In response to DNA double-strand damage, ongoing transcription is inhibited to facilitate accurate DNA repair while transcriptional recovery occurs after DNA repair is complete. However, the mechanisms at play and the identity of the transcripts being regulated in this manner are unclear. In contrast to the situation following UV damage, we found that transcriptional recovery after ionizing radiation (IR) occurs in a manner independent of the HIRA histone chaperone. Sequencing of the nascent transcripts identified a programmed transcriptional response, where certain transcripts and pathways are rapidly downregulated after IR, while other transcripts and pathways are upregulated. Specifically, most of the loss of nascent transcripts occurring after IR is due to inhibition of transcriptional initiation of the highly transcribed histone genes and the rDNA. To identify factors responsible for transcriptional inhibition after IR in an unbiased manner, we performed a whole genome gRNA library CRISPR/Cas9 screen. Many of the top hits on our screen were factors required for protein neddylation. However, at short times after inhibition of neddylation, transcriptional inhibition still occurred after IR, even though neddylation was effectively inhibited. Persistent inhibition of neddylation blocked transcriptional inhibition after IR, and it also leads to cell cycle arrest. Indeed, we uncovered that many inhibitors and conditions that lead to cell cycle arrest in G₁ or G₂ phase also prevent transcriptional inhibition after IR. As such, it appears that transcriptional inhibition after IR occurs preferentially at highly expressed genes in cycling cells.

To function effectively as an integrated system, the transcriptional and post-transcriptional machineries must communicate through mechanisms that are still poorly understood. Here, we focus on the zinc-finger Sfp1, known to regulate transcription of proliferation-related genes. We show that Sfp1 can regulate transcription either by binding to promoters, like most known transcription activators, or by binding to the transcribed regions (gene bodies), probably via RNA polymerase II (Pol II). We further studied the first mode of Sfp1 activity and found that, following promoter binding, Sfp1 binds to gene bodies and affects Pol II configuration, manifested by dissociation or conformational change of its Rpb4 subunit and increased backtracking. Surprisingly, Sfp1 binds to a subset of mRNAs co-transcriptionally and stabilizes them. The interaction between Sfp1 and its client mRNAs is controlled by their respective promoters and coincides with Sfp1’s dissociation from chromatin. Intriguingly, Sfp1 dissociation from the chromatin correlates with the extent of the backtracked Pol II. We propose that, following promoter recruitment, Sfp1 accompanies Pol II and regulates backtracking. The backtracked Pol II is more compatible with Sfp1’s relocation to the nascent transcripts, whereupon Sfp1 accompanies these mRNAs to the cytoplasm and regulates their stability. Thus, Sfp1’s co-transcriptional binding imprints the mRNA fate, serving as a paradigm for the cross-talk between the synthesis and decay of specific mRNAs, and a paradigm for the dual-role of some zinc-finger proteins. The interplay between Sfp1’s two modes of transcription regulation remains to be examined.