1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
Download icon

RNA Polymerase II cluster dynamics predict mRNA output in living cells

Research Article
  • Cited 88
  • Views 7,974
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e13617 doi: 10.7554/eLife.13617

Abstract

Protein clustering is a hallmark of genome regulation in mammalian cells. However, the dynamic molecular processes involved make it difficult to correlate clustering with functional consequences in vivo. We developed a live-cell super-resolution approach to uncover the correlation between mRNA synthesis and the dynamics of RNA Polymerase II (Pol II) clusters at a gene locus. For endogenous β-actin genes in mouse embryonic fibroblasts, we observe that short-lived (~8 s) Pol II clusters correlate with basal mRNA output. During serum stimulation, a stereotyped increase in Pol II cluster lifetime correlates with a proportionate increase in the number of mRNAs synthesized. Our findings suggest that transient clustering of Pol II may constitute a pre-transcriptional regulatory event that predictably modulates nascent mRNA output.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Won-Ki Cho

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Namrata Jayanth

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Brian P English

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Takuma Inoue

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. J Owen Andrews

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. William Conway

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jonathan B Grimm

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jan-Hendrik Spille

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Luke D Lavis

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Timothée Lionnet

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Ibrahim I Cisse

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    icisse@mit.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Xiaowei Zhuang, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: December 8, 2015
  2. Accepted: May 2, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 3, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 30, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Cho et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 7,974
    Page views
  • 2,492
    Downloads
  • 88
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Shanaya Shital Shah et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Displacement loops (D-loops) are critical intermediates formed during homologous recombination. Rdh54 (a.k.a. Tid1), a Rad54 paralog in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is well-known for its role with Dmc1 recombinase during meiotic recombination. Yet contrary to Dmc1, Rdh54/Tid1 is also present in somatic cells where its function is less understood. While Rdh54/Tid1 enhances the Rad51 DNA strand invasion activity in vitro, it is unclear how it interplays with Rad54. Here, we show that Rdh54/Tid1 inhibits D-loop formation by Rad51 and Rad54 in an ATPase-independent manner. Using a novel D-loop Mapping Assay, we further demonstrate that Rdh54/Tid1 uniquely restricts the length of Rad51-Rad54-mediated D-loops. The alterations in D-loop properties appear to be important for cell survival and mating-type switch in haploid yeast. We propose that Rdh54/Tid1 and Rad54 compete for potential binding sites within the Rad51 filament, where Rdh54/Tid1 acts as a physical roadblock to Rad54 translocation, limiting D-loop formation and D-loop length.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Isabelle C Kos-Braun et al.
    Feature Article

    Core facilities are an effective way of making expensive experimental equipment available to a large number of researchers, and are thus well placed to contribute to efforts to promote good research practices. Here we report the results of a survey that asked core facilities in Europe about their approaches to the promotion of good research practices, and about their interactions with users from the first contact to the publication of the results. Based on 253 responses we identified four ways that good research practices could be encouraged: i) motivating users to follow the advice and procedures for best research practice; ii) providing clear guidance on data-management practices; iii) improving communication along the whole research process; and iv) clearly defining the responsibilities of each party.