Article | Published:

Architecture of Pol II(G) and molecular mechanism of transcription regulation by Gdown1

Nature Structural & Molecular Biologyvolume 25pages859867 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

Tight binding of Gdown1 represses RNA polymerase II (Pol II) function in a manner that is reversed by Mediator, but the structural basis of these processes is unclear. Although Gdown1 is intrinsically disordered, its Pol II interacting domains were localized and shown to occlude transcription factor IIF (TFIIF) and transcription factor IIB (TFIIB) binding by perfect positioning on their Pol II interaction sites. Robust binding of Gdown1 to Pol II is established by cooperative interactions of a strong Pol II binding region and two weaker binding modulatory regions, thus providing a mechanism both for tight Pol II binding and transcription inhibition and for its reversal. In support of a physiological function for Gdown1 in transcription repression, Gdown1 co-localizes with Pol II in transcriptionally silent nuclei of early Drosophila embryos but re-localizes to the cytoplasm during zygotic genome activation. Our study reveals a self-inactivation through Gdown1 binding as a unique mode of repression in Pol II function.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

The cryo-EM density maps of Pol II(G) have been deposited in the Electron Microscopy Data Bank under accession EMD-7997. Additional source data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Roeder, R. G. Lasker basic medical research award. The eukaryotic transcriptional machinery: complexities and mechanisms unforeseen. Nat. Med. 9, 1239–1244 (2003).

  2. 2.

    Grunberg, S. & Hahn, S. Structural insights into transcription initiation by RNA polymerase II. Trends. Biochem. Sci. 38, 603–611 (2013).

  3. 3.

    Malik, S. & Roeder, R. G. The metazoan Mediator co-activator complex as an integrative hub for transcriptional regulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 761–772 (2010).

  4. 4.

    Allen, B. L. & Taatjes, D. J. The mediator complex: a central integrator of transcription. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 155–166 (2015).

  5. 5.

    Malik, S. & Roeder, R. G. Mediator: a drawbridge across the enhancer-promoter divide. Mol. Cell 64, 433–434 (2016).

  6. 6.

    Hu, X. et al. A mediator-responsive form of metazoan RNA polymerase II. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 103, 9506–9511 (2006).

  7. 7.

    Sainsbury, S., Bernecky, C. & Cramer, P. Structural basis of transcription initiation by RNA polymerase II. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 129–143 (2015).

  8. 8.

    Fagerberg, L. et al. Analysis of the human tissue-specific expression by genome-wide integration of transcriptomics and antibody-based proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 13, 397–406 (2014).

  9. 9.

    Yue, F. et al. A comparative encyclopedia of DNA elements in the mouse genome. Nature 515, 355–364 (2014).

  10. 10.

    Jishage, M. et al. Transcriptional regulation by Pol II(G) involving mediator and competitive interactions of Gdown1 and TFIIF with Pol II. Mol. Cell 45, 51–63 (2012).

  11. 11.

    He, Y., Fang, J., Taatjes, D. J. & Nogales, E. Structural visualization of key steps in human transcription initiation. Nature 495, 481–486 (2013).

  12. 12.

    Bernecky, C., Herzog, F., Baumeister, W., Plitzko, J. M. & Cramer, P. Structure of transcribing mammalian RNA polymerase II. Nature 529, 551–554 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Leitner, A. et al. Probing native protein structures by chemical cross-linking, mass spectrometry, and bioinformatics. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 9, 1634–1649 (2010).

  14. 14.

    Shi, Y. et al. A strategy for dissecting the architectures of native macromolecular assemblies. Nat. Methods 12, 1135–1138 (2015).

  15. 15.

    Eichner, J., Chen, H. T., Warfield, L. & Hahn, S. Position of the general transcription factor TFIIF within the RNA polymerase II transcription preinitiation complex. EMBO J. 29, 706–716 (2010).

  16. 16.

