Purification and functional analysis of a novel leucine-zipper/nucleotide-fold protein, BZAP45, stimulating cell cycle regulated histone H4 gene transcription.

Regulation of histone gene transcription at the G1/S phase transition via the Site II cell cycle control element is distinct from E2F-dependent mechanisms operative at the growth factor-related restriction point. E2F-independent activation of histone H4 gene expression combines contributions of several promoter factors, including HiNF-M/IRF2 and the HiNF-D/CDP-cut complex which contains pRB, CDK1, and cyclin A as non-DNA binding subunits. Mutational analyses suggest additional rate-limiting factors for Site II function. Using sequence-specific Site II DNA affinity chromatography, we identified a 45 kDa protein (KIAA0005 or BZAP45) that is embryonically expressed and phylogenetically conserved. Based on amino acid sequence analysis, BZAP45 contains a unique decapeptide that is part of a putative leucine-zipper protein with a nucleotide (ATP or GTP) binding fold. Bacterial expression of a full-length cDNA produces a 45 kDa protein. Binding studies reveal that highly purified BZAP45 does not interact with Site II, suggesting that BZAP45 function may require partner proteins. Forced expression of BZAP45 strongly stimulates H4 promoter (nt -215 to -1)/CAT reporter gene activity. Deletion analyses and point mutations indicate that BZAP45 enhances H4 gene transcription through Site II. Thus, BZAP45 is a novel regulatory factor that contributes to transcriptional control at the G1/S phase transition.

Cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chain phosphorylation regulates binding to dynactin.

Previously, we identified dynactin as a cargo receptor or adaptor for cytoplasmic dynein, mediated by an interaction between the dynein intermediate chain and p150(Glued). To test phosphorylation as a potential regulatory mechanism for this interaction, we analyzed cytoplasmic dynein by two-dimensional gel analysis and detected two intermediate chain variants, one of which was eliminated by phosphatase treatment. Overlay assays demonstrated that p150(Glued) bound dephosphorylated but not phosphorylated intermediate chains. We then subjected the purified cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chain to mass spectrometry and identified a single phosphorylated tryptic fragment corresponding to the p150(Glued)-binding domain. Fragmentation and retention time analysis mapped the phosphorylation site to serine 84. Site-directed mutants designed to mimic the dephosphorylated or phosphorylated intermediate chain disrupted both in vitro phosphorylation and in vivo phosphorylation of transfected proteins. Mutants mimicking the dephosphorylated form bound p150(Glued) in vitro and overexpression perturbed transport of dynein-dependent membranes. Mutants mimicking the phosphorylated form displayed diminished p150(Glued) binding in vitro and did not disrupt dynein-mediated transport when expressed in vivo. These findings represent the first mapping of an intermediate chain phosphorylation site and suggest that this phosphorylation plays an important role in regulating the binding of cytoplasmic dynein to dynactin.

Selective expression of specific histone H4 genes reflects distinctions in transcription factor interactions with divergent H4 promoter elements.

Expression of many histone H4 genes is stringently controlled during the cell cycle to maintain a functional coupling of histone biosynthesis with DNA replication. The histone H4 multigene family provides a paradigm for understanding cell cycle control of gene transcription. All functional histone H4 gene copies are highly conserved in the mRNA coding region. However, the putative promoter regions of these H4 genes are divergent. We analyzed three representative mouse H4 genes to assess whether variation in H4 promoter sequences has functional consequences for the relative level and temporal control of expression of distinct H4 genes. Using S1 nuclease protection assays with gene-specific probes and RNA from synchronized cells, we show that the mRNA level of each H4 gene is temporally coupled to DNA synthesis. However, there are differences in the relative mRNA levels of these three H4 gene copies in several cell types. Based on gel shift assays, nucleotide variations in the promoters of these H4 genes preclude or reduce binding of several histone gene transcription factors, including IRF2, HiNF-D, SP-1 and/or YY1. Therefore, differential regulation of H4 genes is directly attributable to evolutionary divergence in H4 promoter organization which dictates the potential for regulatory interactions with cognate H4 transcription factors. This regulatory flexibility in H4 promoter organization may maximize options for transcriptional control of histone H4 gene expression in response to the onset of DNA synthesis and cell cycle progression in a broad spectrum of cell types and developmental stages.

