Repression of G1/S transcription is mediated via interaction of the GTB motifs of Nrm1 and Whi5 with Swi6

Whi5 hypo- and hyper-phosphorylation dynamics control cell-cycle entry and progression

Progression through the cell cycle depends on the phosphorylation of key substrates by cyclin-dependent kinases. In budding yeast, these substrates include the transcriptional inhibitor Whi5 that regulates G1/S transition. In early G1 phase, Whi5 is hypo-phosphorylated and inhibits the Swi4/Swi6 (SBF) complex that promotes transcription of the cyclins CLN1 and CLN2. In late G1, Whi5 is rapidly hyper-phosphorylated by Cln1 and Cln2 in complex with the cyclin-dependent kinase Cdk1. This hyper-phosphorylation inactivates Whi5 and excludes it from the nucleus. Here, we set out to determine the molecular mechanisms responsible for Whi5's multi-site phosphorylation and how they regulate the cell cycle. To do this, we first identified the 19 Whi5 sites that are appreciably phosphorylated and then determined which of these sites are responsible for G1 hypo-phosphorylation. Mutation of 7 sites removed G1 hypo-phosphorylation, increased cell size, and delayed the G1/S transition. Moreover, the rapidity of Whi5 hyper-phosphorylation in late G1 depends on "priming" sites that dock the Cks1 subunit of Cln1,2-Cdk1 complexes. Hyper-phosphorylation is crucial for Whi5 nuclear export, normal cell size, full expression of SBF target genes, and timely progression through both the G1/S transition and S/G2/M phases. Thus, our work shows how Whi5 phosphorylation regulates the G1/S transition and how it is required for timely progression through S/G2/M phases and not only G1 as previously thought.

Mitochondrial membrane potential acts as a retrograde signal to regulate cell cycle progression

Mitochondria are central to numerous metabolic pathways whereby mitochondrial dysfunction has a profound impact and can manifest in disease. The consequences of mitochondrial dysfunction can be ameliorated by adaptive responses that rely on crosstalk from the mitochondria to the rest of the cell. Such mito-cellular signalling slows cell cycle progression in mitochondrial DNA-deficient (ρ0) Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells, but the initial trigger of the response has not been thoroughly studied. Here, we show that decreased mitochondrial membrane potential (ΔΨm) acts as the initial signal of mitochondrial stress that delays G1-to-S phase transition in both ρ0 and control cells containing mtDNA. Accordingly, experimentally increasing ΔΨm was sufficient to restore timely cell cycle progression in ρ0 cells. In contrast, cellular levels of oxidative stress did not correlate with the G1-to-S delay. Restored G1-to-S transition in ρ0 cells with a recovered ΔΨm is likely attributable to larger cell size, whereas the timing of G1/S transcription remained delayed. The identification of ΔΨm as a regulator of cell cycle progression may have implications for disease states involving mitochondrial dysfunction.

Whi5 hypo- and hyper-phosphorylation dynamics control cell cycle entry and progression

Progression through the cell cycle depends on the phosphorylation of key substrates by cyclin-dependent kinases. In budding yeast, these substrates include the transcriptional inhibitor Whi5 that regulates the G1/S transition. In early G1 phase, Whi5 is hypo-phosphorylated and inhibits the SBF complex that promotes transcription of the cyclins CLN1 and CLN2 . In late-G1, Whi5 is rapidly hyper-phosphorylated by Cln1,2 in complex with the cyclin-dependent kinase Cdk1. This hyper-phosphorylation inactivates Whi5 and excludes it from the nucleus. Here, we set out to determine the molecular mechanisms responsible for Whi5's multi-site phosphorylation and how they regulate the cell cycle. To do this, we first identified the 19 Whi5 sites that are appreciably phosphorylated and then determined which of these sites are responsible for G1 hypo-phosphorylation. Mutation of 7 sites removed G1 hypo-phosphorylation, increased cell size, and delayed the G1/S transition. Moreover, the rapidity of Whi5 hyper-phosphorylation in late G1 depends on 'priming' sites that dock the Cks1 subunit of Cln1,2-Cdk1 complexes. Hyper-phosphorylation is crucial for Whi5 nuclear export, normal cell size, full expression of SBF target genes, and timely progression through both the G1/S transition and S/G2/M phases. Thus, our work shows how Whi5 phosphorylation regulates the G1/S transition and how it is required for timely progression through S/G2/M phases and not only G1 as previously thought.

