Transcriptional activation in the context of repression mediated by archaeal histones

Archaeal histone-based chromatin structures regulate transcription elongation rates

Many archaea encode and express histone proteins to compact their genomes. Archaeal and eukaryotic histones share a near-identical fold that permits DNA wrapping through select histone-DNA contacts to generate chromatin-structures that must be traversed by RNA polymerase (RNAP) to generate transcripts. As archaeal histones can spontaneously assemble with a single histone isoform, single-histone chromatin variants provide an idealized platform to detail the impacts of distinct histone-DNA contacts on transcription efficiencies and to detail the role of the conserved cleavage stimulatory factor, Transcription Factor S (TFS), in assisting RNAP through chromatin landscapes. We demonstrate that substitution of histone residues that modify histone-DNA contacts or the three-dimensional chromatin structure result in radically altered transcription elongation rates and pausing patterns. Chromatin-barriers slow and pause RNAP, providing regulatory potential. The modest impacts of TFS on elongation rates through chromatin landscapes is correlated with TFS-dispensability from the archaeon Thermococcus kodakarensis. Our results detail the importance of distinct chromatin structures for archaeal gene expression and provide a unique perspective on the evolution of, and regulatory strategies imposed by, eukaryotic chromatin.

DNA-bridging by an archaeal histone variant via a unique tetramerisation interface

In eukaryotes, histone paralogues form obligate heterodimers such as H3/H4 and H2A/H2B that assemble into octameric nucleosome particles. Archaeal histones are dimeric and assemble on DNA into 'hypernucleosome' particles of varying sizes with each dimer wrapping 30 bp of DNA. These are composed of canonical and variant histone paralogues, but the function of these variants is poorly understood. Here, we characterise the structure and function of the histone paralogue MJ1647 from Methanocaldococcus jannaschii that has a unique C-terminal extension enabling homotetramerisation. The 1.9 Å X-ray structure of a dimeric MJ1647 species, structural modelling of the tetramer, and site-directed mutagenesis reveal that the C-terminal tetramerization module consists of two alpha helices in a handshake arrangement. Unlike canonical histones, MJ1647 tetramers can bridge two DNA molecules in vitro. Using single-molecule tethered particle motion and DNA binding assays, we show that MJ1647 tetramers bind ~60 bp DNA and compact DNA in a highly cooperative manner. We furthermore show that MJ1647 effectively competes with the transcription machinery to block access to the promoter in vitro. To the best of our knowledge, MJ1647 is the first histone shown to have DNA bridging properties, which has important implications for genome structure and gene expression in archaea.

Histone variants in archaea - An undiscovered country

Exchanging core histones in the nucleosome for paralogous variants can have important functional ramifications. Many of these variants, and their physiological roles, have been characterized in exquisite detail in model eukaryotes, including humans. In comparison, our knowledge of histone biology in archaea remains rudimentary. This is true in particular for our knowledge of histone variants. Many archaea encode several histone genes that differ in sequence, but do these paralogs make distinct, adaptive contributions to genome organization and regulation in a manner comparable to eukaryotes? Below, we review what we know about histone variants in archaea at the level of structure, regulation, and evolution. In all areas, our knowledge pales when compared to the wealth of insight that has been gathered for eukaryotes. Recent findings, however, provide tantalizing glimpses into a rich and largely undiscovered country that is at times familiar and eukaryote-like and at times strange and uniquely archaeal. We sketch a preliminary roadmap for further exploration of this country; an undertaking that may ultimately shed light not only on chromatin biology in archaea but also on the origin of histone-based chromatin in eukaryotes.

Role of the histone tails in histone octamer transfer

The exceptionally high positive charge of the histones, concentrated in the N- and C-terminal tails, is believed to contribute to the stability of the nucleosome by neutralizing the negative charge of the nucleosomal DNA. We find, on the contrary, that the high positive charge contributes to instability, performing an essential function in chromatin remodeling. We show that the tails are required for removal of the histone octamer by the RSC chromatin remodeling complex, and this function is not due to direct RSC-tail interaction. We also show that the tails are required for histone octamer transfer from nucleosomes to DNA, and this activity of the tails is a consequence of their positive charge. Thus, the histone tails, intrinsically disordered protein regions, perform a critical role in chromatin structure and transcription, unrelated to their well-known role in regulation through posttranscriptional modification.