    Chen, Z. A. et al. Architecture of the RNA polymerase II-TFIIF complex revealed by cross-linking and mass spectrometry. EMBO J. 29, 717–726 (2010).

  17. 17.

    Muhlbacher, W. et al. Conserved architecture of the core RNA polymerase II initiation complex. Nat. Commun. 5, 4310 (2014).

  18. 18.

    He, Y. et al. Near-atomic resolution visualization of human transcription promoter opening. Nature 533, 359–365 (2016).

  19. 19.

    Sainsbury, S., Niesser, J. & Cramer, P. Structure and function of the initially transcribing RNA polymerase II–TFIIB complex. Nature 493, 437–440 (2013).

  20. 20.

    Kostrewa, D. et al. RNA polymerase II-TFIIB structure and mechanism of transcription initiation. Nature 462, 323–330 (2009).

  21. 21.

    Pan, G. & Greenblatt, J. Initiation of transcription by RNA polymerase II is limited by melting of the promoter DNA in the region immediately upstream of the initiation site. J. Biol. Chem. 269, 30101–30104 (1994).

  22. 22.

    Mullen Davis, M. A., Guo, J., Price, D. H. & Luse, D. S. Functional interactions of the RNA polymerase II-interacting proteins Gdown1 and TFIIF. J. Biol. Chem. 289 (2014).

  23. 23.

    Gnatt, A. L., Cramer, P., Fu, J., Bushnell, D. A. & Kornberg, R. D. Structural basis of transcription: an RNA polymerase II elongation complex at 3.3 A resolution. Science 292, 1876–1882 (2001).

  24. 24.

    Sali, A. et al. Outcome of the first wwPDB hybrid/integrative methods task force workshop. Structure 23, 1156–1167 (2015).

  25. 25.

    Russel, D. et al. Putting the pieces together: integrative modeling platform software for structure determination of macromolecular assemblies. PLoS Biol. 10, e1001244 (2012).

  26. 26.

    Tan, S., Conaway, R. C. & Conaway, J. W. Dissection of transcription factor TFIIF functional domains required for initiation and elongation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 92, 6042–6046 (1995).

  27. 27.

    Plaschka, C. et al. Architecture of the RNA polymerase II–Mediator core initiation complex. Nature 518, 376–380 (2015).

  28. 28.

    Wu, Y. M. et al. Regulation of mammalian transcription by Gdown1 through a novel steric crosstalk revealed by cryo-EM. EMBO J. 31, 3575–3587 (2012).

  29. 29.

    Robinson, P. J. et al. Structure of a complete mediator-RNA polymerase II pre-initiation complex. Cell 166 (2016).

  30. 30.

    Malik, S. & Roeder, R. G. Isolation and functional characterization of the TRAP/mediator complex. Methods Enzymol. 364, 257–284 (2003).

  31. 31.

    Malik, S., Guermah, M. & Roeder, R. G. A dynamic model for PC4 coactivator function in RNA polymerase II transcription. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., USA 95, 2192–2197 (1998).

  32. 32.

    Algret, R. et al. Molecular architecture and function of the SEA complex, a modulator of the TORC1 pathway. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 13, 2855–2870 (2014).

  33. 33.

    Fernandez-Martinez, J. et al. Structure and function of the nuclear pore complex cytoplasmic mRNA export platform. Cell 167, 1215–1228.e1225 (2016).

  34. 34.

    Shi, Y. et al. Structural characterization by cross-linking reveals the detailed architecture of a coatomer-related heptameric module from the nuclear pore complex. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 13, 2927–2943 (2014).

  35. 35.

    Sun, J. et al. The architecture of a eukaryotic replisome. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 976–982 (2015).

  36. 36.

    Cevher, M. A. et al. Reconstitution of active human core Mediator complex reveals a critical role of the MED14 subunit. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 1028–1034 (2014).

  37. 37.

    Suloway, C. et al. Automated molecular microscopy: the new Leginon system. J. Struct. Biol. 151, 41–60 (2005).

