Regulation of Set1-mediated methylation of Dam1

Eukaryotic genomes exist within a dynamic structure named chromatin in which DNA is wrapped around an octamer of histones forming the nucleosome. Histones are modified by a range of posttranslational modifications including methylation, phosphorylation, and ubiquitination, which are integral to a range of DNA-templated processes including transcriptional regulation. A hallmark for transcriptional activity is methylation of histone H3 on lysine (K) 4 within active gene promoters. In S. cerevisiae, H3K4 methylation is mediated by Set1 within the COMPASS complex. Methylation requires prior ubiquitination of histone H2BK123 by the E2-E3 ligases Rad6 and Bre1, as well as the Paf1 transcriptional elongation complex. This regulatory pathway exemplifies cross-talk in trans between posttranslational modifications on distinct histone molecules. Set1 has an additional substrate in the kinetochore protein Dam1, which is methylated on K233. This methylation antagonizes phosphorylation of adjacent serines by the Ipl1 Aurora kinase. The discovery of a second Set1 substrate raised the question of how Set1 function is regulated at the kinetochore. I hypothesized that transcriptional regulatory factors essential for H3K4 methylation at gene promoters might also regulate Set1-mediated methylation of Dam1K233. Here I show that the regulatory factors essential for COMPASS activity at gene promoters is also indispensable for the methylation of Dam1K233. Deletion of members of the COMPASS complex leads to loss of Dam1K233 methylation. In addition, deletion of Rad6, Bre1, or members of the Paf1 complex abolishes Dam1 methylation. The role of Rad6 and Bre1 in Dam1 methylation is dependent on H2BK123 ubiquitination, as mutation of K123 within H2B results in complete loss of Dam1 methylation. Importantly, methylation of Dam1K233 is independent of transcription and occurs at the kinetochore. My results demonstrate that Set1-mediated methylation is regulated by a general pathway regardless of substrate that is composed of transcriptional regulatory factors functioning independently of transcription at the kinetochore. My data provide the first example of cross-talk in trans between modifications on a histone and a non-histone protein. Additionally, my results indicate that several factors previously thought to be required for Set1 function at gene promoters are more generally required for the catalytic activity of the COMPASS complex regardless of substrate or cellular process.

THE DOMAINS OF THE CATALYTIC SUBUNIT OF THE EUKARYOTIC RNA DEGRADING EXOSOME, RRP44P, HAVE DISTINCT FUNCTIONS

The exosome is a 3’ to 5’ exoribonuclease complex that consists of ten essential subunits. In the cytoplasm, the exosome degrades mRNA in a general mRNA turnover pathway and in several mRNA surveillance pathways. In the nucleus, the exosome processes RNA precursors to form small, stable, mature RNA species, including rRNA, snRNA, and snoRNA. In addition to processing these RNAs, the nuclear exosome is also involved in degrading aberrantly processed forms of these RNAs, and others, including mRNA. The 3’ to 5’ exoribonuclease activity of the exosome is contributed by the RNB domain of the only catalytically active subunit, Rrp44p, a member of the RNase II family of enzymes. In addition to the RNB domain, Rrp44p consists of three putative RNA binding domains and has an uncharacterized N-terminus, which includes a CR3 region and PIN domain. In an effort to characterize the cellular functions of the domains of Rrp44p, this study identified a second nuclease active site in the PIN domain. Specifically, the PIN domain exhibits endoribonuclease activity in vitro and is essential for exosome function. Further analysis of the nuclease activities of Rrp44p indicate a role for the exoribonuclease activity of Rrp44p in the cytoplasmic and nuclear exosome. This work has also characterized the CR3 region of Rrp44p, a region that has not yet been characterized in any other protein. This region is needed for the majority, if not all, of the cytoplasmic exosome functions as well as for interaction with the exosome. The CR3 region, along with a histidine residue in the N-terminus of Rrp44p, may coordinate a zinc atom. Preliminary evidence supports a role for this coordination in exosome function. Further investigation, however, is needed to determine the molecular dependence of the exosome on the CR3 region of Rrp44p. Despite its initial discovery thirteen years ago, the essential function of Rrp44p, and the exosome, is not yet known. The studies presented here, however, indicate that the essential function of Rrp44p and the exosome is in the nucleus and depends on the nuclease activities of Rrp44p.

