Transcription elongation is finely tuned by dozens of regulatory factors

Abstract

Understanding the complex network that regulates transcription elongation requires the quantitative analysis of RNA polymerase II (Pol II) activity in a wide variety of regulatory environments. We performed native elongating transcript sequencing (NET-seq) in 41 strains of S. cerevisiae lacking known elongation regulators, including RNA processing factors, transcription elongation factors, chromatin modifiers, and remodelers. We found that the opposing effects of these factors balance transcription elongation and antisense transcription. Different sets of factors tightly regulate Pol II progression across gene bodies so that Pol II density peaks at key points of RNA processing. These regulators control where Pol II pauses with each obscuring large numbers of potential pause sites that are primarily determined by DNA sequence and shape. Antisense transcription varies highly across the regulatory landscapes analyzed, but antisense transcription in itself does not affect sense transcription at the same locus. Our findings collectively show that a diverse array of factors regulate transcription elongation by precisely balancing Pol II activity.

Data availability

The accession number for the Illumina sequencing reported in this paper is Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO): GSE159603.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mary Couvillion

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Kevin M Harlen

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Kate C Lachance

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Kristine L Trotta

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8166-7696
  5. Erin Smtih

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Christian Brion

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Brendan M Smalec

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. L Stirling Churchman

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    churchman@genetics.med.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    L Stirling Churchman, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3888-2574

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01-HG007173)

  • L Stirling Churchman

National Institutes of Health (F31 HG010570)

  • Kate C Lachance

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jerry L Workman, Stowers Institute for Medical Research, United States

Publication history

  1. Preprint posted: August 15, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: March 25, 2022
  3. Accepted: May 15, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: May 16, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 17, 2022 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record published: May 31, 2022 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2022, Couvillion 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

  • 960
    Page views
  • 340
    Downloads
  • 1
    Citations

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

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. Mary Couvillion
  2. Kevin M Harlen
  3. Kate C Lachance
  4. Kristine L Trotta
  5. Erin Smtih
  6. Christian Brion
  7. Brendan M Smalec
  8. L Stirling Churchman
(2022)
Transcription elongation is finely tuned by dozens of regulatory factors
eLife 11:e78944.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78944

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ningyan Cheng et al.
    Research Article

    Cohesin folds chromosomes via DNA loop extrusion. Cohesin-mediated chromosome loops regulate transcription by shaping long-range enhancer-promoter interactions, among other mechanisms. Mutations of cohesin subunits and regulators cause human developmental diseases termed cohesinopathy. Vertebrate cohesin consists of SMC1, SMC3, RAD21, and either STAG1 or STAG2. To probe the physiological functions of cohesin, we created conditional knockout (cKO) mice with Stag2 deleted in the nervous system. Stag2 cKO mice exhibit growth retardation, neurological defects, and premature death, in part due to insufficient myelination of nerve fibers. Stag2 cKO oligodendrocytes exhibit delayed maturation and downregulation of myelination-related genes. Stag2 loss reduces promoter-anchored loops at downregulated genes in oligodendrocytes. Thus, STAG2-cohesin generates promoter-anchored loops at myelination-promoting genes to facilitate their transcription. Our study implicates defective myelination as a contributing factor to cohesinopathy and establishes oligodendrocytes as a relevant cell type to explore the mechanisms by which cohesin regulates transcription.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Claudia C Carcamo et al.
    Research Article Updated

    One-dimensional (1D) target search is a well-characterized phenomenon for many DNA-binding proteins but is poorly understood for chromatin remodelers. Herein, we characterize the 1D scanning properties of SWR1, a conserved yeast chromatin remodeler that performs histone exchange on +1 nucleosomes adjacent to a nucleosome-depleted region (NDR) at gene promoters. We demonstrate that SWR1 has a kinetic binding preference for DNA of NDR length as opposed to gene-body linker length DNA. Using single and dual color single-particle tracking on DNA stretched with optical tweezers, we directly observe SWR1 diffusion on DNA. We found that various factors impact SWR1 scanning, including ATP which promotes diffusion through nucleotide binding rather than ATP hydrolysis. A DNA-binding subunit, Swc2, plays an important role in the overall diffusive behavior of the complex, as the subunit in isolation retains similar, although faster, scanning properties as the whole remodeler. ATP-bound SWR1 slides until it encounters a protein roadblock, of which we tested dCas9 and nucleosomes. The median diffusion coefficient, 0.024 μm2/s, in the regime of helical sliding, would mediate rapid encounter of NDR-flanking nucleosomes at length scales found in cellular chromatin.