Whi7/Srl3 polymorphisms reveal its role in cell size and quiescence

Whi5 and Srl3/Whi7 are related proteins that resulted from the whole genome duplication of S. cerevisiae (Wolfe and Shields 1997). Whi5 plays an Rb-like function in binding and inhibiting the late G1 transcription that promotes progression from G1 to S (Costanzo et al. 2004; de Bruin et al. 2004). Whi7 can also associate with G1 transcription complexes and promotes G1 arrest when overproduced (Gomar-Alba et al. 2017), but its transcription is primarily induced by stress (Ragni et al. 2011; Mendez et al. 2020). We have used polymorphisms in two laboratory yeast strains to uncover novel functions of Whi7 in log and quiescent cells. These include small cell size during log phase and defects in entry, maintenance and recovery from quiescence.

Interactions, structural aspects, and evolutionary perspectives of the yeast 'START'-regulatory network

Molecular signal transduction networks which conduct transcription at the G1 to S phase transition of the eukaryotic cell division cycle have been identified in diverse taxa from mammals to baker´s yeast with analogous functional organization. However, regarding some network components, such as the transcriptional regulators STB1 and WHI5, only few orthologs exist which are confined to individual Saccharomycotina species. While Whi5 has been characterized as yeast analog of human Rb protein, in the particular case of Stb1 (Sin three binding protein 1) identification of functional analogs emerges as difficult because to date its exact functionality still remains obscured. By aiming to resolve Stb1´s enigmatic role this Perspectives article especially surveys works covering relations between Cyclin/CDKs, the heteromeric transcription factor complexes SBF (Swi4/Swi6) and MBF (Mbp1/Swi6), as well as additional coregulators (Whi5, Sin3, Rpd3, Nrm1) which are collectively associated with the orderly transcription at 'Start' of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell cycle. In this context, interaction capacities of the Sin3-scaffold protein are widely surveyed because its four PAH domains (Paired Amphiphatic Helix) represent a 'recruitment-code' for gene-specific targeting of repressive histone deacetylase activity (Rpd3) via different transcription factors. Here Stb1 plays a role in Sin3´s action on transcription at the G1/S-boundary. Through bioinformatic analyses a potential Sin3-interaction domain (SID) was detected in Stb1, and beyond that, connections within the G1/S-regulatory network are discussed in structural and evolutionary context thereby providing conceptual perspectives.

The CWI Pathway: A Versatile Toolbox to Arrest Cell-Cycle Progression

Cell-signaling pathways are essential for cells to respond and adapt to changes in their environmental conditions. The cell-wall integrity (CWI) pathway of Saccharomyces cerevisiae is activated by environmental stresses, compounds, and morphogenetic processes that compromise the cell wall, orchestrating the appropriate cellular response to cope with these adverse conditions. During cell-cycle progression, the CWI pathway is activated in periods of polarized growth, such as budding or cytokinesis, regulating cell-wall biosynthesis and the actin cytoskeleton. Importantly, accumulated evidence has indicated a reciprocal regulation of the cell-cycle regulatory system by the CWI pathway. In this paper, we describe how the CWI pathway regulates the main cell-cycle transitions in response to cell-surface perturbance to delay cell-cycle progression. In particular, it affects the Start transcriptional program and the initiation of DNA replication at the G1/S transition, and entry and progression through mitosis. We also describe the involvement of the CWI pathway in the response to genotoxic stress and its connection with the DNA integrity checkpoint, the mechanism that ensures the correct transmission of genetic material and cell survival. Thus, the CWI pathway emerges as a master brake that stops cell-cycle progression when cells are coping with distinct unfavorable conditions.

Transcriptional and chromatin-based partitioning mechanisms uncouple protein scaling from cell size

Biosynthesis scales with cell size such that protein concentrations generally remain constant as cells grow. As an exception, synthesis of the cell-cycle inhibitor Whi5 "sub-scales" with cell size so that its concentration is lower in larger cells to promote cell-cycle entry. Here, we find that transcriptional control uncouples Whi5 synthesis from cell size, and we identify histones as the major class of sub-scaling transcripts besides WHI5 by screening for similar genes. Histone synthesis is thereby matched to genome content rather than cell size. Such sub-scaling proteins are challenged by asymmetric cell division because proteins are typically partitioned in proportion to newborn cell volume. To avoid this fate, Whi5 uses chromatin-binding to partition similar protein amounts to each newborn cell regardless of cell size. Disrupting both Whi5 synthesis and chromatin-based partitioning weakens G1 size control. Thus, specific transcriptional and partitioning mechanisms determine protein sub-scaling to control cell size.