The integrated activities of IRF-2 (HiNF-M), CDP/cut (HiNF-D) and H4TF-2 (HiNF-P) regulate transcription of a cell cycle controlled human histone H4 gene: mechanistic differences between distinct H4 genes.

Maximal transcription of a prototypical cell cycle controlled histone H4 gene requires a proliferation-specific in vivo genomic protein/DNA interaction element, Site II. Three sequence-specific transcription factors interact with overlapping recognition motifs within Site II: interferon regulatory factor IRF-2 (HiNF-M), the putative H4 subtype-specific protein H4TF-2 (HiNF-P), and HiNF-D which represents a complex of the homeodomain protein CDP/cut, CDC2, cyclin A and pRB. However, natural sequence variation in the Site II sequences of different human H4 genes abolishes binding of specific trans-acting factors; the functional consequences of these variations have not been investigated. To address the precise contribution of H4 promoter factors to the level of H4 gene transcription, we performed a systematic mutational analysis of Site II transcriptional motifs. These mutants were tested for ability to bind each of the Site II cognate proteins, and subsequently evaluated for ability to confer H4 transcriptional activity using chimeric H4 promoter/CAT fusion constructs in different cell types. We also analyzed the effect of over-expressing IRF-2 on CAT reporter gene expression driven by mutant H4 promoters and assessed H4 transcriptional control in cells nullizygous for IRF-1 and IRF-2. Our results show that the recognition sequence for IRF-2 (HiNF-M) is the dominant component of Site II and modulates H4 gene transcription levels by 3 fold. However, the overlapping recognition sequences for IRF-2 (HiNF-M), H4TF-2 (HiNF-P) and CDP/cut (HiNF-D) together modulate H4 gene transcription levels by at least an order of magnitude. Thus, maximal activation of H4 gene transcription during the cell cycle in vivo requires the integrated activities of multiple transcription factors at Site II. We postulate that the composite organization of Site II supports responsiveness to multiple signalling pathways modulating the activities of H4 gene transcription factors during the cell cycle. Variations in Site II sequences among different H4 genes may accommodate differential regulation of H4 gene expression in cells and tissues with unique phenotypic properties.

Cell cycle regulation of histone H4 gene transcription requires the oncogenic factor IRF-2.

Histone genes display a peak in transcription in early S phase and are ideal models for cell cycle-regulated gene expression. We have previously shown that the transcription factor interferon regulatory factor 2 (IRF-2) can activate histone H4 gene expression. In this report we establish that a mouse histone H4 gene and its human homolog lose stringent cell cycle control in synchronized embryonic fibroblasts in which IRF-2 has been ablated. We also show that there are reduced mRNA levels of this endogenous mouse histone H4 gene in the IRF-2(-/-) cells. Strikingly, the overall mRNA level and cell cycle regulation of histone H4 transcription are restored when IRF-2 is reintroduced to these cells. IRF-2 is a negative regulator of the interferon response and has oncogenic potential, but little is known of the mechanism of these activities. Our results suggest that IRF-2 is an active player in E2F-independent cell cycle-regulated gene expression at the G1/S phase transition. IRF-2 was previously considered a passive antagonist to the tumor suppressor IRF-1 but can now join other oncogenic factors such as c-Myb and E2F1 that are predicted to mediate their transforming capabilities by actively regulating genes necessary for cell cycle progression.

Phosphorylation of the oncogenic transcription factor interferon regulatory factor 2 (IRF2) in vitro and in vivo.

