In vitro reconstitution of PHO5 promoter chromatin remodeling points to a role for activator-nucleosome competition in vivo.

The yeast PHO5 promoter is a classical model for studying the role of chromatin in gene regulation. To enable biochemical dissection of the mechanism leading to PHO5 activation, we reconstituted the process in vitro. Positioned nucleosomes corresponding to the repressed PHO5 promoter state were assembled using a yeast extract-based in vitro system. Addition of the transactivator Pho4 yielded an extensive DNase I-hypersensitive site resembling induced PHO5 promoter chromatin. Importantly, this remodeling was energy dependent. In contrast, little or no chromatin remodeling was detected at the PHO8 or PHO84 promoter in this in vitro system. Only the PHO5 promoter harbors a high-affinity intranucleosomal Pho4 binding site (UASp) where Pho4 binding can compete with nucleosome formation, prompting us to test the importance of such competition for chromatin remodeling by analysis of UASp mutants in vivo. Indeed, the intranucleosomal location of the UASp element was critical, but not essential, for complete remodeling at the PHO5 promoter in vivo. Further, binding of just the Gal4 DNA binding domain to an intranucleosomal site could increase PHO5 promoter opening. These data establish an auxiliary role for DNA binding competition between Pho4 and histones in PHO5 promoter chromatin remodeling in vivo.

Differential cofactor requirements for histone eviction from two nucleosomes at the yeast PHO84 promoter are determined by intrinsic nucleosome stability.

We showed previously that the strong PHO5 promoter is less dependent on chromatin cofactors than the weaker coregulated PHO8 promoter. In this study we asked if chromatin remodeling at the even stronger PHO84 promoter was correspondingly less cofactor dependent. The repressed PHO84 promoter showed a short hypersensitive region that was flanked upstream and downstream by a positioned nucleosome and contained two transactivator Pho4 sites. Promoter induction generated an extensive hypersensitive and histone-depleted region, yielding two more Pho4 sites accessible. This remodeling was strictly Pho4 dependent, strongly dependent on the remodelers Snf2 and Ino80 and on the histone acetyltransferase Gcn5, and more weakly on the acetyltransferase Rtt109. Importantly, remodeling of each of the two positioned nucleosomes required Snf2 and Ino80 to different degrees. Only remodeling of the upstream nucleosome was strictly dependent on Snf2. Further, remodeling of the upstream nucleosome was more dependent on Ino80 than remodeling of the downstream nucleosome. Both nucleosomes differed in their intrinsic stabilities as predicted in silico and measured in vitro. The causal relationship between the different nucleosome stabilities and the different cofactor requirements was shown by introducing destabilizing mutations in vivo. Therefore, chromatin cofactor requirements were determined by intrinsic nucleosome stabilities rather than correlated to promoter strength.

Redundancy of chromatin remodeling pathways for the induction of the yeast PHO5 promoter in vivo.

Induction of the yeast PHO5 and PHO8 genes leads to a prominent chromatin transition at their promoter regions as a prerequisite for transcription activation. Although induction of PHO8 is strictly dependent on Snf2 and Gcn5, there is no chromatin remodeler identified so far that would be essential for the opening of PHO5 promoter chromatin. Nonetheless, the nonessential but significant involvement of cofactors can be identified if the chromatin opening kinetics are delayed in the respective mutants. Using this approach, we have tested individually all 15 viable Snf2 type ATPase deletion mutants for their effect on PHO5 promoter induction and opening. Only the absence of Snf2 and Ino80 showed a strong delay in chromatin remodeling kinetics. The snf2 ino80 double mutation had a synthetic kinetic effect but eventually still allowed strong PHO5 induction. The same was true for the snf2 gcn5 and ino80 gcn5 double mutants. This strongly suggests a complex network of redundant and mutually independent parallel pathways that lead to the remodeling of the PHO5 promoter. Further, chromatin remodeling kinetics at a transcriptionally inactive TATA box-mutated PHO5 promoter were affected neither under wild type conditions nor in the absence of Snf2 or Gcn5. This demonstrates the complete independence of promoter chromatin opening from downstream PHO5 transcription processes. Finally, the histone variant Htz1 has no prominent role for the kinetics of PHO5 promoter chromatin remodeling.

The histone chaperone Asf1 increases the rate of histone eviction at the yeast PHO5 and PHO8 promoters.

Eukaryotic gene expression starts off from a largely obstructive chromatin substrate that has to be rendered accessible by regulated mechanisms of chromatin remodeling. The yeast PHO5 promoter is a well known example for the contribution of positioned nucleosomes to gene repression and for extensive chromatin remodeling in the course of gene induction. Recently, the mechanism of this remodeling process was shown to lead to the disassembly of promoter nucleosomes and the eviction of the constituent histones in trans. This finding called for a histone acceptor in trans and thus made histone chaperones likely to be involved in this process. In this study we have shown that the histone chaperone Asf1 increases the rate of histone eviction at the PHO5 promoter. In the absence of Asf1 histone eviction is delayed, but the final outcome of the chromatin transition is not affected. The same is true for the coregulated PHO8 promoter where induction also leads to histone eviction and where the rate of histone loss is reduced in asf1 strains as well, although less severely. Importantly, the final extent of chromatin remodeling is not affected. We have also presented evidence that Asf1 and the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex work in distinct parallel but functionally overlapping pathways, i.e. they both contribute toward the same outcome without being mutually strictly dependent.

Evidence for histone eviction in trans upon induction of the yeast PHO5 promoter.

The yeast PHO5 promoter is a model system for the role of chromatin in eukaryotic gene regulation. Four positioned nucleosomes in the repressed state give way to an extended DNase I hypersensitive site upon induction. Recently this hypersensitive site was shown to be devoid of histone DNA contacts. This raises the mechanistic question of how histones are removed from the promoter. A displacement in trans or movement in cis, the latter according to the well established nucleosome sliding mechanism, are the major alternatives. In this study, we embedded the PHO5 promoter into the context of a small plasmid which severely restricts the space for nucleosome sliding along the DNA in cis. Such a construct would either preclude the chromatin transition upon induction altogether, were it to occur in cis, or gross changes in chromatin around the plasmid would be the consequence. We observed neither. Instead, promoter opening on the plasmid was indistinguishable from opening at the native chromosomal locus. This makes a sliding mechanism for the chromatin transition at the PHO5 promoter highly unlikely and points to histone eviction in trans.