1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
Download icon

RNA Polymerase II cluster dynamics predict mRNA output in living cells

  1. Won-Ki Cho
  2. Namrata Jayanth
  3. Brian P English
  4. Takuma Inoue
  5. J Owen Andrews
  6. William Conway
  7. Jonathan B Grimm
  8. Jan-Hendrik Spille
  9. Luke D Lavis
  10. Timothée Lionnet
  11. Ibrahim I Cisse  Is a corresponding author
  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 104
  • Views 8,777
  • 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

  • 8,777
    Page views
  • 2,609
    Downloads
  • 104
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, 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)

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression

    YAP and TAZ are transcriptional co-activators of AP-1 proteins and STAT3 during breast cellular transformation

    Lizhi He et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The YAP and TAZ paralogs are transcriptional co-activators recruited to target sites by TEAD proteins. Here, we show that YAP and TAZ are also recruited by JUNB (a member of the AP-1 family) and STAT3, key transcription factors that mediate an epigenetic switch linking inflammation to cellular transformation. YAP and TAZ directly interact with JUNB and STAT3 via a WW domain important for transformation, and they stimulate transcriptional activation by AP-1 proteins. JUNB, STAT3, and TEAD co-localize at virtually all YAP/TAZ target sites, yet many target sites only contain individual AP-1, TEAD, or STAT3 motifs. This observation and differences in relative crosslinking efficiencies of JUNB, TEAD, and STAT3 at YAP/TAZ target sites suggest that YAP/TAZ is recruited by different forms of an AP-1/STAT3/TEAD complex depending on the recruiting motif. The different classes of YAP/TAZ target sites are associated with largely non-overlapping genes with distinct functions. A small minority of target sites are YAP- or TAZ-specific, and they are associated with different sequence motifs and gene classes from shared YAP/TAZ target sites. Genes containing either the AP-1 or TEAD class of YAP/TAZ sites are associated with poor survival of breast cancer patients with the triple-negative form of the disease.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics

    Comparison of transcriptional initiation by RNA polymerase II across eukaryotic species

    Natalia Petrenko, Kevin Struhl
    Research Article Updated

    The preinitiation complex (PIC) for transcriptional initiation by RNA polymerase (Pol) II is composed of general transcription factors that are highly conserved. However, analysis of ChIP-seq datasets reveals kinetic and compositional differences in the transcriptional initiation process among eukaryotic species. In yeast, Mediator associates strongly with activator proteins bound to enhancers, but it transiently associates with promoters in a form that lacks the kinase module. In contrast, in human, mouse, and fly cells, Mediator with its kinase module stably associates with promoters, but not with activator-binding sites. This suggests that yeast and metazoans differ in the nature of the dynamic bridge of Mediator between activators and Pol II and the composition of a stable inactive PIC-like entity. As in yeast, occupancies of TATA-binding protein (TBP) and TBP-associated factors (Tafs) at mammalian promoters are not strictly correlated. This suggests that within PICs, TFIID is not a monolithic entity, and multiple forms of TBP affect initiation at different classes of genes. TFIID in flies, but not yeast and mammals, interacts strongly at regions downstream of the initiation site, consistent with the importance of downstream promoter elements in that species. Lastly, Taf7 and the mammalian-specific Med26 subunit of Mediator also interact near the Pol II pause region downstream of the PIC, but only in subsets of genes and often not together. Species-specific differences in PIC structure and function are likely to affect how activators and repressors affect transcriptional activity.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Structure and dynamics of the chromatin remodeler ALC1 bound to a PARylated nucleosome

    Luka Bacic et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The chromatin remodeler ALC1 is recruited to and activated by DNA damage-induced poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) chains deposited by PARP1/PARP2/HPF1 upon detection of DNA lesions. ALC1 has emerged as a candidate drug target for cancer therapy as its loss confers synthetic lethality in homologous recombination-deficient cells. However, structure-based drug design and molecular analysis of ALC1 have been hindered by the requirement for PARylation and the highly heterogeneous nature of this post-translational modification. Here, we reconstituted an ALC1 and PARylated nucleosome complex modified in vitro using PARP2 and HPF1. This complex was amenable to cryo-EM structure determination without cross-linking, which enabled visualization of several intermediate states of ALC1 from the recognition of the PARylated nucleosome to the tight binding and activation of the remodeler. Functional biochemical assays with PARylated nucleosomes highlight the importance of nucleosomal epitopes for productive remodeling and suggest that ALC1 preferentially slides nucleosomes away from DNA breaks.