IRF2 is a transcription factor, possessing oncogenic potential, responsible for both the repression of growth-inhibiting genes (interferon) and the activation of cell cycle-regulated genes (histone H4). Surprisingly little is known about the post-translational modification of this factor. In this study, we analyze the phosphorylation of IRF2 both in vivo and in vitro. Immunoprecipitation of HA-tagged IRF2 expressed in 32P-phosphate labelled COS-7 cells demonstrates that IRF2 is phosphorylated in vivo. Amino acid sequence analysis reveals that several potential phosphorylation sites exist for a variety of serine/threonine protein kinases, including those of the mitogen activated protein (MAP) kinase family. Using a battery of these protein kinases we show that recombinant IRF2 is a substrate for protein kinase A (PKA), protein kinase C (PKC), and casein kinase II (CK2) in vitro. However, other serine/threonine protein kinases, including the MAP kinases JNK1, p38, and ERK2, do not phosphorylate IRF2. Two-dimensional phosphopeptide mapping of the sites phosphorylated by PKA, PKC, and CKII in vitro demonstrates that these enzymes are capable of phosphorylating IRF2 at multiple distinct sites. Phosphoaminoacid analysis of HA-tagged IRF2 immunoprecipitated from an asynchronous population of proliferating, metabolically phosphate-labelled cells indicates that this protein is phosphorylated exclusively upon serine residues in vivo. These results suggest that the oncogenic protein IRF2 may be regulated via multiple pathways during cellular growth.

Interferon regulatory factors: growth control and histone gene regulation--it's not just interferon anymore.

Interferon-regulatory factors (IRFs) are a related family of proteins originally identified by their ability to bind a DNA sequence found in the beta-interferon gene and many interferon-stimulated genes. Two well-studied members of this family, IRF-1 and IRF-2, have antagonistic roles in interferon-beta gene regulation: IRF-1 activates this gene, and IRF-2 represses the activation by IRF-1, IRF-1 and IRF-2 have more recently been linked to growth control by displaying tumor suppressor and oncogenic activities, respectively. A possible explanation for the oncogenic activity of IRF-2 is the discovery that IRF-2 can activate a histone gene that is functionally coupled to cell cycle progression. This first report of native IRF-2 playing the role of activator of a gene essential for growth may lead to the discovery of a more general involvement of interferon regulatory factors in mediating growth control.

CDP/cut is the DNA-binding subunit of histone gene transcription factor HiNF-D: a mechanism for gene regulation at the G1/S phase cell cycle transition point independent of transcription factor E2F.

Transcription of the genes for the human histone proteins H4, H3, H2A, H2B, and H1 is activated at the G1/S phase transition of the cell cycle. We have previously shown that the promoter complex HiNF-D, which interacts with cell cycle control elements in multiple histone genes, contains the key cell cycle factors cyclin A, CDC2, and a retinoblastoma (pRB) protein-related protein. However, an intrinsic DNA-binding subunit for HiNF-D was not identified. Many genes that are up-regulated at the G1/S phase boundary are controlled by E2F, a transcription factor that associates with cyclin-, cyclin-dependent kinase-, and pRB-related proteins. Using gel-shift immunoassays, DNase I protection, and oligonucleotide competition analyses, we show that the homeodomain protein CDP/cut, not E2F, is the DNA-binding subunit of the HiNF-D complex. The HiNF-D (CDP/cut) complex with the H4 promoter is immunoreactive with antibodies against CDP/cut and pRB but not p107, whereas the CDP/cut complex with a nonhistone promoter (gp91-phox) reacts only with CDP and p107 antibodies. Thus, CDP/cut complexes at different gene promoters can associate with distinct pRB-related proteins. Transient coexpression assays show that CDP/cut modulates H4 promoter activity via the HiNF-D-binding site. Hence, DNA replication-dependent histone H4 genes are regulated by an E2F-independent mechanism involving a complex of CDP/cut with cyclin A/CDC2/ RB-related proteins.

Activation of a cell-cycle-regulated histone gene by the oncogenic transcription factor IRF-2.

The human histone H4 gene FO108 is regulated during the cell cycle with a peak in transcription during early S phase. The cell-cycle element (CCE) required for H4 histone activation is a sequence of 11 base pairs that binds a protein factor in electrophoretic mobility shift assays that has been designated histone nuclear factor M (HiNF-M). Here we report the purification of HiNF-M, and show it to be a protein of relative molecular mass (M(r)) 48K that is identical to interferon (IFN) regulatory factor 2 (IRF-2), a negative transcriptional regulator of the IFN response. Recombinant IRF-2 (as well as the related protein IRF-1 (ref. 5)) binds the CCE specifically and activates transcription of this H4 histone gene. IRF-2 has been shown to have oncogenic potential, and our results demonstrate a link between IRF-2 and a gene that is functionally coupled to DNA replication and cell-cycle progression at the G1/S phase transition.

