in the absence of telomeric repres-sion (data not shown). These results indicate that GalPRO can maintain the chromatin acetylation levels of the protected te-lomeric-distal region in the absence of transcription and thereby further define CTF-1 as an efficient boundary element. FIG. 5. Alteration of telomeric chromatin structures and CTF-1 boundary activity. The schematic representation of the telomeric insertion used for chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments is shown in A. Yeast strain W303-1a pER6 was generated by homologous recombination to contain the URA3 and the promoterless TRP1 genes as represented at telomere VII-L. Following formaldehyde cross-linking, chromatin was extracted and digested with XbaI to dissociate the URA3, TRP1, and ADH4 genes. Complete digestion was verified by quantitative PCR with primers flanking the XbaI sites. Following immunoprecipitation, DNA was purified and analyzed by quantitative PCR using specific primers for the URA3 and TRP1 reporter genes, for the telomere distal ADH4 gene, and for the MATa and HMRa loci as controls. The position of the PCR products, used to probe the URA3, TRP1, and ADH4 genes, respectively, is schematically represented in A. Immunoprecipitations were performed using specific antibodies against diacetylated histone H3 (H3 K9, 14) (B), against tetra-acetylated histone H4 (H4 K5, 8, 12, and 16) (C), or against Sir2 protein (D), Sir3 protein (E), and Sir4 protein (F). Precipitated DNA levels obtained with histone H3 and H4 antibodies were arbitrarily set to 100 at the MATa locus (B and C), and a value of 100 was also ascribed to Sir levels at the HMRa locus (D–F).

http://www.jbc.org/

(10)

GalPRO Establishes a Barrier to SIR Complex Propaga-tion—One model of the boundary action of transcription factors

is that they may protect telomere-distal genes from repressive chromatin by impairing SIR complex propagation. We ad-dressed this by performing chromatin immunoprecipitation as-says using specific antibodies against Sir2, Sir3, and Sir4 pro-teins. Chromatin immunoprecipitations were performed as before, using the silent HMRa and active MATa loci as con-trols. As expected, the Sir proteins were present on the HMRa locus, but absent on the MATa locus (Fig. 5, D–F).

In cells expressing the unfused GAL4 DNA-binding domain, Sir2, Sir3, and Sir4 proteins were detected over both the URA3 and TRP1 genes, confirming that SIR complexes repress both genes. Little Sir binding was observed on the ADH4 gene, thus

ADH4 defines the limit of SIR complex propagation.

Interest-ingly, in cells expressing the unfused GalDBD, there was sim-ilar binding of Sir4 on the URA3 gene as on the MATa locus, but strikingly, twice as much Sir4 proteins were bound to the

TRP1 gene. In contrast, amounts of Sir2 and Sir3 proteins were

not similarly increased over the TRP1 gene. This difference is not because of a bias in PCR amplification, because quantita-tive PCR performed on plasmid DNA containing both the

URA3 and TRP1 genes gave similar amounts of amplified

product (data not shown). Thus, materials immunoprecipitated by anti-Sir4 antibodies accurately reflect higher Sir4 abun-dance near the TRP1 gene. This finding may be explained by a telomere-looping mechanism allowing Rap1-bound Sir4 to in-teract with Sir complexes bound on the TRP1 gene (1, 17, 51). Following formaldehyde cross-linking, DNA fragments con-taining the TRP1 gene would be immunoprecipitated through both Rap1-bound Sir4 and TRP1-bound Sir4, thereby more of the TRP1 fragment would be obtained as compared with URA3 (Fig. 6B). Alternatively, a proto-silencer present over the TRP1 gene might recruit additional Sir4 proteins over this gene (8). In yeast cells expressing the GalVP16 fusion protein, little Sir2 and Sir3 proteins were detected over both the URA3 and

TRP1 genes, confirming its bidirectional anti-silencing activity.

