Yueh-Chin Chiang

CCR4, a 3'-5' poly(A) RNA and ssDNA exonuclease, is the catalytic component of the cytoplasmic deadenylase.

The CCR4–NOT complex from Saccharomyces cerevis iae is a general transcriptional regulatory complex. The proteins of this complex are involved in several aspects of mRNA metabolism, including transcription initiation and elongation and mRNA degradation. The evolutionarily conserved CCR4 protein, which is part of the cytoplasmic deadenylase, contains a C‐terminal domain that displays homology to an Mg2+‐dependent DNase/phosphatase family of proteins. We have analyzed the putative enzymatic properties of CCR4 and have found that it contains both RNA and single‐stranded DNA 3′–5′ exonuclease activities. CCR4 displays a preference for RNA and for 3′ poly(A) substrates, implicating it as the catalytic component of the cytoplasmic deadenylase. Mutations in the key, conserved catalytic residues in the CCR4 exonuclease domain abolished both its in vitro activities and its in vivo functions. Importantly, CCR4 was active as a monomer and remained active in the absence of CAF1, which links CCR4 to the remainder of the CCR4–NOT complex components. These results establish that CCR4 and most probably other members of a widely distributed CCR4‐like family of proteins constitute a novel class of RNA–DNA exonucleases. The various regulatory effects of the CCR4–NOT complex on gene expression may be executed in part through these CCR4 exonuclease activities.

THE CCR4 AND CAF1 PROTEINS OF THE CCR4-NOT COMPLEX ARE PHYSICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY SEPARATED FROM NOT2, NOT4, AND NOT5

ABSTRACT The CCR4-NOT complex (1 mDa in size), consisting of the proteins CCR4, CAF1, and NOT1 to NOT5, regulates gene expression both positively and negatively and is distinct from other large transcriptional complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae such as SNF/SWI, TFIID, SAGA, and RNA polymerase II holoenzyme. The physical and genetic interactions between the components of the CCR4-NOT complex were investigated in order to gain insight into how this complex affects the expression of diverse genes and processes. The CAF1 protein was found to be absolutely required for CCR4 association with the NOT proteins, and CCR4 and CAF1, in turn, physically interacted with NOT1 through its central amino acid region from positions 667 to 1152. The NOT3, NOT4, and NOT5 proteins had no significant effect on the association of CCR4, CAF1, and NOT1 with each other. In contrast, the NOT2, NOT4, and NOT5 interacted with the C-terminal region (residues 1490 to 2108) of NOT1 in which NOT2 and NOT5 physically associated in the absence of CAF1, NOT3, and NOT4. These and other data indicate that the physical ordering of these proteins in the complex is CCR4-CAF1-NOT1-(NOT2, NOT5), with NOT4 and NOT3 more peripheral to NOT2 and NOT5. The physical separation of CCR4 and CAF1 from other components of the CCR4-NOT complex correlated with genetic analysis indicating partially separate functions for these two groups of proteins. ccr4or caf1 deletion suppressed the increased 3-aminotriazole resistance phenotype conferred by not mutations, resulted in opposite effects on gene expression as compared to severalnot mutations, and resulted in a number of synthetic phenotypes in combination with not mutations. These results define the CCR4-NOT complex as consisting of at least two physically and functionally separated groups of proteins.

Characterization of CAF4 and CAF16 Reveals a Functional Connection between the CCR4-NOT Complex and a Subset of SRB Proteins of the RNA Polymerase II Holoenzyme

The CCR4-NOT transcriptional regulatory complex affects transcription both positively and negatively and consists of the following two complexes: a core 1 × 106dalton (1 MDa) complex consisting of CCR4, CAF1, and the five NOT proteins and a larger, less defined 1.9-MDa complex. We report here the identification of two new factors that associate with the CCR4-NOT proteins as follows: CAF4, a WD40-containing protein, and CAF16, a putative ABC ATPase. Whereas neither CAF4 nor CAF16 was part of the core CCR4-NOT complex, both CAF16 and CAF4 appeared to be present in the 1.9-MDa complex. CAF4 also displayed physical interactions with multiple CCR4-NOT components and with DBF2, a likely component of the 1.9-MDa complex. In addition, both CAF4 and CAF16 were found to interact in a CCR4-dependent manner with SRB9, a component of the SRB complex that is part of the yeast RNA polymerase II holoenzyme. The three related SRB proteins, SRB9, SRB10, and SRB11, were found to interact with and to coimmunoprecipitate DBF2, CAF4, CCR4, NOT2, and NOT1. Defects in SRB9 and SRB10 also affected processes at the ADH2 locus known to be controlled by components of the CCR4-NOT complex; an srb9 mutation was shown to reduceADH2 derepression and either an srb9 orsrb10 allele suppressed spt10-enhanced expression of ADH2. In addition, srb9 andsrb10 alleles increasedADR1 c -dependent ADH2expression; not4 and not5 deletions are the only other known defects that elicit this phenotype. These results suggest a close physical and functional association between components of the CCR4-NOT complexes and the SRB9, -10, and -11 components of the holoenzyme.