  38. 38.

    Li, X. et al. Electron counting and beam-induced motion correction enable near-atomic-resolution single-particle cryo-EM. Nat. Methods 10, 584–590 (2013).

  39. 39.

    Lander, G. C. et al. Appion: an integrated, database-driven pipeline to facilitate EM image processing. J. Struct. Biol. 166, 95–102 (2009).

  40. 40.

    Scheres, S. H. RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination. J. Struct. Biol. 180, 519–530 (2012).

  41. 41.

    Rohou, A. & Grigorieff, N. CTFFIND4: Fast and accurate defocus estimation from electron micrographs. J. Struct. Biol. 192, 216–221 (2015).

  42. 42.

    Scheres, S. H. & Chen, S. Prevention of overfitting in cryo-EM structure determination. Nat. Methods 9, 853–854 (2012).

  43. 43.

    Rosenthal, P. B. & Henderson, R. Optimal determination of particle orientation, absolute hand, and contrast loss in single-particle electron cryomicroscopy. J. Mol. Biol. 333, 721–745 (2003).

  44. 44.

    Bai, X. C., Rajendra, E., Yang, G., Shi, Y. & Scheres, S. H. Sampling the conformational space of the catalytic subunit of human gamma-secretase. eLife 4, e11182 (2015).

  45. 45.

    Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF Chimera: a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1605–1612 (2004).

  46. 46.

    Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr. D. Biol. Crystallogr. 66, 486–501 (2010).

  47. 47.

    Afonine, P. V. et al. Towards automated crystallographic structure refinement with phenix.refine. Acta Crystallogr. D. Biol. Crystallogr. 68, 352–367 (2012).

  48. 48.

    Chen, V. B. et al. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D. Biol. Crystallogr. 66, 12–21 (2010).

  49. 49.

    Ueda, H., Sonoda, S., Brown, J. L., Scott, M. P. & Wu, C. A sequence-specific DNA-binding protein that activates fushi tarazu segmentation gene expression. Genes Dev. 4, 624–635 (1990).

  50. 50.

    Kanesaki, T., Hirose, S., Grosshans, J. & Fuse, N. Heterotrimeric G protein signaling governs the cortical stability during apical constriction in Drosophila gastrulation. Mech. Dev. 130, 132–142 (2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants CA202245 and DK071900 (R.G.R.), GM067167 (F.J.A.), GM103314 and GM109824 (B.T.C.), GM067167 (F.J.A.), GM083960 and GM109824 (A.S.), and Tri-I Stem Cell Initiative Grant 2014-21 (R.G.R.). We thank Z. Xue for preparation of nuclear extracts and S. Malik for discussions and critical reading of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

    • Xiaodi Yu

    Present address: Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT, USA

    • Yi Shi

    Present address: Department of Cell Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    • Wei-Yi Chen

    Present address: Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

    • Francisco J. Asturias

    Present address: Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA

Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA

    • Miki Jishage
    • , Wei-Yi Chen
    •  & Robert G. Roeder
  2. Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, San Diego, CA, USA

    • Xiaodi Yu
    •  & Francisco J. Asturias
  3. Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry and Gaseous Ion Chemistry, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA

    • Yi Shi
    •  & Brian T. Chait
  4. Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    • Sai J. Ganesan
    •  & Andrej Sali

Authors

  1. Search for Miki Jishage in:

  2. Search for Xiaodi Yu in:

  3. Search for Yi Shi in:

  4. Search for Sai J. Ganesan in:

  5. Search for Wei-Yi Chen in:

  6. Search for Andrej Sali in:

  7. Search for Brian T. Chait in:

  8. Search for Francisco J. Asturias in:

  9. Search for Robert G. Roeder in:

Contributions

M.J. developed the purification procedure and purified Gdown1, Pol II, and Pol II(G) for biochemical assays, cryo-EM and CX-MS analyses, and performed biochemical studies. Cryo-EM experiments were designed by X.Y. and F.J.A., and performed by X.Y. Y.S. and B.C. designed and performed CX-MS analysis. S.G. and A.S. designed and performed integrative structure modeling. W.C. performed immunostaining and confocal imaging. M.J. and R.G.R. wrote the manuscript with input from all co-authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert G. Roeder.