DOUBLE-STRAND BREAK REPAIR PATHWAYS IN DNA STRUCTURE-INDUCED GENETIC INSTABILITY

Genetic instability in mammalian cells can occur by many different mechanisms. In the absence of exogenous sources of DNA damage, the DNA structure itself has been implicated in genetic instability. When the canonical B-DNA helix is naturally altered to form a non-canonical DNA structure such as a Z-DNA or H-DNA, this can lead to genetic instability in the form of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) (1, 2). Our laboratory found that the stability of these non-B DNA structures was different in mammals versus Escherichia coli (E.coli) bacteria (1, 2). One explanation for the difference between these species may be a result of how DSBs are repaired within each species. Non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) is primed to repair DSBs in mammalian cells, while bacteria that lack NHEJ (such as E.coli), utilize homologous recombination (HR) to repair DSBs. To investigate the role of the error-prone NHEJ repair pathway in DNA structure-induced genetic instability, E.coli cells were modified to express genes to allow for a functional NHEJ system under different HR backgrounds. The Mycobacterium tuberculosis NHEJ sufficient system is composed of Ku and Ligase D (LigD) (3). These inducible NHEJ components were expressed individually and together in E.coli cells, with or without functional HR (RecA/RecB), and the Z-DNA and H-DNA-induced mutations were characterized. The Z-DNA structure gave rise to higher mutation frequencies compared to the controls, regardless of the DSB repair pathway(s) available; however, the type of mutants produced after repair was greatly dictated on the available DSB repair system, indicated by the shift from 2% large-scale deletions in the total mutant population to 24% large-scale deletions when NHEJ was present (4). This suggests that NHEJ has a role in the large deletions induced by Z-DNA-forming sequences. H-DNA structure, however, did not exhibit an increase in mutagenesis in the newly engineered E.coli environment, suggesting the involvement of other factors in regulating H-DNA formation/stability in bacterial cells. Accurate repair by established DNA DSB repair pathways is essential to maintain the stability of eukaryotic and prokaryotic genomes and our results suggest that an error-prone NHEJ pathway was involved in non-B DNA structure-induced mutagenesis in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

Poly(A)-binding protein-interacting protein 1 binds to eukaryotic translation initiation factor 3 to stimulate translation.

Poly(A)-binding protein (PABP) stimulates translation initiation by binding simultaneously to the mRNA poly(A) tail and eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4G (eIF4G). PABP activity is regulated by PABP-interacting (Paip) proteins. Paip1 binds PABP and stimulates translation by an unknown mechanism. Here, we describe the interaction between Paip1 and eIF3, which is direct, RNA independent, and mediated via the eIF3g (p44) subunit. Stimulation of translation by Paip1 in vivo was decreased upon deletion of the N-terminal sequence containing the eIF3-binding domain and upon silencing of PABP or several eIF3 subunits. We also show the formation of ternary complexes composed of Paip1-PABP-eIF4G and Paip1-eIF3-eIF4G. Taken together, these data demonstrate that the eIF3-Paip1 interaction promotes translation. We propose that eIF3-Paip1 stabilizes the interaction between PABP and eIF4G, which brings about the circularization of the mRNA.

Biological diversity of prokaryotic type IV secretion systems.

Type IV secretion systems (T4SS) translocate DNA and protein substrates across prokaryotic cell envelopes generally by a mechanism requiring direct contact with a target cell. Three types of T4SS have been described: (i) conjugation systems, operationally defined as machines that translocate DNA substrates intercellularly by a contact-dependent process; (ii) effector translocator systems, functioning to deliver proteins or other macromolecules to eukaryotic target cells; and (iii) DNA release/uptake systems, which translocate DNA to or from the extracellular milieu. Studies of a few paradigmatic systems, notably the conjugation systems of plasmids F, R388, RP4, and pKM101 and the Agrobacterium tumefaciens VirB/VirD4 system, have supplied important insights into the structure, function, and mechanism of action of type IV secretion machines. Information on these systems is updated, with emphasis on recent exciting structural advances. An underappreciated feature of T4SS, most notably of the conjugation subfamily, is that they are widely distributed among many species of gram-negative and -positive bacteria, wall-less bacteria, and the Archaea. Conjugation-mediated lateral gene transfer has shaped the genomes of most if not all prokaryotes over evolutionary time and also contributed in the short term to the dissemination of antibiotic resistance and other virulence traits among medically important pathogens. How have these machines adapted to function across envelopes of distantly related microorganisms? A survey of T4SS functioning in phylogenetically diverse species highlights the biological complexity of these translocation systems and identifies common mechanistic themes as well as novel adaptations for specialized purposes relating to the modulation of the donor-target cell interaction.