Specific DNA binding of archaeal histones HMfA and HMfB

In archaea, histones play a role in genome compaction and are involved in transcription regulation. Whereas archaeal histones bind DNA without sequence specificity, they bind preferentially to DNA containing repeats of alternating A/T and G/C motifs. These motifs are also present on the artificial sequence "Clone20," a high-affinity model sequence for binding of the histones from Methanothermus fervidus. Here, we investigate the binding of HMfA and HMfB to Clone20 DNA. We show that specific binding at low protein concentrations (<30 nM) yields a modest level of DNA compaction, attributed to tetrameric nucleosome formation, whereas nonspecific binding strongly compacts DNA. We also demonstrate that histones impaired in hypernucleosome formation are still able to recognize the Clone20 sequence. Histone tetramers indeed exhibit a higher binding affinity for Clone20 than nonspecific DNA. Our results indicate that a high-affinity DNA sequence does not act as a nucleation site, but is bound by a tetramer which we propose is geometrically different from the hypernucleosome. Such a mode of histone binding might permit sequence-driven modulation of hypernucleosome size. These findings might be extrapolated to histone variants that do not form hypernucleosomes. Versatile binding modes of histones could provide a platform for functional interplay between genome compaction and transcription.

In Vitro Transcription Assay for Archaea Belonging to Sulfolobales

Archaeal transcription and its regulation are characterized by a mosaic of eukaryotic and bacterial features. Molecular analysis of the functioning of the archaeal RNA polymerase, basal transcription factors, and specific promoter-containing DNA templates allows to unravel the mechanisms of transcription regulation in archaea. In vitro transcription is a technique that allows the study of this process in a simplified and controlled environment less complex than the archaeal cell. In this chapter, we present an in vitro transcription methodology for the study of transcription in Sulfolobales. It is described how to purify the RNA polymerase and the basal transcription factors TATA-binding protein and transcription factor B of Saccharolobus solfataricus and how to perform in vitro transcription reactions and transcript detection. Application of this protocol for other archaeal species could require minor modifications to protein overexpression and purification conditions.

An archaeal histone-like protein regulates gene expression in response to salt stress

Histones, ubiquitous in eukaryotes as DNA-packing proteins, find their evolutionary origins in archaea. Unlike the characterized histone proteins of a number of methanogenic and themophilic archaea, previous research indicated that HpyA, the sole histone encoded in the model halophile Halobacterium salinarum, is not involved in DNA packaging. Instead, it was found to have widespread but subtle effects on gene expression and to maintain wild type cell morphology. However, the precise function of halophilic histone-like proteins remain unclear. Here we use quantitative phenotyping, genetics, and functional genomics to investigate HpyA function. These experiments revealed that HpyA is important for growth and rod-shaped morphology in reduced salinity. HpyA preferentially binds DNA at discrete genomic sites under low salt to regulate expression of ion uptake, particularly iron. HpyA also globally but indirectly activates other ion uptake and nucleotide biosynthesis pathways in a salt-dependent manner. Taken together, these results demonstrate an alternative function for an archaeal histone-like protein as a transcriptional regulator, with its function tuned to the physiological stressors of the hypersaline environment.

Extended Archaeal Histone-Based Chromatin Structure Regulates Global Gene Expression in Thermococcus kodakarensis

Histone proteins compact and organize DNA resulting in a dynamic chromatin architecture impacting DNA accessibility and ultimately gene expression. Eukaryotic chromatin landscapes are structured through histone protein variants, epigenetic marks, the activities of chromatin-remodeling complexes, and post-translational modification of histone proteins. In most Archaea, histone-based chromatin structure is dominated by the helical polymerization of histone proteins wrapping DNA into a repetitive and closely gyred configuration. The formation of the archaeal-histone chromatin-superhelix is a regulatory force of adaptive gene expression and is likely critical for regulation of gene expression in all histone-encoding Archaea. Single amino acid substitutions in archaeal histones that block formation of tightly packed chromatin structures have profound effects on cellular fitness, but the underlying gene expression changes resultant from an altered chromatin landscape have not been resolved. Using the model organism Thermococcus kodakarensis, we genetically alter the chromatin landscape and quantify the resultant changes in gene expression, including unanticipated and significant impacts on provirus transcription. Global transcriptome changes resultant from varying chromatin landscapes reveal the regulatory importance of higher-order histone-based chromatin architectures in regulating archaeal gene expression.