Integrated supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Figure 1 Molecular architecture of Pol II(G) by cryo-EM and CX-MS analyses.

    a, SDS-PAGE analysis (sliver staining) of purified Pol II(G). b, Observation of individual Pol II(G) under cryo-EM conditions with a K2 direct electron detector. c, 2D classification result from the full Pol II(G) data set. d, Computational sorting of cryo-EM particle images and map reconstructions. Three-dimensional classification helps to select the homogenous particles. Only one class was selected and further subjected to movie processing and 3D Auto-Refinement. e, Local resolution of Pol II(G) cryo-EM map. The Pol II(G) ~4-Å cryo-EM map is colored by local resolution and shown as a surface (top) and slice through (bottom). f, FSC plot and resolution estimation using the gold-standard 0.143 criterion for the cryo-EM map, as well as the FSC plot for the Pol II(G) model versus the Pol II(G) map. g, Angular distribution plot for the Pol ll(G) cryo-EM image set.

  2. Supplementary Figure 2 Gdown1 interaction sites overlap with TFIIF and TFIIB contact sites on Pol II.

    a, Position of the TFIIF dimerization domain relative to Gdown1 density. K345 (shown in green) in the RPB2 lobe domain was cross-linked to K282 in the Gdown1 C-terminal region. b, Position of the TFIIB B-core domain relative to Gdown1 density. K427 (shown in green) in the RPB2 protrusion domain was cross-linked to the Gdown1 C-terminal region. c, Gdown1 C-terminal region interaction sites around the RPB1 clamp loops. Cross-linked lysines in the RPB1 clamp (K213) and rudder (K331) domains are shown in green. TFIIB is shown in yellow ribbon. d, Pol II binding assay. 35S-labeled TFIIB was incubated with Pol II or Pol II(G) and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-CTD antibody (8W16). Bound proteins were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography. e, In vitro transcription assay with premelted promoter template. In vitro transcription assay was performed as described in Fig. 3d, except that the reaction time was reduced to 5 min. Note that the use of a premelted template bypasses the normal absolute TFIIF requirement for transcription, although transcription is still enhanced by TFIIF. The bands represent short transcripts resulting from specific initiation followed by Pol II pausing and/or premature termination.

  3. Supplementary Figure 3 C-TIR stabilizes Pol II binding region I interaction with Pol II.

    a, Schematic of full-length Gdown1, N-terminal (1–180), C-terminal (181–368), and C-terminal deletion mutants and summary of Pol II binding and in vitro transcription assays. b, Binding of Gdown1 fragments to Pol II. Immobilized GST or GST-Gdown1 proteins were incubated with HeLa nuclear extract in buffer C containing 0.1 or 0.3 M KCl and 0.1% NP-40. After washing with buffer C containing 0.1 or 0.3 M KCl and 0.1% NP-40, bound proteins were analyzed by immunoblot. ce, In vitro transcription assays. Reactions contained 10 ng of TBP, 10 ng of TFIIB, 25 ng of TFIIF, 10 ng of TFIIEα, 5 ng of TFIIEβ, 50 ng of Pol II or Pol II(G), and the indicated amounts of His-tagged full-length Gdown1 or C-terminal deletion fragments. Reactions were incubated at 30 °C for 1 h, and purified RNA products were resolved by PAGE. f, Pol II binding assay. Full-length Gdown1 and C-terminal deletion fragments were incubated with Pol II in buffer C containing 0.1 M KCl and 0.1% NP-40 for 1 h and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-CTD antibody (8W16). Bound proteins were analyzed by immunoblot. g, h, Pol II binding assay. Immobilized GST and GST-Gdown1 proteins were incubated with HeLa nuclear extract in buffer C containing 0.1 or 0.3 M KCl and 0.1% NP-40. After washing, bound proteins were analyzed by immunoblot. i, Pol II binding assay. Immobilized GST and GST-Gdown1 proteins were incubated with purified Pol II in buffer C containing 0.1 M KCl and 0.1% NP-40. After washing, bound proteins were analyzed by immunoblot. j, Schematic of the GST-fused Gdown1 fragments that were used in gi. Amino acid residues (L303/4) that were changed to alanine by site-directed mutagenesis are shown in a white triangle.