In contrast, results obtained with Sir4 were unexpected. Little Sir4 binding was observed on the URA3 gene, consistently with the expression of this gene, but Sir4 protein co-precipitation with the TRP1 gene still occurred to a significant extent (Fig. 5F). Cross-reactivity between the anti-Sir4 antibody and GalVP16 cannot account for this result, because the Sir4 pro-tein level is not similarly affected over the URA3 gene. One possible interpretation for this finding is that Sir4 immunopre-cipitation might result from the interaction of the TRP1 gene with Rap1-bound Sir4 proteins. For instance, GalVP16-cruited histone acetylases and ATP-dependent chromatin re-modeling complexes would induce the formation of a relatively flexible chromatin structure upon the URA3 gene, allowing fortuitous interactions of Rap1-bound Sir4 with the TRP1 gene, or because of residual interactions of the telomeric DNA struc-ture with the TRP1 gene (Fig. 6D). The GalVP16-mediated remodeling of the TRP1 chromatin structure is nevertheless consistent with the expression of this gene, because the amount of TRP1-bound Sir4 was reduced when compared with GalDBD alone, and Sir2 and Sir3 binding was nearly abolished.

In the presence of GalPRO, SIR complexes were still bound to the URA3 gene, but disappeared almost completely on the

TRP1 gene. These results imply that the activation domain of

CTF-1 can efficiently block the propagation of SIR complexes and alter the chromatin structure/composition of the telomere-distal gene (summarized in Fig. 6A). Moreover, GalPRO may induce a telomere unfolding, because no Sir4 proteins were detected over the TRP1 gene unlike GalDBD and GalVP16. Therefore, CTF-1 mediates a chromatin domain boundary by

separating the chromatin organization of the telomere-distal gene that is similar to permissive chromatin, even in the ab-sence of transcription, whereas the telomere-proximal gene retains all properties of silent chromatin (Fig. 6, B and C). Overall, the chromatin effects observed in the presence of Gal-PRO clearly contrast those obtained with GalVP16 and may FIG. 6. Boundary and anti-silencing activities in a telomeric

loop structural model. A, summary of the results obtained by

expres-sion assays and chromatin immunoprecipitations, as shown in Fig. 5. B, in the telomere looping model, the telomere folds back allowing inter-action with non-telomeric chromatin. This allows the Rap1-bound Sir4 proteins to interact with SIR complexes over the TRP1 gene. Such a loop may stabilize the telomeric heterochromatin and is in agreement with the increased amount of Sir4 proteins observed on the promoter-less TRP1 gene (A). C, schematic representation of the telomeric het-erochromatin in the presence of GalPRO. When GalPRO binds the DNA, the PRO domain repositions nucleosomes closer to the UAS sequence by direct interaction with histone H3, thereby preventing the propagation of Sir proteins. CTF-1 may block the propagation of silent chromatin by altering the nucleosome positioning or/and by impairing SIR complex to bind H3, thus acting as a competitive inhibitor for histone binding and excluding Sir2 histone deacetylase. The boundary activity of CTF-1 results in telomere unfolding and in chromatin orga-nization over the TRP1 and ADH4 genes that is similar to permissive chromatin, even in the absence of transcription. D, schematic represen-tation of telomeric heterochromatin in the presence of GalVP16. Teth-ering of GalVP16 at telomere leads to the recruitment of histone acetyl-transferases, thereby inducing high histone acetylation levels on both sides of the GalVP16-binding sites. The histone acetylation destabilizes the interaction between SIR complexes and nucleosomes, leading to complete removal of SIR complexes over both URA3 and TRP1 genes. In this model, the anti-silencing activity of Gal VP16 is not sufficient to impair telomere looping, allowing Rap1-bound Sir4 proteins to be cross-linked and immunoprecipitated with the TRP1 gene.

http://www.jbc.org/

(11)

discriminate the effects of boundary elements such as CTF-1 from those meditated by more general anti-silencers like VP16.

DISCUSSION

The eukaryotic genome is divided in regions of permissive and silent chromatin. Permissive chromatin is associated with an enrichment of particular histone variants such as H3.3 and H2AZ. How this occurs remains unclear, but it may conceivably result from the interaction of histones with DNA binding reg-ulatory proteins (52–54). The finding that CTF-1 interacts pref-erably with the H3.3 variant associated with active chromatin is consistent with its transcriptional activation function, and this may provide a mechanisms by which promoter and en-hancer regions are enriched in such histone variants.