DBF2 Protein Kinase Binds to and Acts through the Cell Cycle-Regulated MOB1 Protein

ABSTRACT The DBF2 gene of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae encodes a cell cycle-regulated protein kinase that plays an important role in the telophase/G1 transition. As a component of the multisubunit CCR4 transcriptional complex, DBF2 is also involved in the regulation of gene expression. We have found that MOB1, an essential protein required for a late mitotic event in the cell cycle, genetically and physically interacts with DBF2. DBF2 binds MOB1 in vivo and can bind it in vitro in the absence of other yeast proteins. We found that the expression of MOB1 is also cell cycle regulated, its expression peaking slightly before that of DBF2 at the G2/M boundary. While overexpression of DBF2 suppressed phenotypes associated withmob1 temperature-sensitive alleles, it could not suppress amob1 deletion. In contrast, overexpression of MOB1 suppressed phenotypes associated with adbf2-deleted strain and suppressed the lethality associated with a dbf2 dbf20 double deletion. A mob1temperature-sensitive allele with a dbf2 disruption was also found to be synthetically lethal. These results are consistent with DBF2 acting through MOB1 and aiding in its function. Moreover, the ability of temperature-sensitive mutated versions of the MOB1 protein to interact with DBF2 was severely reduced, confirming that binding of DBF2 to MOB1 is required for a late mitotic event. While MOB1 and DBF2 were found to be capable of physically associating in a complex that did not include CCR4, MOB1 did interact with other components of the CCR4 transcriptional complex. We discuss models concerning the role of DBF2 and MOB1 in controlling the telophase/G1 transition.

DBF2, a cell cycle-regulated protein kinase, is physically and functionally associated with the CCR4 transcriptional regulatory complex.

CCR4, a general transcriptional regulator affecting the expression of a number of genes in yeast, forms a multi‐subunit complex in vivo. Using the yeast two‐hybrid screen, we have identified DBF2, a cell cycle‐regulated protein kinase, as a CCR4‐associated protein. DBF2 is required for cell cycle progression at the telophase to G1 cell cycle transition. DBF2 co‐immunoprecipitated with CCR4 and CAF1/POP2, a CCR4‐associated factor, and co‐purified with the CCR4 complex. Moreover, a dbf2 disruption resulted in phenotypes and transcriptional defects similar to those observed in strains deficient for CCR4 or CAF1. ccr4 and caf1 mutations, on the other hand, were found to affect cell cycle progression in a manner similar to that observed for dbf2 defects. These data indicate that DBF2 is involved in the control of gene expression and suggest that the CCR4 complex regulates transcription during the late mitotic part of the cell cycle.

ADR1 Activation Domains Contact the Histone Acetyltransferase GCN5 and the Core Transcriptional Factor TFIIB

The yeast transcriptional activator ADR1, which is required for ADH2 and peroxisomal gene expression, contains four separable and partially redundant activation domains (TADs). Mutations in ADA2 or GCN5, encoding components of the ADA coactivator complex involved in histone acetylation, severely reduced LexA-ADR1-TAD activation of a LexA-lacZ reporter gene. Similarly, the ability of the wild-type ADR1 gene to activate an ADH2-driven promoter was compromised in strains deleted for ADA2 or GCN5. In contrast, defects in other general transcription cofactors such as CCR4, CAF1/POP2, and SNF/SWI displayed much less or no effect on LexA-ADR1-TAD activation. Using an in vitro protein binding assay, ADA2 and GCN5 were found to specifically contact individual ADR1 TADs. ADA2 could bind TAD II, and GCN5 physically interacted with all four TADs. Both TADs I and IV were also shown to make specific contacts to the C-terminal segment of TFIIB. In contrast, no significant binding to TBP was observed. TAD IV deletion analysis indicated that its ability to bind GCN5 and TFIIB was directly correlated with its ability to activate transcription in vivo. ADR1 TADs appear to make several contacts, which may help explain both their partial redundancy and their varying requirements at different promoters. The contact to and dependence on GCN5, a histone acetyltransferase, suggests that rearrangement of nucleosomes may be one important means by which ADR1 activates transcription.