The budding yeast Start repressor Whi7 differs in regulation from Whi5, emerging as a major cell cycle brake in response to stress

Start is the main decision point in the eukaryotic cell cycle at which cells commit to a new round of cell division. It involves the irreversible activation of a transcriptional programme through the inactivation of Start transcriptional repressors: the retinoblastoma family in mammals, or Whi5 and its recently identified paralogue Whi7 (also known as Srl3) in budding yeast. Here, we provide a comprehensive comparison of Whi5 and Whi7 that reveals significant qualitative differences. Indeed, the expression, subcellular localization and functionality of Whi7 and Whi5 are differentially regulated. Importantly, Whi7 shows specific properties in its association with promoters not shared by Whi5, and for the first time, we demonstrate that Whi7, and not Whi5, can be the main contributor to Start inhibition such as it occurs in the response to cell wall stress. Our results help to improve understanding of the interplay between multiple differentially regulated Start repressors in order to face specific cellular conditions.

Highlighted Article: Cells can use the interplay between functionally redundant but differentially regulated cell-cycle repressors in order to confer new repression capabilities and to respond to specific cellular conditions.

Effects of 9-cis-retinoic acid on the proliferation and apoptosis of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma cells

The vitamin A derivative 9-cis-retinoic acid (9-cis-RA) has been used for the treatment and prevention of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). However, the precise mechanism by which 9-cis-RA treatment ameliorates CTCL remains elusive. Our research shows that 9-cis-RA inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis in CTCL cells in a dose-dependent and time-dependent manner. 9-Cis-RA also induced G0/G1 cell cycle arrest by downregulation of cyclin D1. We confirmed that 9-cis-RA significantly decreased phosphorylation of JAK1, STAT3, and STAT5 and downregulated Bcl-xL and cyclin D1, indicating that 9-cis-RA inhibited the activation of JAK/STAT signaling. Meanwhile, 9-cis-RA also activated classical RA-mediated transcription by retinoic acid receptors (RAR) and/or retinoid X receptors (RXR) in a CTCL cell line. Thus, 9-cis-RA may be effective for chemotherapy and may prevent human CTCL by inhibiting proliferation and inducing apoptosis by inhibition of the JAK/STAT pathway and activation of the RAR/RXR pathway.

Differential Scaling of Gene Expression with Cell Size May Explain Size Control in Budding Yeast

Yeast cells must grow to a critical size before committing to division. It is unknown how size is measured. We find that as cells grow, mRNAs for some cell-cycle activators scale faster than size, increasing in concentration, while mRNAs for some inhibitors scale slower than size, decreasing in concentration. Size-scaled gene expression could cause an increasing ratio of activators to inhibitors with size, triggering cell-cycle entry. Consistent with this, expression of the CLN2 activator from the promoter of the WHI5 inhibitor, or vice versa, interfered with cell size homeostasis, yielding a broader distribution of cell sizes. We suggest that size homeostasis comes from differential scaling of gene expression with size. Differential regulation of gene expression as a function of cell size could affect many cellular processes.

Gcn5 and Rpd3 have a limited role in the regulation of cell cycle transcripts during the G1 and S phases in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Activation of cell cycle regulated transcription during the G1-to-S transition initiates S phase entry and cell cycle commitment. The molecular mechanisms involving G1/S transcriptional regulation are well established and have been shown to be evolutionary conserved from yeast to humans. Previous work has suggested that changes to the chromatin state, specifically through histone acetylation, has an important role in the regulation of G1/S transcription in both yeast and human cells. Here we investigate the role of histone acetylation in G1/S transcriptional regulation in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Our work shows that histone acetylation at specific sites at G1/S target gene promoters peaks at the G1-to-S transition, coinciding with their peak transcription levels. Acetylation at G1/S target promoters is significantly reduced upon deletion of the previously implicated histone acetyltransferase Gcn5, but G1/S cell cycle regulated transcription is largely unaffected. The histone deacetylase Rpd3, suggested to have a role in Whi5-dependent repression, is required for full repression of G1/S target genes in the G1 and S phases. However, in the context of transcriptionally active levels during the G1-to-S transition, this seems to play a minor role in the regulation of cell cycle transcription. Our data suggests that histone acetylation might modulate the amplitude of G1/S cell cycle regulated transcription in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but has a limited role in its overall regulation.

