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

Putative APSES family transcription factor mbp1 plays an essential role in regulating cell wall synthesis in the agaricomycete Pleurotus ostreatus

The clade A APSES family transcription factors (Mbp1, Swi4, and Swi6) contribute to cell wall synthesis regulation in fungi. Herein, evolutionary relationships among these proteins were clarified by phylogenetic analysis using various ascomycetes and basidiomycetes, and then the detailed function of Mbp1 in cell wall synthesis regulation was analyzed in Pleurotus ostreatus. Our phylogenetic analysis revealed that Mbp1 and Swi6 are widely conserved among various fungi, whereas Swi4 is a protein specific for Saccharomycotina. In P. ostreatus, two putative clade A APSES family transcription factors, protein ID 83192 and 134090, were found and identified as Mbp1 and Swi6, respectively. The mbp1 gene was then disrupted through homologous recombination using P. ostreatus 20b strain (Δku80) as a host to obtain mbp1 disruption strains (Δmbp1). Disruption of mbp1 significantly decreased the growth rate and shortened aerial hyphae, suggesting that Mbp1 is involved in mycelial growth, especially aerial hyphal growth. Furthermore, thinner cell walls, decreased relative percentage of β-glucan, and downregulation of all β-glucan synthase genes were observed in Δmbp1 strains. Therefore, Mbp1 plays an essential role in β-glucan synthesis regulation in P. ostreatus. Disruption of mbp1 also impacted the expression profiles of chitin synthase genes, septum formation, and sensitivity to a chitin synthesis inhibitor, suggesting that Mbp1 also regulates chitin synthesis. In conclusion, Mbp1 is responsible for normal mycelial growth and regulates β-glucan and chitin synthesis in P. ostreatus. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on the detailed function of Mbp1 in cell wall synthesis regulation in fungi.

FvMbp1-Swi6 complex regulates vegetative growth, stress tolerance, and virulence in Fusarium verticillioides

The mycotoxigenic fungus Fusarium verticillioides is a common pathogen of grain and medicine that contaminates the host with fumonisin B1 (FB1) mycotoxin, poses serious threats to human and animal health. Therefore, it is crucial to unravel the regulatory mechanisms of growth, and pathogenicity of F. verticillioides. Mbp1 is a component of the MluI cell cycle box binding factor complex and acts as an APSES-type transcription factor that regulates cell cycle progression. However, no information is available regarding its role in F. verticillioides. In this study, we demonstrate that FvMbp1 interacts with FvSwi6 that acts as the cell cycle transcription factor, to form the heteromeric transcription factor complexes in F. verticillioides. Our results show that ΔFvMbp1 and ΔFvSwi6 both cause a severe reduction of vegetative growth, conidiation, and increase tolerance to diverse environmental stresses. Moreover, ΔFvMbp1 and ΔFvSwi6 dramatically decrease the virulence of the pathogen on the stalk and ear of maize. Transcriptome profiling show that FvMbp1-Swi6 complex co-regulates the expression of genes associated with multiple stress responses. These results indicate the functional importance of the FvMbp1-Swi6 complex in the filamentous fungi F. verticillioides and reveal a potential target for the effective prevention and control of Fusarium diseases.

Control of meiotic entry by dual inhibition of a key mitotic transcription factor

The mitosis to meiosis transition requires dynamic changes in gene expression, but whether and how the mitotic transcriptional machinery is regulated during this transition is unknown. In budding yeast, SBF and MBF transcription factors initiate the mitotic gene expression program. Here, we report two mechanisms that work together to restrict SBF activity during meiotic entry: repression of the SBF-specific Swi4 subunit through LUTI-based regulation and inhibition of SBF by Whi5, a functional homolog of the Rb tumor suppressor. We find that untimely SBF activation causes downregulation of early meiotic genes and delays meiotic entry. These defects are largely driven by the SBF-target G1 cyclins, which block the interaction between the central meiotic regulator Ime1 and its cofactor Ume6. Our study provides insight into the role of SWI4LUTI in establishing the meiotic transcriptional program and demonstrates how the LUTI-based regulation is integrated into a larger regulatory network to ensure timely SBF activity.

