Construction of a cytosolic firefly luciferase reporter cassette for use in PCR-mediated gene deletion and fusion in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Identification of different classes of genome instability suppressor genes through analysis of DNA damage response markers

Cellular pathways that detect DNA damage are useful for identifying genes that suppress DNA damage, which can cause genome instability and cancer predisposition syndromes when mutated. We identified 199 high-confidence and 530 low-confidence DNA damage-suppressing (DDS) genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae through a whole-genome screen for mutations inducing Hug1 expression, a focused screen for mutations inducing Ddc2 foci, and data from previous screens for mutations causing Rad52 foci accumulation and Rnr3 induction. We also identified 286 high-confidence and 394 low-confidence diverse genome instability-suppressing (DGIS) genes through a whole-genome screen for mutations resulting in increased gross chromosomal rearrangements and data from previous screens for mutations causing increased genome instability as assessed in a diversity of genome instability assays. Genes that suppress both pathways (DDS+ DGIS+) prevent or repair DNA replication damage and likely include genes preventing collisions between the replication and transcription machineries. DDS+ DGIS- genes, including many transcription-related genes, likely suppress damage that is normally repaired properly or prevent inappropriate signaling, whereas DDS- DGIS+ genes, like PIF1, do not suppress damage but likely promote its proper, nonmutagenic repair. Thus, induction of DNA damage markers is not a reliable indicator of increased genome instability, and the DDS and DGIS categories define mechanistically distinct groups of genes.

A Random Screen Using a Novel Reporter Assay System Reveals a Set of Sequences That Are Preferred as the TATA or TATA-Like Elements in the CYC1 Promoter of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the core promoters of class II genes contain either TATA or TATA-like elements to direct accurate transcriptional initiation. Genome-wide analyses show that the consensus sequence of the TATA element is TATAWAWR (8 bp), whereas TATA-like elements carry one or two mismatches to this consensus. The fact that several functionally distinct TATA sequences have been identified indicates that these elements may function, at least to some extent, in a gene-specific manner. The purpose of the present study was to identify functional TATA sequences enriched in one particular core promoter and compare them with the TATA or TATA-like elements that serve as the pre-initiation complex (PIC) assembly sites on the yeast genome. For this purpose, we conducted a randomized screen of the TATA element in the CYC1 promoter by using a novel reporter assay system and identified several hundreds of unique sequences that were tentatively classified into nine groups. The results indicated that the 7 bp TATA element (i.e., TATAWAD) and several sets of TATA-like sequences are preferred specifically by this promoter. Furthermore, we find that the most frequently isolated TATA-like sequence, i.e., TATTTAAA, is actually utilized as a functional core promoter element for the endogenous genes, e.g., ADE5,7 and ADE6. Collectively, these results indicate that the sequence requirements for the functional TATA or TATA-like elements in one particular core promoter are not as stringent. However, the variation of these sequences differs significantly from that of the PIC assembly sites on the genome, presumably depending on promoter structures and reflecting the gene-specific function of these sequences.

Cytoplasmic localization of Hug1p, a negative regulator of the MEC1 pathway, coincides with the compartmentalization of Rnr2p-Rnr4p

The evolutionarily conserved MEC1 checkpoint pathway mediates cell cycle arrest and induction of genes including the RNR (Ribonucleotide reductase) genes and HUG1 (Hydroxyurea, ultraviolet, and gamma radiation) in response to DNA damage and replication arrest. Rnr complex activity is in part controlled by cytoplasmic localization of the Rnr2p-Rnr4p subunits and inactivation of negative regulators Sml1p and Dif1p upon DNA damage and hydroxyurea (HU) treatment. We previously showed that a deletion of HUG1 rescues lethality of mec1Δ and suppresses dun1Δ strains. In this study, multiple approaches demonstrate the regulatory response of Hug1p to DNA damage and HU treatment and support its role as a negative effector of the MEC1 pathway. Consistent with our hypothesis, wild-type cells are sensitive to DNA damage and HU when HUG1 is overexpressed. A Hug1 polyclonal antiserum reveals that HUG1 encodes a protein in budding yeast and its MEC1-dependent expression is delayed compared to the rapid induction of Rnr3p in response to HU treatment. Cell biology and subcellular fractionation experiments show localization of Hug1p-GFP to the cytoplasm upon HU treatment. The cytoplasmic localization of Hug1p-GFP is dependent on MEC1 pathway genes and coincides with the cytoplasmic localization of Rnr2p-Rnr4p. Taken together, the genetic interactions, gene expression, and localization studies support a novel role for Hug1p as a negative regulator of the MEC1 checkpoint response through its compartmentalization with Rnr2p-Rnr4p.