Archaeal transcription

Increasingly sophisticated biochemical and genetic techniques are unraveling the regulatory factors and mechanisms that control gene expression in the Archaea. While some similarities in regulatory strategies are universal, archaeal-specific regulatory strategies are emerging to complement a complex patchwork of shared archaeal-bacterial and archaeal-eukaryotic regulatory mechanisms employed in the archaeal domain. The prokaryotic archaea encode core transcription components with homology to the eukaryotic transcription apparatus and also share a simplified eukaryotic-like initiation mechanism, but also deploy tactics common to bacterial systems to regulate promoter usage and influence elongation-termination decisions. We review the recently established complete archaeal transcription cycle, highlight recent findings of the archaeal transcription community and detail the expanding post-initiation regulation imposed on archaeal transcription.

Primary Role of the Nucleosome

Whereas the core nucleosome is thought to serve as a packaging device for the coiling and contraction in length of genomic DNA, we suggest that it serves primarily in the regulation of transcription. A nucleosome on a promoter prevents the initiation of transcription. The association of nucleosomes with most genomic DNA prevents initiation from cryptic promoters. The nucleosome thus serves not only as a general gene repressor, but also as a repressor of all transcription (genic, intragenic, and intergenic). The core nucleosome performs a fundamental regulatory role, apart from the histone "tails," which modulate gene activity.

The origin of chromosomal histones in a 30S ribosomal protein

Histones are genes that regulate chromatin structure. They are present in both eukaryotes and archaea, and form nucleosomes with DNA, but their exact evolutionary origins have hitherto remained a mystery. A longstanding hypothesis is that they have precursors in ribosomal proteins with whom they share much in common in terms of size and chemistry. By examining the proteome of the Asgard archaeon, Lokiarchaeum, the most conserved of all the histones, H4, is found to plausibly be homologous with one of its 30S ribosomal proteins, RPS6. This is based on both sequence identity and statistical analysis. The N-terminal tail, containing key sites involved in post-translational modifications, is notably present in the precursor gene. Although other archaeal groups possess similar homologs, these are not as close to H4 as the one found in Lokiarchaeum. The other core histones, H2A, H2B and H3, appear to have also evolved from the same ribosomal protein. Parts of H4 are also similar to another ribosomal protein, namely RPS15, suggesting that the ancestral precursor could have resembled both. Eukaryotic histones, in addition, appear to have an independent origin to that of their archaeal counterparts that evolved from similar, but still different, 30S subunit proteins, some of which are much more like histones in terms of their physical structure. The nucleosome may, therefore, be not only of archaeal but also of ribosomal origin.

Chromatinization of Escherichia coli with archaeal histones

Nucleosomes restrict DNA accessibility throughout eukaryotic genomes, with repercussions for replication, transcription, and other DNA-templated processes. How this globally restrictive organization emerged during evolution remains poorly understood. Here, to better understand the challenges associated with establishing globally restrictive chromatin, we express histones in a naive system that has not evolved to deal with nucleosomal structures: Escherichia coli. We find that histone proteins from the archaeon Methanothermus fervidus assemble on the E. coli chromosome in vivo and protect DNA from micrococcal nuclease digestion, allowing us to map binding footprints genome-wide. We show that higher nucleosome occupancy at promoters is associated with lower transcript levels, consistent with local repressive effects. Surprisingly, however, this sudden enforced chromatinization has only mild repercussions for growth unless cells experience topological stress. Our results suggest that histones can become established as ubiquitous chromatin proteins without interfering critically with key DNA-templated processes.

The Role of Archaeal Chromatin in Transcription

Genomic organization impacts accessibility and movement of information processing systems along DNA. DNA-bound proteins dynamically dictate gene expression and provide regulatory potential to tune transcription rates to match ever-changing environmental conditions. Archaeal genomes are typically small, circular, gene dense, and organized either by histone proteins that are homologous to their eukaryotic counterparts, or small basic proteins that function analogously to bacterial nucleoid proteins. We review here how archaeal genomes are organized and how such organization impacts archaeal gene expression, focusing on conserved DNA-binding proteins within the clade and the factors that are known to impact transcription initiation and elongation within protein-bound genomes.