Individual chromatin domains are thought to be separated by boundary elements that insulate domains from the influence of adjacent regions. Experimentally, boundary elements have been defined functionally by their ability to protect against position effect. In yeast, transcriptional activation domains were shown to act as efficient barriers against telomeric silenc-ing (35). This boundary function does not involve direct activa-tion of reporter genes and the transcripactiva-tional activaactiva-tion poten-tial of these domains does not always correlate with their anti-silencing or boundary activities (35). Whether these boundary elements function by altering the chromatin struc-ture or by affecting other chromatin properties such as sub-nuclear location remains unclear. Results presented here argue in favor of the first model, as they show that the activation domain of CTF-1 acts to partition adjacent chromosomal se-quences into active or inactive chromatin structures at yeast telomeres, and because they further involve the histone bind-ing activity of the short TRD motif in the boundary activity.

Our results support the proposal that activation domains such as the one of CTF-1 have two independent modes of action: one that may directly result in the activation of transcription, whereas another would regulate chromatin structure. Activa-tion domains thus would possess an intrinsic transcripActiva-tional activation function most apparent in transient transfection assays, which may directly influence the recruitment of the basal transcription machinery to the promoter, as the latter would not be in an inaccessible chromatin structure. The pro-posed interaction of the CTF-1 PRO domain with TFII-B and TBP may support this type of activity (55). Alternatively, a variety of transcription activators have been further shown to alter chromatin structure through the recruitment of chroma-tin remodeling/modifying complexes (56, 57). CTF-1 rather pos-sesses a histone binding activity, which has been implicated in CTF-1 anti-silencing activity in mammalian cells (58). The GAL4 fusion proteins studied here support this conclusion, as the histone H3 binding activities of mutant proteins correlate well with transcriptional activation in a chromatin context, as illustrated by the boundary effect, but not with the transcrip-tional activation potential detected in the absence of native chromatin structure in transient assays.

Telomeric gene silencing in yeast results from the interaction of a complex formed by the Sir2, Sir3, and Sir4 proteins with telomere-binding proteins and further along the chromosome, silencing intervening genes (15). The interaction of Sir3 and Sir4 proteins with themselves and with the protruding N-terminal tails from histones H3 and H4 may form the basis of regular nucleosomal arrays, and any perturbation of this array might block the propagation of the silent chromatin structure. For instance, it has been proposed that any DNA-binding pro-tein that would induce a nucleosomal gap might block the spreading of silent chromatin (59). This may occur passively by the formation of stable protein complexes that would act as physical barriers. However, results presented here clearly

show that the GAL4 DNA-binding domain, alone or fused to many of the TRD point mutants, does not display anti-silencing or boundary effects. Thus, the DNA binding activity of these proteins does not account for their boundary activity. In con-trast, gene regulation in a silent chromatin environment cor-relates more closely with histone H3 interaction, implying that the GalCTF-1 barrier protein must directly interact with his-tones in addition to its DNA binding ability. These results would support the hypothesis that CTF-1 prevents chromatin silencing by directly contacting histone H3, thereby altering the propagation of a silent chromatin structure.

It is now well established that Sir2 possesses NAD-depend-ent histone deacetylase activity (26). In yeast, the SIR complex spreads from nucleating sites to silence a large region of char-acteristically hypoacetylated chromatin (10, 15, 60). Sir2 mu-tants that are devoid of NAD-dependent histone deacetylase activity abrogate both rDNA and telomeric silencing (61). These data support a model in which histone deacetylation by Sir2 is required to propagate the spread of SIR silencing com-plexes. Moreover, direct targeting of acetyltransferases to the silenced domain is sufficient to create a region of histone hy-peracetylation and to disrupt SIR-mediated silencing (62, 63). Consistent with this model, heterochromatin barriers, such as

HMR tRNATh _{and the HS4 element of the chicken}_␤-globin

locus, are likely to block silent chromatin by providing a center of histone acetylation (27, 64).

Results presented here indicate that the high levels of his-tone acetylation mediated by VP16, and its ability to recruit ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complexes and histone acetyltransferases (65– 67), are sufficient to fully abrogate the spreading of SIR complexes. In this assay, VP16 acts to in-crease histone acetylation on both sides of its binding site, thereby activating nearby genes irrespective of their location relative to the telomere, as expected from a local increase of HAT concentration.