The p38/HOG stress-activated protein kinase network couples growth to division in Candida albicans

Cell size is a complex trait that responds to developmental and environmental cues. Quantitative size analysis of mutant strain collections disrupted for protein kinases and transcriptional regulators in the pathogenic yeast Candida albicans uncovered 66 genes that altered cell size, few of which overlapped with known size genes in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. A potent size regulator specific to C. albicans was the conserved p38/HOG MAPK module that mediates the osmostress response. Basal HOG activity inhibited the SBF G1/S transcription factor complex in a stress-independent fashion to delay the G1/S transition. The HOG network also governed ribosome biogenesis through the master transcriptional regulator Sfp1. Hog1 bound to the promoters and cognate transcription factors for ribosome biogenesis regulons and interacted genetically with the SBF G1/S machinery, and thereby directly linked cell growth and division. These results illuminate the evolutionary plasticity of size control and identify the HOG module as a nexus of cell cycle and growth regulation.

Outside-in control - does plant cell wall integrity regulate cell cycle progression?

During recent years it has become accepted that plant cell walls are not inert objects surrounding all plant cells but are instead highly dynamic, plastic structures. They are involved in a large number of cell biological processes and contribute actively to plant growth, development and interaction with environment. Therefore, it is not surprising that cellular processes can control plant cell wall integrity (CWI) while, simultaneously, CWI can influence cellular processes. In yeast and animal cells such a bidirectional relationship also exists between the yeast/animal extracellular matrices and the cell cycle. In yeast, the CWI maintenance mechanism and a dedicated plasma membrane integrity checkpoint are mediating this relationship. Recent research has yielded insights into the mechanism controlling plant cell wall metabolism during cytokinesis. However, the knowledge regarding putative regulatory pathways controlling adaptive modifications in plant cell cycle activity in response to changes in the state of the plant cell wall are not yet identified. In this review, we summarize similarities and differences in regulatory mechanisms coordinating extracellular matrices and cell cycle activity in animal and yeast cells, discuss the available evidence supporting the existence of such a mechanism in plants and suggest that the plant CWI maintenance mechanism might also control cell cycle activity in plant cells.

Candida glabrata Med3 Plays a Role in Altering Cell Size and Budding Index To Coordinate Cell Growth

Candida glabrata is a promising microorganism for the production of organic acids. Here, we report deletion and quantitative-expression approaches to elucidate the role of C. glabrata Med3AB (CgMed3AB), a subunit of the mediator transcriptional coactivator, in regulating cell growth. Deletion of CgMed3AB caused an 8.6% decrease in final biomass based on growth curve plots and 10.5% lower cell viability. Based on transcriptomics data, the reason for this growth defect was attributable to changes in expression of genes involved in pyruvate and acetyl-coenzyme A (CoA)-related metabolism in a Cgmed3abΔ strain. Furthermore, the mRNA level of acetyl-CoA synthetase was downregulated after deleting Cgmed3ab, resulting in 22.8% and 21% lower activity of acetyl-CoA synthetase and cellular acetyl-CoA, respectively. Additionally, the mRNA level of CgCln3, whose expression depends on acetyl-CoA, was 34% lower in this strain. As a consequence, the cell size and budding index in the Cgmed3abΔ strain were both reduced. Conversely, overexpression of Cgmed3ab led to 16.8% more acetyl-CoA and 120% higher CgCln3 mRNA levels, as well as 19.1% larger cell size and a 13.3% higher budding index than in wild-type cells. Taken together, these results suggest that CgMed3AB regulates cell growth in C. glabrata by coordinating homeostasis between cellular acetyl-CoA and CgCln3.IMPORTANCE This study demonstrates that CgMed3AB can regulate cell growth in C. glabrata by coordinating the homeostasis of cellular acetyl-CoA metabolism and the cell cycle cyclin CgCln3. Specifically, we report that CgMed3AB regulates the cellular acetyl-CoA level, which induces the transcription of Cgcln3, finally resulting in alterations to the cell size and budding index. In conclusion, we report that CgMed3AB functions as a wheel responsible for driving cellular acetyl-CoA metabolism, indirectly inducing the transcription of Cgcln3 and coordinating cell growth. We propose that Mediator subunits may represent a vital regulatory target modulating cell growth in C. glabrata.

