Transcription Factor Condensates Mediate Clustering of MET Regulon and Enhancement in Gene Expression

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, James Lee, Lu Bai, and colleagues use a multifaceted approach to investigate the relationship between transcription factor condensate formation, transcription, and 3D gene clustering of the MET regulon in the model organism S. cerevisiae. This study represents a second clear example of inducible transcriptional condensates in budding yeast, as most evidence for transcriptional condensates arises from studies of mammalian systems. In addition, this study links the genomic location of transcriptional condensates to the potency of transcription of a reporter gene regulated by the master transcription factor contained in the condensate. The strength of evidence supporting these two conclusions is strong. Less strong is evidence supporting the claim that Met4-containing condensates mediate the clustering of genes in the MET regulon.

Strengths:

The manuscript is for the most part clearly written, with the overriding model and specific hypothesis being tested clearly explained. Figure legends are particularly well written. An additional strength of the manuscript is that most of the main conclusions are supported by the data. This includes the propensity of Met4 and Met32 to form puncta-like structures under inducing conditions, formation of Met32-containing LLPS-like droplets in vitro (within which Met4 can colocalize), colocalization of Met4-GFP with Met4-target genes under inducing conditions, enhanced transcription of a Met3pr-GFP reporter when targeted within 1.5 - 5 kb of select Met4 target genes, and most impressively, evidence that several MET genes appear to reposition under transcriptionally inducing conditions. The latter is based on a recently reported novel in vivo methylation assay, MTAC, developed by the Bai lab.

Weaknesses:

My principal concern is that the authors fail to show convincing evidence for a key conclusion, highlighted in the title, that nuclear condensates per se drive MET gene clustering. Figure 4E demonstrates that Met4 molecules, not condensates per se, are necessary for fostering distant cis and trans interactions between MET6 and three other Met4 targets under -met inducing conditions. In addition, the paper would be strengthened by discussing a recent study conducted in yeast that comes to many of the same conclusions reported here, including the role of inducible TF condensates in driving 3D genome reorganization (Chowdhary et al, Mol. Cell 2022).

Other concerns:

(1) A central premise of the study is that the inducible formation of condensates underpins the induction of MET gene transcription and MET gene clustering. Yet, Figure 1 suggests (and the authors acknowledge) that puncta-like Met4-containing structures pre-exist in the nuclei of non-induced cells. Thus, the transcription and gene reorganization observed is due to a relatively modest increase in condensate-like structures. Are we dealing with two different types of Met4 condensates? (For example, different combinations of Met4 with its partners; Mediator- or Pol II-lacking vs. Mediator- or Pol II-containing; etc.?) At the very least, a comment to this effect is necessary.

(2) Using an in vitro assay, the authors demonstrate that Met4 colocalizes with Met32 LLPS droplets (Figure 2F). Is the same true in vivo - that is, is Met32 required for Met4 condensation? This could be readily tested using auxin-induced degradation of Met32. Along similar lines, the claim that Met32 is required for MET gene clustering (line 250) requires auxin-induced degradation of this protein.

(3) The authors use a single time point during -met induction (2 h) to evaluate TF clustering, transcription (mRNA abundance), and 3D restructuring. It would be informative to perform a kinetic analysis since such an analysis could reveal whether TF clustering precedes transcriptional induction or MET gene repositioning. Do the latter two phenomena occur concurrently or does one precede the other?

(4) Based on the MTAC assay, MET13 does not appear to engage in trans interactions with other Met4 targets, whereas MET6 does (Figures 4C and 4E). Does this difference stem from the greater occupancy of Met4 at MET6 vs. MET13, greater association of another Met co-factor with the chromatin of MET6 vs. MET13, or something else?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript combines live yeast cell imaging and other genomic approaches to study how transcription factor (TF) condensates might help organize and enhance the transcription of the target genes in the methionine starvation response pathway. The authors show that the TFs in this response can form phase-separated condensates through their intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs), and mediate the spatial clustering of the related endogenous genes as well as reporter inserted near the endogenous target loci.

