Tom1p ubiquitin ligase structure, interaction with Spt6p, and function in maintaining normal transcript levels and the stability of chromatin in promoters

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this preprint, Madrigal et al present "Tom1p ubiquitin ligase structure, interaction with Spt6p, and function in maintaining normal transcript levels and the stability of chromatin in promoters" which describes the identification of Tom1p, a conserved ubiquitin ligase, as a potential binding partner for the transcription elongation/histone chaperone Spt6p, and reveal the Tom1p structure as determined by CryoEM. Tom1p is a homolog of human HUWE1, which has been implicated in decay for a variety of basic protein substrates such as ribosomal proteins and histones. Structure-function analyses identify regions required for Spt6p interaction, suggesting that the interaction with Spt6p is phosphorylation dependent, and for interactions with histones, the latter of which confers phenotypes in vivo when mutated, suggesting that the Tom1p acidic region is important for its function. What is less clear is the function or interaction with Spt6p. The manuscript speculates that Spt6p-Tom1p interactions may tune Tom1p localization, and it is shown that Tom1p is recruited to transcribed genes by chromatin IP. In addition, the Tom1p structure will be valuable to those trying to understand the mechanisms of this very large ubiquitin ligase. Here, structures of homologs from other organisms have already been described elsewhere, however, the authors here indicate some details potentially not previously visualized in other structures.

Strengths:

It has not previously been known that the Spt6p tSH2 had any additional targets. Interaction with a ubiquitin ligase already implicated in histone turnover given Spt6p's role as histone chaperone is interesting. A structure of Tom1p also provides insight into this very large, conserved protein and structure-function analysis in a model system is a good start towards mechanistic dissection.

Weaknesses:

Some aspects of the manuscript seem less cohesive in that there are two halves of the manuscript and both don't quite solidify insights into the Spt6p relationship to Tom1p or deepen our understanding of Tom1p mechanism extensively, though results are a great start on both sides of the paper. There are several points that are less clear in that it is not known if Spt6p interacts with Tom1p and in what context. The interaction surface of Spt6p able to interact with Tom1p is the identical tSH2 that would be predicted to be occupied by phosphorylated RNAPII when Spt6p is incorporated into the RNAPII elongation complex. This means how and when Spt6p might be available to interact with Tom1p is not clear. Previous work from the Hill and Formosa groups on the tSH2 domain and its RNAPII linker target have suggested that phenotypes of mutants in the two are similar, suggesting that their main function is to interact with each other. A simple test of examining Tom1p interaction with genes in the tSH2 mutant was not done. Additionally, the Spt6p interacting surface on Tom1p is not narrowed to a specific putatively phosphorylated residue that it might target. It remains possible that mutations in other regions of Tom1p affect potential phosphorylation of this target, and therefore it is possible that some mutations that alter Spt6p interaction could do so indirectly. Finally, the authors might consider additional models for their discussion where Spt6p potentially could function to deliver histones to Tom1p.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Madrigal et al identified Tom1, a E3 ubiquitin ligase previously known to be involved in ribosome biogenesis, as a protein that binds to terminal tandem Src-homology 2 (tSH2) domain of Spt6. They mapped this interaction to the acid region of Tom1, which is also known to interact with histones. Cells with tom1 mutants that cannot bind Spt6 did not show temperature sensitive phenotypes displaced for tom1 null mutant. Using ChIP assays, they showed that Tom1 is enriched at gene bodies of highly transcribed genes, and a loss of tom1 leads to reduced nucleosomal changes at gene promoters. Finally, they also solved the structures of Tom1 lacking the acidic region and found that Tom1p can adopt a compact a-solenoidal "basket" similar to the previously described structure of HUWE1. Overall, this is an interesting study and I have the following suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Major concerns.

(1) Promoter regions are in general nucleosome free. How does Tom1 mutant affect nucleosome-sized fragments at the promoter regions?
(2) While Tom1 antibodies may not specific, could the author perform Tom1 ChIP-seq in wild type and tom 1 null cells? This dataset may be more informative than tagged Tom1 that may not be functional.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors report a novel, direct interaction of Spt6p tSH2 domain to Tom1p. This extends the function of Spt6p from communication with factors associated with RNAPII transcription to processes of ubiquitination. Tom1p is known to ubiquitinate a large variety of substrates, but it is unknown how substrate recognition is done in a specific manner. The team identified a conserved central acidic region of Tom1p which is essential for in vivo functions and binds to histones and nucleosomes, as well as Spt6p. They further describe the Tom1p occupancy pattern on chromatin, assigning it a stabilizing effect on nucleosomes near promotors and a destabilizing effect on nucleosomes within the gene bodies. The authors were able to resolve two different conformational states of Tom1p which are likely connected to its activity, and possibly substrate selectivity.
Overall, the authors show that an intrinsically disordered region in Tom1p is important for substrate interaction and function of Tom1p. The protein is further involved in chromatin architecture and structural transitions control its activity.

Strengths:

By revealing the interaction of Spt6p and Tom1p, the authors discover a novel connection between transcriptional elongation and processes of ubiquitination.
In recent years, disordered regions of MDa protein complexes have become a focus of research projects. The effects of disordered regions on protein localization and specificity of binding interactions have been discussed in great extent, including proteins that are involved in chromatin remodeling and transcription. Adding to these current efforts, the authors assign a function to a highly conserved disordered region of Tom1p in technically clean experiments. Furthermore, with their data, they pin down a specific functional region in Tom1p which is relevant for the previously observed temperature sensitivity caused by Tom1p deletion in yeast.
The team performs a thorough and complete analysis of the cryo-EM structure and they nicely model the hinge motion and details of an open and closed conformation.

Weaknesses:

Despite the high number of interesting findings, there is little connection between the individual sections of the manuscript. For example, many experiments are not related to Spt6p binding although this protein is presented as a major actor in this manuscript during the introduction. Furthermore, the structural analysis is well done, but it is also not quite clear how structural rearrangements are connected to Spt6 binding or chromatin remodeling. Some experimental results lack novelty, as similar data has previously been presented for the human homolog.
To confirm the novel, direct binding interaction of Spt6p and Tom1p, no orthogonal binding assays (SPR, MST, ITC) have been performed to confirm the interaction. To me, this is insufficient, especially since the team has purified both proteins to high quality levels, or could use peptides to test the function of the relevant regions.
Additionally, interaction of Tom1p with Spt6p in the context of transcription elongation is proposed. Yet it is not clear on the mechanistic level how this is regulated if Tom1p and Rpb1p bind in a competitive manner. How is Tom1p tethered to the elongation complex if not through Spt6p? In addition to WT vs. knockout, the authors should further perform the genetic analyses with the intΔ11 mutant. This way they might be able pin down which interactions on chromatin are mediated by Spt6 vs. by other factors and could strengthen the overall model involving Spt6P.
Although the authors try to describe a final model in the discussion, this section is not easy to follow and needs more explanation, ideally drawn as a Figure of the proposed mechanism.

Author response:

We thank the reviewers’ for their helpful comments. We will make several minor edits to the text to improve clarity. Further experiments are beyond the scope of the current study.