Old cogs, new tricks: the evolution of gene expression in a chromatin context

Sophisticated gene-regulatory mechanisms probably evolved in prokaryotes billions of years before the emergence of modern eukaryotes, which inherited the same basic enzymatic machineries. However, the epigenomic landscapes of eukaryotes are dominated by nucleosomes, which have acquired roles in genome packaging, mitotic condensation and silencing parasitic genomic elements. Although the molecular mechanisms by which nucleosomes are displaced and modified have been described, just how transcription factors, histone variants and modifications and chromatin regulators act on nucleosomes to regulate transcription is the subject of considerable ongoing study. We explore the extent to which these transcriptional regulatory components function in the context of the evolutionarily ancient role of chromatin as a barrier to processes acting on DNA and how chromatin proteins have diversified to carry out evolutionarily recent functions that accompanied the emergence of differentiation and development in multicellular eukaryotes.

Key Concepts and Challenges in Archaeal Transcription

Transcription is enabled by RNA polymerase and general factors that allow its progress through the transcription cycle by facilitating initiation, elongation and termination. The transitions between specific stages of the transcription cycle provide opportunities for the global and gene-specific regulation of gene expression. The exact mechanisms and the extent to which the different steps of transcription are exploited for regulation vary between the domains of life, individual species and transcription units. However, a surprising degree of conservation is apparent. Similar key steps in the transcription cycle can be targeted by homologous or unrelated factors providing insights into the mechanisms of RNAP and the evolution of the transcription machinery. Archaea are bona fide prokaryotes but employ a eukaryote-like transcription system to express the information of bacteria-like genomes. Thus, archaea provide the means not only to study transcription mechanisms of interesting model systems but also to test key concepts of regulation in this arena. In this review, we discuss key principles of archaeal transcription, new questions that still await experimental investigation, and how novel integrative approaches hold great promise to fill this gap in our knowledge.

Structure and function of archaeal histones

The genomes of all organisms throughout the tree of life are compacted and organized in chromatin by association of chromatin proteins. Eukaryotic genomes encode histones, which are assembled on the genome into octamers, yielding nucleosomes. Post-translational modifications of the histones, which occur mostly on their N-terminal tails, define the functional state of chromatin. Like eukaryotes, most archaeal genomes encode histones, which are believed to be involved in the compaction and organization of their genomes. Instead of discrete multimers, in vivo data suggest assembly of “nucleosomes” of variable size, consisting of multiples of dimers, which are able to induce repression of transcription. Based on these data and a model derived from X-ray crystallography, it was recently proposed that archaeal histones assemble on DNA into “endless” hypernucleosomes. In this review, we discuss the amino acid determinants of hypernucleosome formation and highlight differences with the canonical eukaryotic octamer. We identify archaeal histones differing from the consensus, which are expected to be unable to assemble into hypernucleosomes. Finally, we identify atypical archaeal histones with short N- or C-terminal extensions and C-terminal tails similar to the tails of eukaryotic histones, which are subject to post-translational modification. Based on the expected characteristics of these archaeal histones, we discuss possibilities of involvement of histones in archaeal transcription regulation.

Both Archaea and eukaryotes express histones, but whereas the tertiary structure of histones is conserved, the quaternary structure of histone–DNA complexes is very different. In a recent study, the crystal structure of the archaeal hypernucleosome was revealed to be an “endless” core of interacting histones that wraps the DNA around it in a left-handed manner. The ability to form a hypernucleosome is likely determined by dimer–dimer interactions as well as stacking interactions between individual layers of the hypernucleosome. We analyzed a wide variety of archaeal histones and found that most but not all histones possess residues able to facilitate hypernucleosome formation. Among these are histones with truncated termini or extended histone tails. Based on our analysis, we propose several possibilities of archaeal histone involvement in transcription regulation.

Transcription Regulation in Archaea

The known diversity of metabolic strategies and physiological adaptations of archaeal species to extreme environments is extraordinary. Accurate and responsive mechanisms to ensure that gene expression patterns match the needs of the cell necessitate regulatory strategies that control the activities and output of the archaeal transcription apparatus. Archaea are reliant on a single RNA polymerase for all transcription, and many of the known regulatory mechanisms employed for archaeal transcription mimic strategies also employed for eukaryotic and bacterial species. Novel mechanisms of transcription regulation have become apparent by increasingly sophisticated in vivo and in vitro investigations of archaeal species. This review emphasizes recent progress in understanding archaeal transcription regulatory mechanisms and highlights insights gained from studies of the influence of archaeal chromatin on transcription.