Biological diversity of prokaryotic type IV secretion systems.

Type IV secretion systems (T4SS) translocate DNA and protein substrates across prokaryotic cell envelopes generally by a mechanism requiring direct contact with a target cell. Three types of T4SS have been described: (i) conjugation systems, operationally defined as machines that translocate DNA substrates intercellularly by a contact-dependent process; (ii) effector translocator systems, functioning to deliver proteins or other macromolecules to eukaryotic target cells; and (iii) DNA release/uptake systems, which translocate DNA to or from the extracellular milieu. Studies of a few paradigmatic systems, notably the conjugation systems of plasmids F, R388, RP4, and pKM101 and the Agrobacterium tumefaciens VirB/VirD4 system, have supplied important insights into the structure, function, and mechanism of action of type IV secretion machines. Information on these systems is updated, with emphasis on recent exciting structural advances. An underappreciated feature of T4SS, most notably of the conjugation subfamily, is that they are widely distributed among many species of gram-negative and -positive bacteria, wall-less bacteria, and the Archaea. Conjugation-mediated lateral gene transfer has shaped the genomes of most if not all prokaryotes over evolutionary time and also contributed in the short term to the dissemination of antibiotic resistance and other virulence traits among medically important pathogens. How have these machines adapted to function across envelopes of distantly related microorganisms? A survey of T4SS functioning in phylogenetically diverse species highlights the biological complexity of these translocation systems and identifies common mechanistic themes as well as novel adaptations for specialized purposes relating to the modulation of the donor-target cell interaction.

The eukaryotic cellular stress response: Biochemical and genetic analyses in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

All cells must have the ability to deal with a variety of environmental stresses. Failure to correctly adapt to and/or protect against adverse stress conditions can lead to cell death. In humans, stress response defects have been linked to a number of neurodegenerative diseases and cancer, underscoring the importance of developing a fundamental understanding of the eukaryotic stress response.^ In an effort to characterize cellular response to high temperature stress, I identified and described one member of a novel gene family— RTR1. I show that the RTR1 gene and its protein product genetically and biochemically interact with core subunits of the RNA polymerase II enzyme. Appropriately, loss of RTR1 results in defective transcription from multiple promoters. These data provide evidence that Rtr1, which is essential under stress conditions, acts as a key regulator of transcription.^ In addition to transcriptional regulation, cells deal with many stressors by inducing molecular chaperones. Molecular chaperones are ubiquitous in all living cells and bind unfolded or damaged proteins and catalyze refolding or degradation. Hsp90 is a unique chaperone because it targets specific clients—typically signaling proteins—for maturation. While it has been shown that Sse1, the yeast Hsp110, is a critical regulator of the Hsp90 chaperone cycle, this work describes the molecular basis for that regulation. I show that Sse1 modulates Hsp90 function through regulation of Hsp70 nucleotide exchange. Further, Hsp110-type nucleotide exchange factors (NEFs) appear to have a specific role in modulating Hsp90 function in this manner. Finally, in addition to Hsp110, the eukaryotic cytosol contains two other types of Hsp70 NEF: Snl1 (BAG-domain protein) and Fes1 (HspBP1-like protein). I investigated the cellular roles of these NEFs to better understand the reason that eukaryotic cells contain three distinct protein families that perform the same biochemical function. I show that while cytsolic Hsp70 NEFs have some degree of functional overlap, they also exhibit striking divergence. Taken together, the work presented in this dissertation provides a more detailed understanding of the eukaryotic stress response. ^