Polycomb Responds to Low Levels of Transcription.

How is Polycomb (Pc), a eukaryotic negative regulator of transcription, targeted to specific mammalian genes? Our genome-wide analysis of the Pc mark H3K27me3 in murine cells revealed that Pc is preferentially associated with CpG island promoters of genes that are transcribed at a low level and less so with promoters of genes that are either silent or more highly expressed. Studies of the CpG island promoter of the Kit gene demonstrate that Pc is largely absent when the gene is silent in myeloid cells, as well as when the gene is highly expressed in mast cells. Manipulations that increase transcription in the former case, and reduce it in the latter, increase Pc occupancy. The average negative effect of Pc, we infer, is about 2-fold. We suggest possible biological roles for such negative effects and propose a mechanism by which Pc might be recruited to weakly transcribed genes.

An effect of DNA sequence on nucleosome occupancy and removal.

A barrier phases nucleosomes at the yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) GAL1-GAL10 genes. Here we separate nucleosome positioning from occupancy and show that the degree of occupancy of these phased sites is predictably determined by the underlying DNA sequences. As this occupancy is increased (by sequence alteration), nucleosome removal upon induction is decreased, as is mRNA production. These results explain why promoter sequences have evolved to form nucleosomes relatively inefficiently.

A RSC/nucleosome complex determines chromatin architecture and facilitates activator binding.

How is chromatin architecture established and what role does it play in transcription? We show that the yeast regulatory locus UASg bears, in addition to binding sites for the activator Gal4, sites bound by the RSC complex. RSC positions a nucleosome, evidently partially unwound, in a structure that facilitates Gal4 binding to its sites. The complex comprises a barrier that imposes characteristic features of chromatin architecture. In the absence of RSC, ordinary nucleosomes encroach over the UASg and compete with Gal4 for binding. Taken with our previous work, the results show that both prior to and following induction, specific DNA-binding proteins are the predominant determinants of chromatin architecture at the GAL1/10 genes. RSC/nucleosome complexes are also found scattered around the yeast genome. Higher eukaryotic RSC lacks the specific DNA-binding determinants found on yeast RSC, and evidently Gal4 works in those organisms despite whatever obstacle broadly positioned nucleosomes present.

Activator control of nucleosome occupancy in activation and repression of transcription.

The relationship between chromatin structure and gene expression is a subject of intense study. The universal transcriptional activator Gal4 removes promoter nucleosomes as it triggers transcription, but how it does so has remained obscure. The reverse process, repression of transcription, has often been correlated with the presence of nucleosomes. But it is not known whether nucleosomes are required for that effect. A new quantitative assay describes, for any given location, the fraction of DNA molecules in the population that bears a nucleosome at any given instant. This allows us to follow the time courses of nucleosome removal and reformation, in wild-type and mutant cells, upon activation (by galactose) and repression (by glucose) of the GAL genes of yeast. We show that upon being freed of its inhibitor Gal80 by the action of galactose, Gal4 quickly recruits SWI/SNF to the genes, and that nucleosome "remodeler" rapidly removes promoter nucleosomes. In the absence of SWI/SNF, Gal4's action also results in nucleosome removal and the activation of transcription, but both processes are significantly delayed. Addition of glucose to cells growing in galactose represses transcription. But if galactose remains present, Gal4 continues to work, recruiting SWI/SNF and maintaining the promoter nucleosome-free despite it being repressed. This requirement for galactose is obviated in a mutant in which Gal4 works constitutively. These results show how an activator's recruiting function can control chromatin structure both during gene activation and repression. Thus, both under activating and repressing conditions, the activator can recruit an enzymatic machine that removes promoter nucleosomes. Our results show that whereas promoter nucleosome removal invariably accompanies activation, reformation of nucleosomes is not required for repression. The finding that there are two routes to nucleosome removal and activation of transcription-one that requires the action of SWI/SNF recruited by the activator, and a slower one that does not-clarifies our understanding of the early events of gene activation, and in particular corrects earlier reports that SWI/SNF plays no role in GAL gene induction. Our finding that chromatin structure is irrelevant for repression as studied here-that is, repression sets in as efficiently whether or not promoter nucleosomes are allowed to reform-contradicts the widely held, but little tested, idea that nucleosomes are required for repression. These findings were made possible by our nucleosome occupancy assay. The assay, we believe, will prove useful in studying other outstanding issues in the field.