Progesterone receptor expression in the brain of the socially monogamous and paternal male prairie vole.

Differences in the social organization and behavior of male mammals are attributable to species differences in neurochemistry, including differential expression of steroid hormone receptors. However, the distribution of progestin receptors (PR) in a socially monogamous and spontaneously parental male rodent has never been examined. Here we determined if PR exists and is regulated by testicular hormones in forebrain sites traditionally influencing socioreproductive behaviors in male prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). We hypothesized that PR expression in male prairie voles would differ from that described in other male rodents because PR activity inhibits parental behaviors and social memory in laboratory mice and rats. Adult male prairie voles received a sham surgery, were gonadectomized, or were gonadectomized and implanted with a testosterone-filled capsule. PR immunoreactivity (PRir) was measured four weeks later in areas of the hypothalamus and extended amygdala. A group of gonadally intact female prairie voles was included to reveal possible sex differences. We found considerable PRir in all sites examined. Castration reduced PRir in males' medial preoptic nucleus, anteroventral periventricular nucleus, ventromedial hypothalamus, and posterodorsal medial amygdala, and it was maintained in these sites by testosterone. This is the first study to examine PR expression in brain sites involved in socioreproductive behaviors in a socially monogamous and spontaneously paternal male rodent. Our results mostly reveal cross-species conservation in the distribution and hormone sensitivity of PR expression. Because PR interferes with aspects of sociality in other male rodents, PR may eventually be found to have different neurobiological actions in male prairie voles.

The replication-independent histone H3-H4 chaperones HIR, ASF1, and RTT106 co-operate to maintain promoter fidelity.

RNA polymerase II initiates from low complexity sequences so cells must reliably distinguish "real" from "cryptic" promoters and maintain fidelity to the former. Further, this must be performed under a range of conditions, including those found within inactive and highly transcribed regions. Here, we used genome-scale screening to identify those factors that regulate the use of a specific cryptic promoter and how this is influenced by the degree of transcription over the element. We show that promoter fidelity is most reliant on histone gene transactivators (Spt10, Spt21) and H3-H4 chaperones (Asf1, HIR complex) from the replication-independent deposition pathway. Mutations of Rtt106 that abrogate its interactions with H3-H4 or dsDNA permit extensive cryptic transcription comparable with replication-independent deposition factor deletions. We propose that nucleosome shielding is the primary means to maintain promoter fidelity, and histone replacement is most efficiently mediated in yeast cells by a HIR/Asf1/H3-H4/Rtt106 pathway.

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae histone H2A variant Htz1 is acetylated by NuA4.

The histone H2A variant H2A.Z (Saccharomyces cerevisiae Htz1) plays roles in transcription, DNA repair, chromosome stability, and limiting telomeric silencing. The Swr1-Complex (SWR-C) inserts Htz1 into chromatin and shares several subunits with the NuA4 histone acetyltransferase. Furthermore, mutants of these two complexes share several phenotypes, suggesting they may work together. Here we show that NuA4 acetylates Htz1 Lys 14 (K14) after the histone is assembled into chromatin by the SWR-C. K14 mutants exhibit specific defects in chromosome transmission without affecting transcription, telomeric silencing, or DNA repair. Function-specific modifications may help explain how the same component of chromatin can function in diverse pathways.

Combinatorial repression of the hypoxic genes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by DNA binding proteins Rox1 and Mot3.

The hypoxic genes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae are transcriptionally repressed during aerobic growth through recruitment of the Ssn6/Tup1 general repression complex by the DNA binding protein Rox1. A second DNA binding protein Mot3 enhances repression of some hypoxic genes. Previous studies characterized the role of Mot3 at the hypoxic ANB1 gene as promoting synergy among one Mot3 site and two Rox1 sites comprising operator A of that gene. Here we studied the role of Mot3 in enhancing repression by Rox1 at another hypoxic gene, HEM13, which is less strongly regulated than ANB1 and has a very different arrangement of Rox1 and Mot3 binding sites. By assessing the effects of deleting Rox1 and Mot3 sites individually and in combination, we found that the major repression of HEM13 occurred through three Mot3 sites closely spaced with a single Rox1 site. While the Mot3 sites functioned additively, they enhanced repression by the single Rox1 site, and the presence of Rox1 enhanced the additive effects of the Mot3 sites. In addition, using a Rox1-Ssn6 fusion protein, we demonstrated that Mot3 enhances Rox1 repression through helping recruit the Ssn6/Tup1 complex. Chromatin immunoprecipitation assays indicated that Rox1 stabilized Mot3 binding to DNA. Integrating these results, we were able to devise a set of rules that govern the combinatorial interactions between Rox1 and Mot3 to achieve differential repression.

Recruitment of Tup1-Ssn6 by yeast hypoxic genes and chromatin-independent exclusion of TATA binding protein.

The Tup1-Ssn6 general repression complex in Saccharomyces cerevisiae represses a wide variety of regulons. Regulon-specific DNA binding proteins recruit the repression complex, and their synthesis, activity, or localization controls the conditions for repression. Rox1 is the hypoxic regulon-specific protein, and a second DNA binding protein, Mot3, augments repression at tightly controlled genes. We addressed the requirements for Tup1-Ssn6 recruitment to two hypoxic genes, ANB1 and HEM13, by using chromatin immunoprecipitation assays. Either Rox1 or Mot3 could recruit Ssn6, but Tup1 recruitment required Ssn6 and Rox1. We also monitored events during derepression. Rox1 and Mot3 dissociated from DNA quickly, accounting for the rapid accumulation of ANB1 and HEM13 RNAs, suggesting a simple explanation for induction. However, Tup1 remained associated with these genes, suggesting that the localization of Tup1-Ssn6 is not the sole determinant of repression. We could not reproduce the observation that deletion of the Tup1-Ssn6-interacting protein Cti6 was required for induction. Finally, Tup1 is capable of repression through a chromatin-dependent mechanism, the positioning of a nucleosome over the TATA box, or a chromatin-independent mechanism. We found that the rate of derepression was independent of the positioned nucleosome and that the TATA binding protein was excluded from ANB1 even in the absence of the positioned nucleosome. The mediator factor Srb7 has been shown to interact with Tup1 and to play a role in repression at several regulons, but we found that significant levels of repression remained in srb7 mutants even when the chromatin-dependent repression mechanism was eliminated. These findings suggest that the repression of different regulons or genes may invoke different mechanisms.