Whi7 is an unstable cell-cycle repressor of the Start transcriptional program

Start is the main decision point in eukaryotic cell cycle in which cells commit to a new round of cell division. It involves the irreversible activation of a transcriptional program by G1 CDK-cyclin complexes through the inactivation of Start transcriptional repressors, Whi5 in yeast or Rb in mammals. Here we provide novel keys of how Whi7, a protein related at sequence level to Whi5, represses Start. Whi7 is an unstable protein, degraded by the SCF^Grr1 ubiquitin-ligase, whose stability is cell cycle regulated by CDK1 phosphorylation. Importantly, Whi7 associates to G1/S gene promoters in late G1 acting as a repressor of SBF-dependent transcription. Our results demonstrate that Whi7 is a genuine paralog of Whi5. In fact, both proteins collaborate in Start repression bringing to light that yeast cells, as occurs in mammalian cells, rely on the combined action of multiple transcriptional repressors to block Start transition.

The commitment of cells to a new cycle of division involves inactivation of the Start transcriptional repressor Whi5. Here the authors show that the sequence related protein Whi7 associates to G1/S gene promoters in late G1 and collaborates with Whi5 in Start repression.

Transcriptional reprogramming in cellular quiescence

Most cells in nature are not actively dividing, yet are able to return to the cell cycle given the appropriate environmental signals. There is now ample evidence that quiescent G0 cells are not shut-down but still metabolically and transcriptionally active. Quiescent cells must maintain a basal transcriptional capacity to maintain transcripts and proteins necessary for survival. This implies a tight control over RNA polymerases: RNA pol II for mRNA transcription during G0, but especially RNA pol I and RNA pol III to maintain an appropriate level of structural RNAs, raising the possibility that specific transcriptional control mechanisms evolved in quiescent cells. In accordance with this, we recently discovered that RNA interference is necessary to control RNA polymerase I transcription during G0. While this mini-review focuses on yeast model organisms (Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe), parallels are drawn to other eukaryotes and mammalian systems, in particular stem cells.

Mutations in the Non-Catalytic Subunit Dpb2 of DNA Polymerase Epsilon Affect the Nrm1 Branch of the DNA Replication Checkpoint

To preserve genome integrity, the S-phase checkpoint senses damaged DNA or nucleotide depletion and when necessary, arrests replication progression and delays cell division. Previous studies, based on two pol2 mutants have suggested the involvement of DNA polymerase epsilon (Pol ε) in sensing DNA replication accuracy in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Here we have studied the involvement of Pol ε in sensing proper progression of DNA replication, using a mutant in DPB2, the gene coding for a non-catalytic subunit of Pol ε. Under genotoxic conditions, the dpb2-103 cells progress through S phase faster than wild-type cells. Moreover, the Nrm1-dependent branch of the checkpoint, which regulates the expression of many replication checkpoint genes, is impaired in dpb2-103 cells. Finally, deletion of DDC1 in the dpb2-103 mutant is lethal supporting a model of strand-specific activation of the replication checkpoint. This lethality is suppressed by NRM1 deletion. We postulate that improper activation of the Nrm1-branch may explain inefficient replication checkpoint activation in Pol ε mutants.

The viability of living organisms depends on the integrity of their genomes. Each cell has to constantly monitor DNA replication and coordinate it with cell division to avoid genomic instability. This is achieved through pathways known as cell cycle checkpoints. Therefore, upon replication perturbation, DNA synthesis slows down and cell division is delayed. For that, a specific signal is induced and propagated through a mechanism that have already been identified but still need investigations. We have isolated a mutated form of Dpb2, the essential subunit of DNA polymerase epsilon (Pol ε) holoenzyme. This mutated form of Pol ε impairs proper activation of the cellular response to replication stress. We show that yeast cells with mutations in the DPB2 gene fail to activate the Nrm1-regulated branch of the checkpoint, which controls numerous genes expressed in response to replication stress. Moreover, our results support the model of parallel activation of replication checkpoint from the leading and lagging DNA strands. This strongly suggests that Pol ε, the leading strand replicase, is involved in replication checkpoint activation from this strand. Our results contribute to the understanding of mechanisms of cellular response to replication stress, which are necessary to preserve genome stability.

