Molecular mechanisms that distinguish TFIID housekeeping from regulatable SAGA promoters.

Wim J de Jonge, Eoghan O'Duibhir, Philip Lijnzaad, Dik van Leenen, Marian Ja Groot Koerkamp, Patrick Kemmeren, Frank Cp Holstege

The EMBO journal 2017 Feb 01

filter terms:

An important distinction is frequently made between constitutively expressed housekeeping genes versus regulated genes. Although generally characterized by different DNA elements, chromatin architecture and cofactors, it is not known to what degree promoter classes strictly follow regulatability rules and which molecular mechanisms dictate such differences. We show that SAGA-dominated/TATA-box promoters are more responsive to changes in the amount of activator, even compared to TFIID/TATA-like promoters that depend on the same activator Hsf1. Regulatability is therefore an inherent property of promoter class. Further analyses show that SAGA/TATA-box promoters are more dynamic because TATA-binding protein recruitment through SAGA is susceptible to removal by Mot1. In addition, the nucleosome configuration upon activator depletion shifts on SAGA/TATA-box promoters and seems less amenable to preinitiation complex formation. The results explain the fundamental difference between housekeeping and regulatable genes, revealing an additional facet of combinatorial control: an activator can elicit a different response dependent on core promoter class. © 2016 The Authors. Published under the terms of the CC BY NC ND 4.0 license.

Citation

Wim J de Jonge, Eoghan O'Duibhir, Philip Lijnzaad, Dik van Leenen, Marian Ja Groot Koerkamp, Patrick Kemmeren, Frank Cp Holstege. Molecular mechanisms that distinguish TFIID housekeeping from regulatable SAGA promoters. The EMBO journal. 2017 Feb 01;36(3):274-290