  4. Supplementary Figure 4 N-TIR and C-TIR stabilize Pol II binding region I interaction with Pol II.

    a, Pol II binding assay. Full-length Gdown1 and the indicated N-terminal deletion mutant fragment were incubated with Pol II and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-CTD antibody (8W16). Bound proteins were analyzed by immunoblot. b, EMSA with wild-type and N-terminal deletion mutant proteins. An end-labeled adenovirus ML promoter (–40 to +20) probe was incubated with 10 ng of TFIIB, 10 ng of TBP, 50 ng of TFIIF, and 50 ng of Pol II or Pol II(G). Indicated amounts of Gdown1 proteins were added to reactions. Reactions were incubated at 30 °C for 40 min and resolved by native PAGE. c, Location of Gdown1 functional domains determined by integrative modeling. C-TIR was found to exist as an overlapping region between the region (216–314) shown in dark green and the region (300–335) shown in light green. d, N-TIR location on Pol II relative to the Med2 position in the yeast Pol II–Mediator complex. A cross-link that was detected between Med2 and the RPB3 acidic region is shown in blue line.

  5. Supplementary Figure 5 The general scheme of integrative modeling.

    Integrative structure determination of the architecture of Pol II(G) proceeded through four stages: (1) data gathering, (2) representing subunits and translating data into spatial restraints, (3) configurational sampling to produce an ensemble of structures that satisfies the restraints, and (4) analyzing and validating the ensemble structures and data.

  6. Supplementary Figure 6 Validation for integrative modeling.

    a, Convergence of the model score, for the 1693 good-scoring models; the scores do not continue to improve as more models are computed essentially independently. The error bar represents the s.d. of the best scores, estimated by repeating sampling of models 100 times. b, Distribution of model scores for model samples 1 (red) and 2 (blue), comprising the 1693 good-scoring structures. c, Three criteria for determining the sampling precision (y-axis), evaluated as a function of the RMSD clustering threshold (x-axis). First, the P value is computed using the chi-squared test for homogeneity of proportions (red dots). Second, an effect size for the chi-squared test is quantified by Cramer’s V value (blue squares). Third, the population of models in sufficiently large clusters (containing at least ten models from each sample) is shown as green triangles. The vertical dotted black line indicates the RMSD clustering threshold at which three conditions are satisfied (P > 0.05, Cramer’s V < 0.10, and population of clustered models > 0.80), thus defining the sampling precision of 18.6 Å. d, Populations of sample 1 and 2 models in the two clusters obtained by threshold-based clustering using the RMSD threshold of 23.6 Å. The cluster contains 96.8% of the models. Cluster precision is shown for the cluster. The precision of the cluster defines the model precision. e, Euclidean Cα–Cα distance statistics for each cross-link in the cluster. The cross-links are sorted by average distance (ordinate axis). The error bars represent the s.d. of the distance across all models in the clusters. (Inset, Euclidean Cα–Cα distance distributions of all measured cross-links in the ensemble of solutions for the cluster. The y axis provides the normalized number of cross-links that were mapped onto the model. The dashed red line denotes the expected maximum reach of a cross-link.).

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Figures 1–6 and Supplementary Note

  2. Reporting Summary

  3. Supplementary Table 1

  4. Supplementary Dataset

    Uncropped gel and blot images

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-018-0118-5