The cell wall and the response and tolerance to stresses of biotechnological relevance in yeasts

In industrial settings and processes, yeasts may face multiple adverse environmental conditions. These include exposure to non-optimal temperatures or pH, osmotic stress, and deleterious concentrations of diverse inhibitory compounds. These toxic chemicals may result from the desired accumulation of added-value bio-products, yeast metabolism, or be present or derive from the pre-treatment of feedstocks, as in lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysates. Adaptation and tolerance to industrially relevant stress factors involve highly complex and coordinated molecular mechanisms occurring in the yeast cell with repercussions on the performance and economy of bioprocesses, or on the microbiological stability and conservation of foods, beverages, and other goods. To sense, survive, and adapt to different stresses, yeasts rely on a network of signaling pathways to modulate the global transcriptional response and elicit coordinated changes in the cell. These pathways cooperate and tightly regulate the composition, organization and biophysical properties of the cell wall. The intricacy of the underlying regulatory networks reflects the major role of the cell wall as the first line of defense against a wide range of environmental stresses. However, the involvement of cell wall in the adaptation and tolerance of yeasts to multiple stresses of biotechnological relevance has not received the deserved attention. This article provides an overview of the molecular mechanisms involved in fine-tuning cell wall physicochemical properties during the stress response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and their implication in stress tolerance. The available information for non-conventional yeast species is also included. These non-Saccharomyces species have recently been on the focus of very active research to better explore or control their biotechnological potential envisaging the transition to a sustainable circular bioeconomy.

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.

Categorization of Phosphorylation Site Behavior during the Diauxic Shift in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Protein phosphorylation has long been recognized as an essential regulator of protein activity, structure, complex formation, and subcellular localization among other cellular mechanisms. However, interpretation of the changes in protein phosphorylation is difficult. To address this difficulty, we measured protein and phosphorylation site changes across 11 points of a time course and developed a method for categorizing phosphorylation site behavior relative to protein level changes using the diauxic shift in yeast as a model and TMT11 sample multiplexing. We classified quantified proteins into behavioral categories that reflected differences in kinase activity, protein complex structure, and growth and metabolic pathway regulation across different phases of the diauxic shift. These data also provide a valuable resource for the study of fermentative versus respiratory growth and set a new benchmark for temporal quantitative proteomics and phosphoproteomics for the diauxic shift in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD022741.

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.

FACT and Ash1 promote long-range and bidirectional nucleosome eviction at the HO promoter

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae HO gene is a model regulatory system with complex transcriptional regulation. Budding yeast divide asymmetrically and HO is expressed only in mother cells where a nucleosome eviction cascade along the promoter during the cell cycle enables activation. HO expression in daughter cells is inhibited by high concentration of Ash1 in daughters. To understand how Ash1 represses transcription, we used a myo4 mutation which boosts Ash1 accumulation in both mothers and daughters and show that Ash1 inhibits promoter recruitment of SWI/SNF and Gcn5. We show Ash1 is also required for the efficient nucleosome repopulation that occurs after eviction, and the strongest effects of Ash1 are seen when Ash1 has been degraded and at promoter locations distant from where Ash1 bound. Additionally, we defined a specific nucleosome/nucleosome-depleted region structure that restricts HO activation to one of two paralogous DNA-binding factors. We also show that nucleosome eviction occurs bidirectionally over a large distance. Significantly, eviction of the more distant nucleosomes is dependent upon the FACT histone chaperone, and FACT is recruited to these regions when eviction is beginning. These last observations, along with ChIP experiments involving the SBF factor, suggest a long-distance loop transiently forms at the HO promoter.