DNA polymerase III accessory proteins. V. Theta encoded by holE.

The polIII core subassembly of DNA polymerase III holoenzyme is composed of the alpha (DNA polymerase), epsilon (editing exonuclease), and theta subunits. We have identified holE encoding theta (8.6 kDa) at 40.4 min, expressed and purified 300 mg of theta, and have studied its function by constituting the polIII core from pure alpha, epsilon, and theta subunits. The theta subunit binds the epsilon proofreader tightly, but it does not form a detectable complex with alpha. The epsilon subunit also binds to alpha (Maki, H., and Kornberg, A. (1987) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 84, 4389-4392). Hence, the subunit arrangement of the polIII core is linear, alpha epsilon theta. Interaction of theta with epsilon slightly stimulated epsilon in excision of a 3' terminal mismatched nucleotide, suggesting a possible role for theta in fidelity.

Constitution of the twin polymerase of DNA polymerase III holoenzyme.

It is speculated that DNA polymerases which duplicate chromosomes are dimeric to provide concurrent replication of both leading and lagging strands. DNA polymerase III holoenzyme (holoenzyme), is the 10-subunit replicase of the Escherichia coli chromosome. A complex of the alpha (DNA polymerase) and epsilon (3'-5' exonuclease) subunits of the holoenzyme contains only one of each protein. Presumably, one of the eight other subunit(s) functions to dimerize the alpha epsilon polymerase within the holoenzyme. Based on dimeric subassemblies of the holoenzyme, two subunits have been elected as possible agents of polymerase dimerization, one of which is the tau subunit (McHenry, C. S. (1982) J. Biol. Chem. 257, 2657-2663). Here, we have used pure alpha, epsilon, and tau subunits in binding studies to determine whether tau can dimerize the polymerase. We find tau binds directly to alpha. Whereas alpha is monomeric, tau is a dimer in its native state and thereby serves as an efficient scaffold to dimerize the polymerase. The epsilon subunit does not associate directly with tau but becomes dimerized in the alpha epsilon tau complex by virtue of its interaction with alpha. We have analyzed the dimeric alpha epsilon tau complex by different physical methods to increase the confidence that this complex truly contains a dimeric polymerase. The tau subunit is comprised of the NH2-terminal two-thirds of tau but does not bind to alpha epsilon, identifying the COOH-terminal region of tau as essential to its polymerase dimerization function. The significance of these results with respect to the organization of subunits within the holoenzyme is discussed.

Mechanism of the sliding beta-clamp of DNA polymerase III holoenzyme.

DNA polymerase III holoenzyme (holoenzyme), the multiprotein replicase of Escherichia coli, is essentially unlimited in processive DNA synthesis. Processive activity can be reconstituted from two components. One component, the beta preinitiation complex, is a beta dimer clamped onto primed DNA. The beta preinitiation complex is formed by the five-protein gamma complex, which hydrolyzes ATP to chaperone beta onto primed DNA. The other component is the alpha epsilon polymerase. The alpha epsilon polymerase itself is not processive, but is endowed with extremely high processive activity upon assembly with the beta preinitiation complex. Here we examine the mechanism by which the beta preinitiation complex confers processivity onto the alpha epsilon polymerase. We find the beta preinitiation complex to be mobile on DNA. Diffusion of beta on DNA is specific to duplex DNA, is bidirectional, does not require ATP, and appears to diffuse linearly along the duplex. Furthermore, beta directly binds the alpha epsilon polymerase through contact with alpha, the DNA polymerase subunit. Hence, the high processivity of the holoenzyme is rooted in a "sliding clamp" of beta on DNA that tethers the polymerase to the primed template. Implications for transcription and translation are discussed.