A common strategy for initiating the transition from proliferation to quiescence

Development, tissue renewal and long term survival of multi-cellular organisms is dependent upon the persistence of stem cells that are quiescent, but retain the capacity to re-enter the cell cycle to self-renew, or to produce progeny that can differentiate and re-populate the tissue. Deregulated release of these cells from the quiescent state, or preventing them from entering quiescence, results in uncontrolled proliferation and cancer. Conversely, loss of quiescent cells, or their failure to re-enter cell division, disrupts organ development and prevents tissue regeneration and repair. Understanding the quiescent state and how cells control the transitions in and out of this state is of fundamental importance. Investigations into the mechanics of G1 arrest during the transition to quiescence continue to identify striking parallels between the strategies used by yeast and mammals to regulate this transition. When cells commit to a stable but reversible arrest, the G1/S genes responsible for promoting S phase must be inhibited. This process, from yeast to humans, involves the formation of quiescence-specific complexes on their promoters. In higher cells, these so-called DREAM complexes of E2F4/DP/RBL/MuvB recruit the highly conserved histone deacetylase HDAC1, which leads to local histone deacetylation and repression of S phase-promoting transcripts. Quiescent yeast cells also show pervasive histone deacetylation by the HDAC1 counterpart Rpd3. In addition, these cells contain quiescence-specific regulators of G1/S genes: Msa1 and Msa2, which can be considered components of the yeast equivalent of the DREAM complex. Despite a lack of physical similarities, the goals and the strategies used to achieve a reversible transition to quiescence are highly conserved. This motivates a detailed study of this process in the simple model organism: budding yeast.

Msa1 and Msa2 Modulate G1-Specific Transcription to Promote G1 Arrest and the Transition to Quiescence in Budding Yeast

Yeast that naturally exhaust their glucose source can enter a quiescent state that is characterized by reduced cell size, and high cell density, stress tolerance and longevity. The transition to quiescence involves highly asymmetric cell divisions, dramatic reprogramming of transcription and global changes in chromatin structure and chromosome topology. Cells enter quiescence from G1 and we find that there is a positive correlation between the length of G1 and the yield of quiescent cells. The Swi4 and Swi6 transcription factors, which form the SBF transcription complex and promote the G1 to S transition in cycling cells, are also critical for the transition to quiescence. Swi6 forms a second complex with Mbp1 (MBF), which is not required for quiescence. These are the functional analogues of the E2F complexes of higher eukaryotes. Loss of the RB analogue, Whi5, and the related protein Srl3/Whi7, delays G1 arrest, but it also delays recovery from quiescence. Two MBF- and SBF-Associated proteins have been identified that have little effect on SBF or MBF activity in cycling cells. We show that these two related proteins, Msa1 and Msa2, are specifically required for the transition to quiescence. Like the E2F complexes that are quiescence-specific, Msa1 and Msa2 are required to repress the transcription of many SBF target genes, including SWI4, the CLN2 cyclin and histones, specifically after glucose is exhausted from the media. They also activate transcription of many MBF target genes. msa1msa2 cells fail to G1 arrest and rapidly lose viability upon glucose exhaustion. msa1msa2 mutants that survive this transition are very large, but they attain the same thermo-tolerance and longevity of wild type quiescent cells. This indicates that Msa1 and Msa2 are required for successful transition to quiescence, but not for the maintenance of that state.

In spite of the many differences between yeast and humans, the basic strategies that regulate the cell division cycle are fundamentally conserved. In this study, we extend these parallels to include a common strategy by which cells transition from proliferation to quiescence. The decision to divide is made in the G1 phase of the cell cycle. During G1, the genes that drive DNA replication are repressed by the E2F/RB complex. When a signal to divide is received, RB is removed and the complex is activated. When cells commit to a long term, but reversible G1 arrest, or quiescence, they express a novel E2F/RB-like complex, which promotes and maintains a stable repressive state. Yeast cells contain a functional analog of E2F/RB, called SBF/Whi5, which is activated by a similar mechanism in proliferating yeast cells. In this study, we identify two novel components of the SBF/Whi5 complex whose activity is specific to the transition to quiescence. These factors, Msa1 and Msa2, repress SBF targets and are required for the long term, but reversible G1 arrest that is critical for achieving a quiescent state.

Cell cycle regulated transcription: from yeast to cancer

Recent studies have revealed exciting new functions for forkhead transcription factors in cell proliferation and development. Cell proliferation is a fundamental process controlled by multiple overlapping mechanisms, and the control of gene expression plays a major role in the orderly and timely division of cells. This occurs through transcription factors regulating the expression of groups of genes at particular phases of the cell division cycle. In this way, the encoded gene products are present when they are required. This review outlines recent advances in our understanding of this process in yeast model systems and describes how this knowledge has informed analysis in more developmentally complex eukaryotes, particularly where it is relevant to human disease.