Fragments of the activation domain of VP16 have been shown to display some boundary activity, in addition to mod-erate anti-silencing of telomere proximal genes, and to disrupt silencing by a transcription independent mechanism (35). This raises the possibility that CTF-1 might act in a similar fashion as VP16, by displaying similar but weaker transcriptional ac-tivation properties. Thus, CTF-1 would appear to have a polar effect because it would successfully compete with silent chro-matin on the telomere-distal genes, but not on the telomeric locus, whereas VP16 would be potent enough to activate both loci. If so, CTF-1 and VP16 would be expected to act similarly, but to a different extent. However, this possibility is not sup-ported by the finding that CTF-1 displays stronger effects than VP16 on the chromatin structure, because it can fully abrogate telomere looping in vivo, even in the absence of a functional promoter sequence. Although the activation domain of CTF-1 was not found to bind chromatin-modifying enzymes, it thus allows the maintenance of high histone acetylation levels and efficiently blocks Sir-mediated silencing. Thus, the barrier pro-tein CTF-1 appears not to function like VP16 by inducing enzymatic modifications of histones, but rather by excluding the spreading of histone deacetylases like Sir2 and SIR com-plex binding (Fig. 6C). CTF-1 may prevent the propagation of the silent chromatin structure by perturbing local chromatin structure, for instance by altering nucleosomal position and/or spacing. Alternatively, it may directly interfere with the asso-ciation of the Sir proteins and in particular the Sir2 histone deacetylase with nucleosomes, thus acting as a competitive inhibitor. Histone hyperacetylation in downstream regions would arise in this case as a secondary, by default modification of an open chromatin domain (68).

http://www.jbc.org/

(12)

The boundary and anti-silencing activities of CTF-1 are un-likely to be limited to yeast cells, because the PRO domain is also able to modify a mammalian silenced locus to enhance chromatin accessibility to other factors. Moreover, mutations of the TRD domain that inhibit H3 interaction correspondingly decrease the ability of CTF-1 to achieve chromatin opening in mammalian cells (58). Irrespective of the precise molecular mechanism involved, these data give new insight into how the anti-silencing and boundary activities of CTF-1 may partici-pate to its transcriptional activation function. CTF-1 may act as a “pioneer” transcription factor, by initiating chromatin opening through its direct interaction with histone H3, thus allowing other factors to bind and initiate transcription. A similar mechanism of chromatin remodeling was recently pro-posed for the histone-binding HNF-3 transcription factor (69).

Acknowledgments—We thank Drs. S. M. Gasser, W. Schaffner, D. Schu¨ mperli, and S. Triezenberg for the generous gift of plasmids and antibodies, and Drs. S. M. Gasser and D. Shore for helpful suggestions. We acknowledge Drs. A. McNair and D. Shore for comments on the manuscript.

REFERENCES

1. Fourel, G., Revardel, E., Koering, C. E., and Gilson, E. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 2522–2537

2. Kellum, R., and Schedl, P. (1991) Cell 64, 941–950

3. Kellum, R., and Schedl, P. (1992) Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 2424 –2431 4. Chung, J. H., Whiteley, M., and Felsenfeld, G. (1993) Cell 74, 505–514 5. West, A. G., Gaszner, M., and Felsenfeld, G. (2002) Genes Dev. 16, 271–288 6. Weiler, K. S., and Wakimoto, B. T. (1995) Annu. Rev. Genet. 29, 577– 605 7. Braunstein, M., Holmes, S. G., and Broach, J. R. (1997) in Nuclear

Organiza-tion, Chromatin Structure, and Gene Expression, (Driel, R. V., and Otte, A.

P., eds) pp. 250 –275, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK 8. Fourel, G., Lebrun, E., and Gilson, E. (2002) Bioessays 24, 828 – 835 9. Braunstein, M., Rose, A. B., Holmes, S. G., Allis, C. D., and Broach, J. R. (1993)