Mass spectrometric identification of proteins that interact through specific domains of the poly(A) binding protein

Poly(A) binding protein (PAB1) is involved in a number of RNA metabolic functions in eukaryotic cells and correspondingly is suggested to associate with a number of proteins. We have used mass spectrometric analysis to identify 55 non-ribosomal proteins that specifically interact with PAB1 from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Because many of these factors may associate only indirectly with PAB1 by being components of the PAB1-mRNP structure, we additionally conducted mass spectrometric analyses on seven metabolically defined PAB1 deletion derivatives to delimit the interactions between these proteins and PAB1. These latter analyses identified 13 proteins whose associations with PAB1 were reduced by deleting one or another of PAB1’s defined domains. Included in this list of 13 proteins were the translation initiation factors eIF4G1 and eIF4G2, translation termination factor eRF3, and PBP2, all of whose previously known direct interactions with specific PAB1 domains were either confirmed, delimited, or extended. The remaining nine proteins that interacted through a specific PAB1 domain were CBF5, SLF1, UPF1, CBC1, SSD1, NOP77, yGR250c, NAB6, and GBP2. In further study, UPF1, involved in nonsense-mediated decay, was confirmed to interact with PAB1 through the RRM1 domain. We additionally established that while the RRM1 domain of PAB1 was required for UPF1-induced acceleration of deadenylation during nonsense-mediated decay, it was not required for the more critical step of acceleration of mRNA decapping. These results begin to identify the proteins most likely to interact with PAB1 and the domains of PAB1 through which these contacts are made.

The RRM1 domain of the poly(A)-binding protein from Saccharomyces cerevisiae is critical to control of mRNA deadenylation

The poly(A)-binding protein PAB1 from the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae plays an important role in controlling mRNA deadenylation rates. Deletion of either its RRM1 or proline-rich domain (P domain) severely restricts deadenylation and slows mRNA degradation. Because these large deletions could be having unknown effects on the structure of PAB1, different strategies were used to determine the importance of the RRM1 and P domains to deadenylation. Since the P domain is quite variable in size and sequence among eukaryotes, P domains from two human PABPCs and from Xenopus were substituted for that of PAB1. The resultant PAB1 hybrid proteins, however, displayed limited or no difference in mRNA deadenylation as compared with PAB1. In contrast to the P domain, the RRM1 domain is highly conserved across species, and a systematic mutagenesis of the RRM1 domain was undertaken to identify its functional regions. Several mutations along the RNA-binding surface of RRM1 inhibited deadenylation, whereas one set of mutations on its exterior non-RNA binding surface shifted deadenylation from a slow distributive process to a rapid processive deadenylation. These results suggest that the RRM1 domain is the more critical region of PAB1 for controlling deadenylation and consists of at least two distinguishable functional regions.

Stoichiometry and Change of the mRNA Closed-Loop Factors as Translating Ribosomes Transit from Initiation to Elongation.

Protein synthesis is a highly efficient process and is under exacting control. Yet, the actual abundance of translation factors present in translating complexes and how these abundances change during the transit of a ribosome across an mRNA remains unknown. Using analytical ultracentrifugation with fluorescent detection we have determined the stoichiometry of the closed-loop translation factors for translating ribosomes. A variety of pools of translating polysomes and monosomes were identified, each containing different abundances of the closed-loop factors eIF4E, eIF4G, and PAB1 and that of the translational repressor, SBP1. We establish that closed-loop factors eIF4E/eIF4G dissociated both as ribosomes transited polyadenylated mRNA from initiation to elongation and as translation changed from the polysomal to monosomal state prior to cessation of translation. eIF4G was found to particularly dissociate from polyadenylated mRNA as polysomes moved to the monosomal state, suggesting an active role for translational repressors in this process. Consistent with this suggestion, translating complexes generally did not simultaneously contain eIF4E/eIF4G and SBP1, implying mutual exclusivity in such complexes. For substantially deadenylated mRNA, however, a second type of closed-loop structure was identified that contained just eIF4E and eIF4G. More than one eIF4G molecule per polysome appeared to be present in these complexes, supporting the importance of eIF4G interactions with the mRNA independent of PAB1. These latter closed-loop structures, which were particularly stable in polysomes, may be playing specific roles in both normal and disease states for specific mRNA that are deadenylated and/or lacking PAB1. These analyses establish a dynamic snapshot of molecular abundance changes during ribosomal transit across an mRNA in what are likely to be critical targets of regulation.