Growth-Phase-Specific Modulation of Cell Morphology and Gene Expression by an Archaeal Histone Protein

In all three domains of life, organisms use nonspecific DNA-binding proteins to compact and organize the genome as well as to regulate transcription on a global scale. Histone is the primary eukaryotic nucleoprotein, and its evolutionary roots can be traced to the archaea. However, not all archaea use this protein as the primary DNA-packaging component, raising questions regarding the role of histones in archaeal chromatin function. Here, quantitative phenotyping, transcriptomic, and proteomic assays were performed on deletion and overexpression mutants of the sole histone protein of the hypersaline-adapted haloarchaeal model organism Halobacterium salinarum. This protein is highly conserved among all sequenced haloarchaeal species and maintains hallmark residues required for eukaryotic histone functions. Surprisingly, despite this conservation at the sequence level, unlike in other archaea or eukaryotes, H. salinarum histone is required to regulate cell shape but is not necessary for survival. Genome-wide expression changes in histone deletion strains were global, significant but subtle in terms of fold change, bidirectional, and growth phase dependent. Mass spectrometric proteomic identification of proteins from chromatin enrichments yielded levels of histone and putative nucleoid-associated proteins similar to those of transcription factors, consistent with an open and transcriptionally active genome. Taken together, these data suggest that histone in H. salinarum plays a minor role in DNA compaction but important roles in growth-phase-dependent gene expression and regulation of cell shape. Histone function in haloarchaea more closely resembles a regulator of gene expression than a chromatin-organizing protein like canonical eukaryotic histone.

Histones comprise the major protein component of eukaryotic chromatin and are required for both genome packaging and global regulation of expression. The current paradigm maintains that archaea whose genes encode histone also use these proteins to package DNA. In contrast, here we demonstrate that the sole histone encoded in the genome of the salt-adapted archaeon Halobacterium salinarum is both unessential and unlikely to be involved in DNA compaction despite conservation of residues important for eukaryotic histones. Rather, H. salinarum histone is required for global regulation of gene expression and cell shape. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that H. salinarum histone, strongly conserved across all other known salt-adapted archaea, serves a novel role in gene regulation and cell shape maintenance. Given that archaea possess the ancestral form of eukaryotic histone, this study has important implications for understanding the evolution of histone function.

The interplay between nucleoid organization and transcription in archaeal genomes

The archaeal genome is organized by either eukaryotic-like histone proteins or bacterial-like nucleoid-associated proteins. Recent studies have revealed novel insights into chromatin dynamics and their effect on gene expression in archaeal model organisms. In this Progress article, we discuss the interplay between chromatin proteins, such as histones and Alba, and components of the basal transcription machinery, as well as between chromatin structure and gene-specific transcription factors in archaea. Such an interplay suggests that chromatin might have a role in regulating gene expression on both a global and a gene-specific level. Moreover, several archaeal transcription factors combine a global gene regulatory role with an architectural role, thus contributing to chromatin organization and compaction, as well as gene expression. We describe the emerging principles underlying how these factors cooperate in nucleoid structuring and gene regulation.

Archaeal nucleosome positioning in vivo and in vitro is directed by primary sequence motifs

Background

Histone wrapping of DNA into nucleosomes almost certainly evolved in the Archaea, and predates Eukaryotes. In Eukaryotes, nucleosome positioning plays a central role in regulating gene expression and is directed by primary sequence motifs that together form a nucleosome positioning code. The experiments reported were undertaken to determine if archaeal histone assembly conforms to the nucleosome positioning code.

Results

Eukaryotic nucleosome positioning is favored and directed by phased helical repeats of AA/TT/AT/TA and CC/GG/CG/GC dinucleotides, and disfavored by longer AT-rich oligonucleotides. Deep sequencing of genomic DNA protected from micrococcal nuclease digestion by assembly into archaeal nucleosomes has established that archaeal nucleosome assembly is also directed and positioned by these sequence motifs, both in vivo in Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus and Thermococcus kodakarensis and in vitro in reaction mixtures containing only one purified archaeal histone and genomic DNA. Archaeal nucleosomes assembled at the same locations in vivo and in vitro, with much reduced assembly immediately upstream of open reading frames and throughout the ribosomal rDNA operons. Providing further support for a common positioning code, archaeal histones assembled into nucleosomes on eukaryotic DNA and eukaryotic histones into nucleosomes on archaeal DNA at the same locations. T. kodakarensis has two histones, designated HTkA and HTkB, and strains with either but not both histones deleted grow normally but do exhibit transcriptome differences. Comparisons of the archaeal nucleosome profiles in the intergenic regions immediately upstream of genes that exhibited increased or decreased transcription in the absence of HTkA or HTkB revealed substantial differences but no consistent pattern of changes that would correlate directly with archaeal nucleosome positioning inhibiting or stimulating transcription.