A transcriptome-wide analysis deciphers distinct roles of G1 cyclins in temporal organization of the yeast cell cycle

Oscillating gene expression is crucial for correct timing and progression through cell cycle. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, G1 cyclins Cln1-3 are essential drivers of the cell cycle and have an important role for temporal fine-tuning. We measured time-resolved transcriptome-wide gene expression for wild type and cyclin single and double knockouts over cell cycle with and without osmotic stress. Clustering of expression profiles, peak time detection of oscillating genes, integration with transcription factor network dynamics, and assignment to cell cycle phases allowed us to quantify the effect of genetic or stress perturbations on the duration of cell cycle phases. Cln1 and Cln2 showed functional differences, especially affecting later phases. Deletion of Cln3 led to a delay of START followed by normal progression through later phases. Our data and network analysis suggest mutual effects of cyclins with the transcriptional regulators SBF and MBF.

Transcriptional timing and noise of yeast cell cycle regulators-a single cell and single molecule approach

Gene expression is a stochastic process and its appropriate regulation is critical for cell cycle progression. Cellular stress response necessitates expression reprogramming and cell cycle arrest. While previous studies are mostly based on bulk experiments influenced by synchronization effects or lack temporal distribution, time-resolved methods on single cells are needed to understand eukaryotic cell cycle in context of noisy gene expression and external perturbations. Using smFISH, microscopy and morphological markers, we monitored mRNA abundances over cell cycle phases and calculated transcriptional noise for SIC1, CLN2, and CLB5, the main G1/S transition regulators in budding yeast. We employed mathematical modeling for in silico synchronization and for derivation of time-courses from single cell data. This approach disclosed detailed quantitative insights into transcriptional regulation with and without stress, not available from bulk experiments before. First, besides the main peak in G1 we found an upshift of CLN2 and CLB5 expression in late mitosis. Second, all three genes showed basal expression throughout cell cycle enlightening that transcription is not divided in on and off but rather in high and low phases. Finally, exposing cells to osmotic stress revealed different periods of transcriptional inhibition for CLN2 and CLB5 and the impact of stress on cell cycle phase duration. Combining experimental and computational approaches allowed us to precisely assess cell cycle progression timing, as well as gene expression dynamics.

Diverse roles of Dpb2, the non-catalytic subunit of DNA polymerase ε

Timely progression of living cells through the cell cycle is precisely regulated. This involves a series of phosphorylation events which are regulated by various cyclins, activated in coordination with the cell cycle progression. Phosphorylated proteins govern cell growth, division as well as duplication of the genetic material and transcriptional activation of genes involved in these processes. A subset of these tightly regulated genes, which depend on the MBF transcription factor and are mainly involved in DNA replication and cell division, is transiently activated at the transition from G1 to S phase. A Saccharomyces cerevisiae mutant in the Dpb2 non-catalytic subunit of DNA polymerase ε (Polε) demonstrates abnormalities in transcription of MBF-dependent genes even in normal growth conditions. It is, therefore, tempting to speculate that Dpb2 which, as described previously, participates in the early stages of DNA replication initiation, has an impact on the regulation of replication-related genes expression with possible implications for genomic stability.

Gene duplication and co-evolution of G1/S transcription factor specificity in fungi are essential for optimizing cell fitness

Transcriptional regulatory networks play a central role in optimizing cell survival. How DNA binding domains and cis-regulatory DNA binding sequences have co-evolved to allow the expansion of transcriptional networks and how this contributes to cellular fitness remains unclear. Here we experimentally explore how the complex G1/S transcriptional network evolved in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae by examining different chimeric transcription factor (TF) complexes. Over 200 G1/S genes are regulated by either one of the two TF complexes, SBF and MBF, which bind to specific DNA binding sequences, SCB and MCB, respectively. The difference in size and complexity of the G1/S transcriptional network across yeast species makes it well suited to investigate how TF paralogs (SBF and MBF) and DNA binding sequences (SCB and MCB) co-evolved after gene duplication to rewire and expand the network of G1/S target genes. Our data suggests that whilst SBF is the likely ancestral regulatory complex, the ancestral DNA binding element is more MCB-like. G1/S network expansion took place by both cis- and trans- co-evolutionary changes in closely related but distinct regulatory sequences. Replacement of the endogenous SBF DNA-binding domain (DBD) with that from more distantly related fungi leads to a contraction of the SBF-regulated G1/S network in budding yeast, which also correlates with increased defects in cell growth, cell size, and proliferation.