Genes Dev. 7, 592– 604

10. Suka, N., Suka, Y., Carmen, A. A., Wu, J., and Grunstein, M. (2001) Mol. Cell

8, 473– 479

11. Moazed, D., Kistler, A., Axelrod, A., Rine, J., and Johnson, A. D. (1997) Proc.

Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 2186 –2191

12. Aparicio, O. M., Billington, B. L., and Gottschling, D. E. (1991) Cell 66, 1279 –1287

13. Moretti, P., Freeman, K., Coodly, L., and Shore, D. (1994) Genes Dev. 8, 2257–2269

14. Gottschling, D. E., Aparicio, O. M., Billington, B. L., and Zakian, V. A. (1990)

Cell 63, 751–762

15. Grunstein, M. (1998) Cell 93, 325–328

16. Lebrun, E., Revardel, E., Boscheron, C., Li, R., Gilson, E., and Fourel, G. (2001)

Genetics 158, 167–176

17. Strahl-Bolsinger, S., Hecht, A., Luo, K., and Grunstein, M. (1997) Genes Dev.

11, 83–93

18. Hecht, A., Laroche, T., Strahl-Bolsinger, S., Gasser, S. M., and Grunstein, M. (1995) Cell 80, 583–592

19. Johnson, L. M., Kayne, P. S., Kahn, E. S., and Grunstein, M. (1990) Proc. Natl.

Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87, 6286 – 6290

20. Hecht, A., Strahl-Bolsinger, S., and Grunstein, M. (1996) Nature 383, 92–96 21. Luo, K., Vega-Palas, M. A., and Grunstein, M. (2002) Genes Dev. 16,

1528 –1539

22. Imai, S., Armstrong, C. M., Kaeberlein, M., and Guarente, L. (2000) Nature

403, 795– 800

23. Landry, J., Sutton, A., Tafrov, S. T., Heller, R. C., Stebbins, J., Pillus, L., and Sternglanz, R. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 5807–5811 24. Smith, J. S., Brachmann, C. B., Celic, I., Kenna, M. A., Muhammad, S., Starai,

V. J., Avalos, J. L., Escalante-Semerena, J. C., Grubmeyer, C., Wolberger,

C., and Boeke, J. D. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 6658 – 6663 25. Hoppe, G. J., Tanny, J. C., Rudner, A. D., Gerber, S. A., Danaie, S., Gygi, S. P.,

and Moazed, D. (2002) Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 4167– 4180 26. Moazed, D. (2001) Mol. Cell 8, 489 – 498

27. Donze, D., and Kamakaka, R. T. (2001) EMBO J. 20, 520 –531 28. Defossez, P. A., and Gilson, E. (2002) Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 5136 –5141 29. Donze, D., and Kamakaka, R. T. (2002) BioEssays, 24, 344 –349

30. Gerasimova, T. I., Byrd, K., and Corces, V. G. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 1025–1035 31. Gerasimova, T. I., and Corces, V. G. (2001) Annu. Rev. Genet. 35, 193–208 32. Ishii, K., Arib, G., Lin, C., Van Houwe, G., and Laemmli, U. K. (2002) Cell 109,

551–562

33. Oki, M., Valenzuela, L., Chiba, T., Ito, T., and Kamakaka, R. T. (2004) Mol.

Cell. Biol. 24, 1956 –1967

34. Bi, X., and Broach, J. R. (2001) Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 11, 199 –204 35. Fourel, G., Boscheron, C., Revardel, E., Lebrun, E., Hu, Y. F., Simmen, K. C.,

Muller, K., Li, R., Mermod, N., and Gilson, E. (2001) EMBO Rep. 2, 124 –132 36. Alevizopoulos, A., Dusserre, Y., Tsai-Pflugfelder, M., von der Weid, T., Wahli,

W., and Mermod, N. (1995) Genes Dev. 9, 3051–3066

37. Erkine, A. M., and Gross, D. S. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 7755–7764 38. Li, R. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 30310 –30314

39. Dalton, S., and Treisman, R. (1992) Cell 68, 597– 612

40. Smith, M. M., and Murray, K. (1983) J. Mol. Biol. 169, 641– 661 41. Muller, K., and Mermod, N. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 1645–1650 42. Martinez, E., Dusserre, Y., Wahli, W., and Mermod, N. (1991) Mol. Cell. Biol.