Punctuated evolution and transitional hybrid network in an ancestral cell cycle of fungi

Although cell cycle control is an ancient, conserved, and essential process, some core animal and fungal cell cycle regulators share no more sequence identity than non-homologous proteins. Here, we show that evolution along the fungal lineage was punctuated by the early acquisition and entrainment of the SBF transcription factor through horizontal gene transfer. Cell cycle evolution in the fungal ancestor then proceeded through a hybrid network containing both SBF and its ancestral animal counterpart E2F, which is still maintained in many basal fungi. We hypothesize that a virally-derived SBF may have initially hijacked cell cycle control by activating transcription via the cis-regulatory elements targeted by the ancestral cell cycle regulator E2F, much like extant viral oncogenes. Consistent with this hypothesis, we show that SBF can regulate promoters with E2F binding sites in budding yeast.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09492.001

Living cells grow and divide with remarkable precision to ensure that their genetic material is faithfully duplicated and distributed equally to the newly formed daughter cells. This precision is achieved through a series of steps known as the cell cycle. The cell cycle is ancient and conserved across all Eukaryotes, including plants, animals and fungi. However, some of the core proteins present in animals and fungi are unrelated. This raises the question as to how a drastic change could have occurred and been tolerated over evolution.

In animals and plants, a protein called E2F controls the expression of genes that are needed to begin the cell cycle. In most fungi, an equivalent protein called SBF performs the same role as E2F, but the two proteins are very different and do not appear to share a common ancestor. This is unexpected given that fungi and animals are more closely related to one another than either is to plants.

Medina et al. searched the genomes of many animals, fungi, plants, algae, and their closest relatives for genes that encoded proteins like E2F and SBF. SBF-like proteins were only found in fungi, yet some fungal groups had cell cycle regulators like those found in animals. Zoosporic fungi, which diverged early from the fungal ancestor, had both SBF- and E2F-like proteins, while many fungi later lost E2F during evolution.

So how did fungi acquire SBF? Medina et al. observed that part of the SBF protein is similar to proteins found in many viruses. The broad distribution of these viral SBF-like proteins suggests that they arose first in viruses, and a fungal ancestor acquired one such protein during a viral infection. As SBF and E2F bind similar DNA sequences, Medina et al. hypothesized that this viral SBF hijacked control of the cell cycle in the fungal ancestor by controlling expression of genes that were originally controlled only by E2F. In support of this idea, experiments showed that many E2F binding sites in modern genes are also SBF binding sites, and that E2F sites can substitute for SBF sites in SBF-controlled genes. Future experiments in zoosporic fungi, which have animal-like and fungal-like features, would provide a glimpse of how a fungal ancestor may have used both SBF and E2F. These experiments may also reveal why most fungi have retained the newer SBF but lost the ancestral and widely conserved E2F protein.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09492.002

Experimental testing of a new integrated model of the budding yeast Start transition

Mathematical modeling of the cell cycle has unveiled recurrent features and emergent behaviors of cellular networks. Constructing new mutants and performing experimental tests during development of a new model of the budding yeast cell cycle yields a more efficient modeling process and results in several testable hypotheses.

The cell cycle is composed of bistable molecular switches that govern the transitions between gap phases (G1 and G2) and the phases in which DNA is replicated (S) and partitioned between daughter cells (M). Many molecular details of the budding yeast G1–S transition (Start) have been elucidated in recent years, especially with regard to its switch-like behavior due to positive feedback mechanisms. These results led us to reevaluate and expand a previous mathematical model of the yeast cell cycle. The new model incorporates Whi3 inhibition of Cln3 activity, Whi5 inhibition of SBF and MBF transcription factors, and feedback inhibition of Whi5 by G1–S cyclins. We tested the accuracy of the model by simulating various mutants not described in the literature. We then constructed these novel mutant strains and compared their observed phenotypes to the model’s simulations. The experimental results reported here led to further changes of the model, which will be fully described in a later article. Our study demonstrates the advantages of combining model design, simulation, and testing in a coordinated effort to better understand a complex biological network.

Hog1 targets Whi5 and Msa1 transcription factors to downregulate cyclin expression upon stress

Yeast cells have developed complex mechanisms to cope with extracellular insults. An increase in external osmolarity leads to activation of the stress-activated protein kinase Hog1, which is the main regulator of adaptive responses, such as gene expression and cell cycle progression, that are essential for cellular survival. Upon osmostress, the G1-to-S transition is regulated by Hog1 through stabilization of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor Sic1 and the downregulation of G1 cyclin expression by an unclear mechanism. Here, we show that Hog1 interacts with and phosphorylates components of the core cell cycle transcriptional machinery such as Whi5 and the coregulator Msa1. Phosphorylation of these two transcriptional regulators by Hog1 is essential for inhibition of G1 cyclin expression, for control of cell morphogenesis, and for maximal cell survival upon stress. The control of both Whi5 and Msa1 by Hog1 also revealed the necessity for proper coordination of budding and DNA replication. Thus, Hog1 regulates G1 cyclin transcription upon osmostress to ensure coherent passage through Start.