Strengths:

This work uses rigorous experimental approaches, such as imaging of endogenously labeled TFs, determining expression and clustering of endogenous target genes, and reporter integration near the endogenous target loci. The importance of TFs is shown by rapid degradation. Single-cell data are combined with genomic sequencing-based assays. Control loci engineered in the same way are usually included. Some of these controls are very helpful in showing the pathway-specific effect of the TF condensates in enhancing transcription.

Weaknesses:

Perhaps the biggest weakness of this work is that the role of IDR and phase separation in mediating the target gene clustering is unclear. This is an important question. TF IDRs may have many functions including mediating phase separation and binding to other transcriptional molecules (not limited to proteins and may even include RNAs). The effect of IDR deletion on reduced Fano number in cells could come from reduced binding with other molecules. This should be tested on phase separation of the purified protein after IDR deletion. Also, the authors have not shown IDR deletion affects the clustering of the target genes, so IDR deletion may affect the binding of other molecules (not the general transcription machinery) that are specifically important for target gene transcription. If the self-association of the IDR is the main driving force of the clustering and target gene transcription enhancement, can one replace this IDR with totally unrelated IDRs that have been shown to mediate phase separation in non-transcription systems and still see the gene clustering and transcription enhancement effects? This work has all the setup to test this hypothesis.

The Met4 protein was tagged with MBP but Met 32 was not. MBP tag is well known to enhance protein solubility and prevent phase separation. This made the comparison of their in vitro phase behavior very different and led the authors to think that maybe Met32 is the scaffold in the co-condensates. If MBP was necessary to increase yield and solubility during expression and purification, it should be cleaved (a protease cleavage site should be engineered) to allow phase separation in vitro.

Are ATG36 and LDS2 also supposed to be induced by -met? This should be explained clearly. The signals are high at -met.

Figure 6B, the Met4-GFP seems to form condensates at all three loci without a very obvious difference, though 6C shows a difference. 6C is from only one picture each. The authors should probably quantify the signals from a large number of randomly selected pictures (cells) and do statistics.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors probe the connections between clustering of the Met4/32 transcription factors (TFs), clustering of their regulatory targets, and transcriptional regulation. While there is an increasing number of studies on TF clustering in vitro and in vivo, there is an important need to probe whether clustering plays a functional role in gene expression. Another important question is whether TF clustering leads to the clustering of relevant gene targets in vivo. Here the authors provide several lines of evidence to make a compelling case that Met4/32 and their target genes cluster and that this leads to an increase in transcription of these genes in the induced state. First, they found that, in the induced state, Met4/32 forms co-localized puncta in vivo. This is supported by in vitro studies showing that these TFs can form condensates in vitro with Med32 being the driver of these condensates. They found that two target genes, MET6 and MET13 have a higher probability of being co-localized with Met4 puncta compared with non-target loci. Using a targeted DNA methylation assay, they found that MET13 and MET6 show Met4-dependent long-range interactions with other Met4-regulated loci, consistent with the clustering of at least some target genes under induced conditions. Finally, by inserting a Met4-regulated reporter gene at variable distances from MET6, they provide evidence that insertion near this gene is a modest hotspot for activity.

Weaknesses:

(1) Please provide more information on the assay for puncta formation (Figure 1). It's unclear to me from the description provided how this assay was able to quantitate the number of puncta in cells.

1. How does the number of puncta in cells correspond with the number of Met-regulated genes? What are the implications of this calculation?

2. A control for chromosomal insertion of the Met-regulated reporter was a GAL4 promoter derivative reporter. However, this control promoter seems 5-10 fold more active than the Met-regulated promoter (Figure 6). It's possible that the high activity from the control promoter overcomes some other limiting step such that chromosomal location isn't important. It would be ideal if the authors used a promoter with comparable activity to the Met-reporter as a control.

(4) It seems like transcription from a very large number of genes is altered in the Met4 IDR mutant (Figure 7F). Why is this and could this variability affect the conclusions from this experiment?