11, 2937–2945

43. Carey, M., Kakidani, H., Leatherwood, J., Mostashari, F., and Ptashne, M. (1989) J. Mol. Biol. 209, 423– 432

44. Armentero, M. T., Horwitz, M., and Mermod, N. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

U. S. A. 91, 11537–11541

45. Adams, A., Gottschling, D. E., Kaiser, C. A., and Stearns, T. (1997) Methods in

Yeast Genetics: A Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Course Manual, Cold

Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY

46. Boeke, J. D., LaCroute, F., and Fink, G. R. (1984) Mol. Gen. Genet. 197, 345–346

47. Arnold, B. A., Hepler, R. W., and Keller, P. M. (1998) BioTechniques 25, 98 –106

48. Jeong, S., and Stein, A. (1994) Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 370 –375

49. Kunzler, M., Braus, G. H., Georgiev, O., Seipel, K., and Schaffner, W. (1994)

EMBO J. 13, 641– 645

50. Carmen, A. A., Milne, L., and Grunstein, M. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 4778 – 4781

51. Pryde, F. E., and Louis, E. J. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 2538 –2550 52. Ahmad, K., and Henikoff, S. (2002) Mol. Cell 9, 1191–1200

53. Meneghini, M. D., Wu, M., and Madhani, H. D. (2003) Cell 112, 725–736 54. Santisteban, M. S., Kalashnikova, T., and Smith, M. M. (2000) Cell 103,

411– 422

55. Kim, T. K., and Roeder, R. G. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 4170 – 4174

56. Memedula, S., and Belmont, A. S. (2003) Curr. Biol. 13, 241–246

57. Ye, Q., Hu, Y. F., Zhong, H., Nye, A. C., Belmont, A. S., and Li, R. (2001) J. Cell

Biol. 155, 911–921

58. Pankiewicz, R., Karlen, Y., Imhof, M. O., and Mermod, N. (2004) J. Gene Med.

6, in press

59. Bi, X., and Broach, J. R. (1999) Genes Dev. 13, 1089 –1101

60. Kristjuhan, A., Wittschieben, B. O., Walker, J., Roberts, D., Cairns, B. R., and Svejstrup, J. Q. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 7551–7556 61. Perrod, S., Cockell, M. M., Laroche, T., Renauld, H., Ducrest, A. L., Bonnard,

C., and Gasser, S. M. (2001) EMBO J. 20, 197–209 62. Ishii, K., and Laemmli, U. K. (2003) Mol. Cell 11, 237–248

63. Chiu, Y. H., Yu, Q., Sandmeier, J. J., and Bi, X. (2003) Genetics 165, 115–125 64. Litt, M. D., Simpson, M., Recillas-Targa, F., Prioleau, M. N., and Felsenfeld, G.

(2001) EMBO J. 20, 2224 –2235

65. Ikeda, K., Steger, D. J., Eberharter, A., and Workman, J. L. (1999) Mol. Cell.

Biol. 19, 855– 863

66. Neely, K. E., Hassan, A. H., Wallberg, A. E., Steger, D. J., Cairns, B. R., Wright, A. P., and Workman, J. L. (1999) Mol. Cell 4, 649 – 655 67. Tumbar, T., Sudlow, G., and Belmont, A. S. (1999) J. Cell Biol. 145, 1341–1354 68. van Leeuwen, F., and Gottschling, D. E. (2002) Curr. Opin. Cell. Biol. 14,

756 –762

69. Cirillo, L. A., Lin, F. R., Cuesta, I., Friedman, D., Jarnik, M., and Zaret, K. S. (2002) Mol. Cell 9, 279 –289

http://www.jbc.org/

(13)

Eric Gilson and Nicolas Mermod

Sélène Ferrari, Katia Carmine Simmen, Yves Dusserre, Karin Müller, Geneviève Fourel,

Chromatin Domain Boundaries Delimited by a Histone-binding Protein in Yeast

doi: 10.1074/jbc.M410346200 originally published online October 7, 2004

2004, 279:55520-55530.

J. Biol. Chem.

10.1074/jbc.M410346200

Access the most updated version of this article at doi:

Alerts:

When a correction for this article is posted

• When this article is cited

• to choose from all of JBC's e-mail alerts

Click here

Supplemental material:

http://www.jbc.org/content/suppl/2004/10/29/M410346200.DC1

http://www.jbc.org/content/279/53/55520.full.html#ref-list-1

This article cites 66 references, 33 of which can be accessed free at

http://www.jbc.org/