Conclusions

The results obtained establish that an archaeal histone and a genome sequence together are sufficient to determine where archaeal nucleosomes preferentially assemble and where they avoid assembly. We confirm that the same nucleosome positioning code operates in Archaea as in Eukaryotes and presumably therefore evolved with the histone-fold mechanism of DNA binding and compaction early in the archaeal lineage, before the divergence of Eukaryotes.

An archaeal histone is required for transformation of Thermococcus kodakarensis

Archaeal histones wrap DNA into complexes, designated archaeal nucleosomes, that resemble the tetrasome core of a eukaryotic nucleosome. Therefore, all DNA interactions in vivo in Thermococcus kodakarensis, the most genetically versatile model species for archaeal research, must occur in the context of a histone-bound genome. Here we report the construction and properties of T. kodakarensis strains that have TK1413 or TK2289 deleted, the genes that encode HTkA and HTkB, respectively, the two archaeal histones present in this archaeon. All attempts to generate a strain with both TK1413 and TK2289 deleted were unsuccessful, arguing that a histone-mediated event(s) in T. kodakarensis is essential. The HTkA and HTkB amino acid sequences are 84% identical (56 of 67 residues) and 94% similar (63 of 67 residues), but despite this homology and their apparent redundancy in terms of supporting viability, the absence of HTkA and HTkB resulted in differences in growth and in quantitative and qualitative differences in genome transcription. A most surprising result was that the deletion of TK1413 (ΔhtkA) resulted in a T. kodakarensis strain that was no longer amenable to transformation, whereas the deletion of TK2289 (ΔhtkB) had no detrimental effects on transformation. Potential roles for the archaeal histones in regulating gene expression and for HTkA in DNA uptake and recombination are discussed.

Archaeal RNA polymerase and transcription regulation

To elucidate the mechanism of transcription by cellular RNA polymerases (RNAPs), high-resolution X-ray crystal structures together with structure-guided biochemical, biophysical, and genetics studies are essential. The recently solved X-ray crystal structures of archaeal RNAP allow a structural comparison of the transcription machinery among all three domains of life. The archaea were once thought of closely related to bacteria, but they are now considered to be more closely related to the eukaryote at the molecular level than bacteria. According to these structures, the archaeal transcription apparatus, which includes RNAP and general transcription factors (GTFs), is similar to the eukaryotic transcription machinery. Yet, the transcription regulators, activators and repressors, encoded by archaeal genomes are closely related to bacterial factors. Therefore, archaeal transcription appears to possess an intriguing hybrid of eukaryotic-type transcription apparatus and bacterial-like regulatory mechanisms. Elucidating the transcription mechanism in archaea, which possesses a combination of bacterial and eukaryotic transcription mechanisms that are commonly regarded as separate and mutually exclusive, can provide data that will bring basic transcription mechanisms across all life forms.

Transcriptional repression: conserved and evolved features

The regulation of gene expression by transcriptional repression is an ancient and conserved mechanism that manifests itself in diverse ways. Here we summarize conserved pathways for transcriptional repression prevalent throughout all forms of life, as well as indirect mechanisms that appear to have originated in eukaryotes, consistent with the unique chromatin environment of eukaryotic genes. The direct interactions between transcriptional repressors and the core transcriptional machinery in bacteria and archaea are sufficient to generate a sophisticated suite of mechanisms that provide flexible control. These direct interactions contrast with the activity of corepressors, which provide an additional regulatory control in eukaryotes. Their modulation of chromatin structure represents an indirect pathway to downregulate transcription, and their diversity and modulation provide additional complexity suited to the requirements of elaborate eukaryotic repression patterns. New findings indicate that corepressors are not necessarily restricted to generating a single stereotypic output, but can rather exhibit diverse functional responses depending on the context in which they are recruited, providing a hitherto unsuspected additional source of diversity in transcriptional control. Mechanisms within eukaryotes appear to be highly conserved, with novel aspects chiefly represented by addition of lineage-specific corepressor scaffolds that provide additional opportunities for recruiting the same core machinery.