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.

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.

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.

Genetic instability in budding and fission yeast-sources and mechanisms

Cells are constantly confronted with endogenous and exogenous factors that affect their genomes. Eons of evolution have allowed the cellular mechanisms responsible for preserving the genome to adjust for achieving contradictory objectives: to maintain the genome unchanged and to acquire mutations that allow adaptation to environmental changes. One evolutionary mechanism that has been refined for survival is genetic variation. In this review, we describe the mechanisms responsible for two biological processes: genome maintenance and mutation tolerance involved in generations of genetic variations in mitotic cells of both Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe. These processes encompass mechanisms that ensure the fidelity of replication, DNA lesion sensing and DNA damage response pathways, as well as mechanisms that ensure precision in chromosome segregation during cell division. We discuss various factors that may influence genome stability, such as cellular ploidy, the phase of the cell cycle, transcriptional activity of a particular region of DNA, the proficiency of DNA quality control systems, the metabolic stage of the cell and its respiratory potential, and finally potential exposure to endogenous or environmental stress.

The stability of budding and fission yeast genomes is influenced by two contradictory factors: (1) the need to be fully functional, which is ensured through the replication fidelity pathways of nuclear and mitochondrial genomes through sensing and repairing DNA damage, through precise chromosome segregation during cell division; and (2) the need to acquire changes for adaptation to environmental challenges.

Analyzing G1-S transcriptional control

G1-S transcriptional control involves the coordination of the expression of a large set of co-regulated genes as a function of cell cycle progression (Bertoli et al., Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 14:518-528, 2013). Confining transcription to the G1 phase of the cell cycle requires the regulation of specific transcription factor activity through either co-factors or regulation of promoter DNA binding. Therefore, the analysis of G1-S transcriptional control involves cell cycle synchronization and monitoring cell cycle synchrony, in order to establish DNA binding of G1-S transcription factors to G1-S promoters and to investigate changes in gene expression during the different phases of the cell cycle. Here, we describe a cell cycle synchrony method and ways to monitor synchrony. We also describe a chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) method to locate G1-S transcription factor components to promoters and a quantitative PCR (qPCR) protocol to determine gene expression. Defining the binding dynamics of G1-S transcription factors and changes in gene expression during the cell cycle should provide new insights into the mechanism that control G1-S transcription and will allow for investigation of the biological relevance of confining gene expression to G1.

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.

Start and the restriction point

Commitment to division requires that cells sense, interpret, and respond appropriately to multiple signals. In most eukaryotes, cells commit to division in G1 before DNA replication. Beyond a point, known as Start in yeast and the restriction point in mammals, cells will proceed through the cell cycle despite changes in upstream signals. In metazoans, misregulated G1 control can lead to developmental problems or disease, so it is important to understand how cells decipher the myriad external and internal signals that contribute to the fundamental all-or-none decision to divide. Extensive study of G1 control in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and mammalian culture systems has revealed highly similar networks regulating commitment. However, protein sequences of functional orthologs often indicate a total lack of conservation suggesting significant evolution of G1 control. Here, we review recent studies defining the conserved and diverged features of G1 control and highlight systems-level aspects that may be common to other biological regulatory networks.

Dancing the cell cycle two-step: regulation of yeast G1-cell-cycle genes by chromatin structure

The chromatin structure at a promoter can define how a gene is regulated. Studies of two yeast genes expressed in the G1 phase of the cell cycle, HO and CLN2, have provided important paradigms for transcriptional regulation. Although the SBF (Swi4/Swi6 box factor) transcription factor activates both genes, the chromatin landscapes that regulate SBF binding are different. Specifically, the CLN2 promoter is constitutively available for SBF binding, whereas HO has a complex two-step promoter in which chromatin changes in one region allow SBF to bind at a downstream location. These studies reveal the role of chromatin in defining the regulatory properties of promoters.