Topology and control of the cell-cycle-regulated transcriptional circuitry

Nearly 20% of the budding yeast genome is transcribed periodically during the cell division cycle. The precise temporal execution of this large transcriptional program is controlled by a large interacting network of transcriptional regulators, kinases, and ubiquitin ligases. Historically, this network has been viewed as a collection of four coregulated gene clusters that are associated with each phase of the cell cycle. Although the broad outlines of these gene clusters were described nearly 20 years ago, new technologies have enabled major advances in our understanding of the genes comprising those clusters, their regulation, and the complex regulatory interplay between clusters. More recently, advances are being made in understanding the roles of chromatin in the control of the transcriptional program. We are also beginning to discover important regulatory interactions between the cell-cycle transcriptional program and other cell-cycle regulatory mechanisms such as checkpoints and metabolic networks. Here we review recent advances and contemporary models of the transcriptional network and consider these models in the context of eukaryotic cell-cycle controls.

A comparative study of Whi5 and retinoblastoma proteins: from sequence and structure analysis to intracellular networks

Cell growth and proliferation require a complex series of tight-regulated and well-orchestrated events. Accordingly, proteins governing such events are evolutionary conserved, even among distant organisms. By contrast, it is more singular the case of “core functions” exerted by functional analogous proteins that are not homologous and do not share any kind of structural similarity. This is the case of proteins regulating the G1/S transition in higher eukaryotes–i.e., the retinoblastoma (Rb) tumor suppressor Rb—and budding yeast, i.e., Whi5. The interaction landscape of Rb and Whi5 is quite large, with more than one hundred proteins interacting either genetically or physically with each protein. The Whi5 interactome has been used to construct a concept map of Whi5 function and regulation. Comparison of physical and genetic interactors of Rb and Whi5 allows highlighting a significant core of conserved, common functionalities associated with the interactors indicating that structure and function of the network—rather than individual proteins—are conserved during evolution. A combined bioinformatics and biochemical approach has shown that the whole Whi5 protein is highly disordered, except for a small region containing the protein family signature. The comparison with Whi5 homologs from Saccharomycetales has prompted the hypothesis of a modular organization of structural disorder, with most evolutionary conserved regions alternating with highly variable ones. The finding of a consensus sequence points to the conservation of a specific phosphorylation rhythm along with two disordered sequence motifs, probably acting as phosphorylation-dependent seeds in Whi5 folding/unfolding. Thus, the widely disordered Whi5 appears to act as a hierarchical, “date hub” that has evolutionary assayed an original way of modular organization before being supplanted by the globular, multi-domain structured Rb, more suitable to cover the role of a “party hub”.

Binding specificity of the G1/S transcriptional regulators in budding yeast

BACKGROUND

G1/S transcriptional regulation in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae depends on three main transcriptional components, Swi4, Swi6 and Mbp1. These proteins constitute two transcription factor complexes that regulate over 300 G1/S transcripts, namely SBF (Swi4-Swi6) and MBF (Mbp1-Swi6). SBF and MBF are involved in regulating largely non-overlapping sets of G1/S genes via clearly distinct mechanisms.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Here we establish and confirm protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions using specific polyclonal antisera to whole Swi6 and to the C-terminal domains of related proteins Swi4 and Mbp1. Our data confirm the protein-protein binding specificity of Swi4 and Mbp1 to Swi6 but not to each other, and support the binding specificity of the transcriptional inhibitor Whi5 to SBF and of the corepressor Nrm1 to MBF. We also show the DNA binding preference of Swi4 to the CLN2 promoter and Mbp1 to the RNR1 promoter, while Swi6 binds both promoters. Finally, we establish the binding dynamics of Swi4 and Whi5 to the CLN2 promoter during the cell cycle.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

These data confirm the binding specificity of the G1/S transcriptional regulators. Whereas previous observations were made using tagged Swi4, Swi6 and Mbp1, here we use specific polyclonal antisera to reestablish the protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions of these G1/S transcriptional components. Our data also reveal the dynamic changes in promoter binding of Swi4 during the cell cycle, which suggests a possible positive feedback loop involving Swi4.