Abstract

How DNA sequence affects the dynamics and position of RNA Polymerase II (Pol II) during transcription remains poorly understood. Here we used naturally occurring genetic variation in F1 hybrid mice to explore how DNA sequence differences affect the genome-wide distribution of Pol II. We measured the position and orientation of Pol II in eight organs collected from heterozygous F1 hybrid mice using ChRO-seq. Our data revealed a strong genetic basis for the precise coordinates of transcription initiation and promoter proximal pause, allowing us to redefine molecular models of core transcriptional processes. Our results implicate DNA sequence, including both known and novel DNA sequence motifs, as key determinants of the position of Pol II initiation and pause. We report evidence that initiation site selection follows a stochastic process similar to Brownian motion along the DNA template. We found widespread differences in the position of transcription termination, which impact the primary structure and stability of mature mRNA. Finally, we report evidence that allelic changes in transcription often affect mRNA and ncRNA expression across broad genomic domains. Collectively, we reveal how DNA sequences shape core transcriptional processes at single nucleotide resolution in mammals.

Data availability

All data are available at Gene Expression Omnibus under the accession number GSE174171. All scripts are posted publicly with no restrictions on the Danko Lab GitHub organization, at: https://github.com/Danko-Lab/F1_8Organs.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shao-Pei Chou

    Baker Institute for Animal Health, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Adriana K Alexander

    Baker Institute for Animal Health, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Edward J Rice

    Baker Institute for Animal Health, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Lauren A Choate

    Baker Institute for Animal Health, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4246-0550
  5. Charles G Danko

    Baker Institute for Animal Health, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    For correspondence
    dankoc@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1999-7125

Funding

National Human Genome Research Institute (R01-HG010346)

  • Charles G Danko

National Human Genome Research Institute (R01-HG009309)

  • Charles G Danko

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All mouse studies were conducted with prior approval by the Cornell Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, under protocol 2004-0063.

Copyright

© 2022, Chou 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

  • 1,885
    views
  • 506
    downloads
  • 8
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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)

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

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

  1. Shao-Pei Chou
  2. Adriana K Alexander
  3. Edward J Rice
  4. Lauren A Choate
  5. Charles G Danko
(2022)
Genetic dissection of the RNA polymerase II transcription cycle
eLife 11:e78458.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78458

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78458

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ting-Wen Chen, Hsiao-Wei Liao ... Chung-Te Chang
    Research Article

    The mRNA 5'-cap structure removal by the decapping enzyme DCP2 is a critical step in gene regulation. While DCP2 is the catalytic subunit in the decapping complex, its activity is strongly enhanced by multiple factors, particularly DCP1, which is the major activator in yeast. However, the precise role of DCP1 in metazoans has yet to be fully elucidated. Moreover, in humans, the specific biological functions of the two DCP1 paralogs, DCP1a and DCP1b, remain largely unknown. To investigate the role of human DCP1, we generated cell lines that were deficient in DCP1a, DCP1b, or both to evaluate the importance of DCP1 in the decapping machinery. Our results highlight the importance of human DCP1 in decapping process and show that the EVH1 domain of DCP1 enhances the mRNA-binding affinity of DCP2. Transcriptome and metabolome analyses outline the distinct functions of DCP1a and DCP1b in human cells, regulating specific endogenous mRNA targets and biological processes. Overall, our findings provide insights into the molecular mechanism of human DCP1 in mRNA decapping and shed light on the distinct functions of its paralogs.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Miguel Martinez-Ara, Federico Comoglio, Bas van Steensel
    Research Article

    Genes are often regulated by multiple enhancers. It is poorly understood how the individual enhancer activities are combined to control promoter activity. Anecdotal evidence has shown that enhancers can combine sub-additively, additively, synergistically, or redundantly. However, it is not clear which of these modes are more frequent in mammalian genomes. Here, we systematically tested how pairs of enhancers activate promoters using a three-way combinatorial reporter assay in mouse embryonic stem cells. By assaying about 69,000 enhancer-enhancer-promoter combinations we found that enhancer pairs generally combine near-additively. This behaviour was conserved across seven developmental promoters tested. Surprisingly, these promoters scale the enhancer signals in a non-linear manner that depends on promoter strength. A housekeeping promoter showed an overall different response to enhancer pairs, and a smaller dynamic range. Thus, our data indicate that enhancers mostly act additively, but promoters transform their collective effect non-linearly.