FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2025179624> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2025179624 endingPage "14535" @default.
• W2025179624 startingPage "14530" @default.
• W2025179624 abstract "During mitosis, transcription is silenced and most transcription factors are displaced from their recognition sequences. By in vivo footprinting analysis, we have confirmed and extended previous studies showing loss of transcription factors from an RNA polymerase II promoter (c-FOS) and, for the first time, an RNA polymerase III promoter (U6) in HeLa cells. Because little was known about nucleosomal organization in mitotic chromosomes, we performed footprinting analysis for nucleosomes on these promoters in interphase and mitotic cells. During interphase, each of the promoters had a positioned nucleosome in the region intervening between proximal promoter elements and distal enhancer elements, but the strong nucleosome positioning disappeared during mitosis. Thus, the nucleosomal organization that appears to facilitate transcription in interphase cells may be lost in mitotic cells, and nucleosome positioning during mitosis does not seem to be a major component of the epigenetic mechanisms to mark genes for rapid reactivation after this phase. During mitosis, transcription is silenced and most transcription factors are displaced from their recognition sequences. By in vivo footprinting analysis, we have confirmed and extended previous studies showing loss of transcription factors from an RNA polymerase II promoter (c-FOS) and, for the first time, an RNA polymerase III promoter (U6) in HeLa cells. Because little was known about nucleosomal organization in mitotic chromosomes, we performed footprinting analysis for nucleosomes on these promoters in interphase and mitotic cells. During interphase, each of the promoters had a positioned nucleosome in the region intervening between proximal promoter elements and distal enhancer elements, but the strong nucleosome positioning disappeared during mitosis. Thus, the nucleosomal organization that appears to facilitate transcription in interphase cells may be lost in mitotic cells, and nucleosome positioning during mitosis does not seem to be a major component of the epigenetic mechanisms to mark genes for rapid reactivation after this phase. On condensed chromosomes of higher eukaryotic cells during mitosis, transcription by all three nuclear RNA polymerases is silenced (1Gottesfeld J.M. Forbes D.J. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1997; 22: 197-202Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (316) Google Scholar). Most transcription factors are displaced from their recognition sequences in promoter regions during mitosis (2Hershkovitz M. Riggs A.D. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1995; 92: 2379-2383Crossref PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar, 3Martínez-Balbás M.A. Dey A. Rabindran S.K. Ozato K. Wu C. Cell. 1995; 83: 29-38Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar) although the proteins are still present in the cells, and many of them retain normal DNA binding activities in extracts from mitotic cells. Upon exit from mitosis, previously active genes resume transcription, whereas previously inactive genes remain silent. This “cell memory” suggests that some kind of epigenetic information in chromatin survives mitosis and guides correct reestablishment of transcription complexes in previously active promoters (2Hershkovitz M. Riggs A.D. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1995; 92: 2379-2383Crossref PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar, 4Michelotti E.F. Sanford S. Levens D. Nature. 1997; 388: 895-899Crossref PubMed Scopus (146) Google Scholar). To better understand the structure and roles of mitotic chromatin, we have performed high resolution in vivo footprinting analysis of the promoter regions of the human c-FOS and U6 small nuclear RNA genes during mitosis, especially focusing on nucleosomal organization. We chose these genes because each of them has a nucleosome strongly positioned in the middle of the promoter region (5Herrera R.E. Nordheim A. Stewart A.F. Chromosoma. 1997; 106: 284-292Crossref PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar, 6Zhao X. Pendergrast P.S. Hernandez N. Mol. Cell. 2001; 7: 539-549Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (61) Google Scholar, 7Komura J. Ono T. Biochemistry. 2003; 42: 15084-15091Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar) between proximal promoter elements and distal enhancer elements (Fig. 1), at least during interphase, which seemed to simplify our analysis of mitotic nucleosomal organization. Such nucleosomes have been observed in several genes of higher eukaryotes (8Thomas G.H. Elgin S.C.R. EMBO J. 1988; 7: 2191-2201Crossref PubMed Scopus (149) Google Scholar, 9Schild C. Claret F-X. Wahli W. Wolffe A.P. EMBO J. 1993; 12: 423-433Crossref PubMed Scopus (177) Google Scholar), and it has been suggested that the positioning of these nucleosomes potentiates transcription by locating the cisacting elements in the adjacent linker regions, where the access of transcription factors to DNA is not prevented and by winding the intervening DNA sequences around the histone cores to bring into juxtaposition the widely separated elements and the factors bound to them. In this study, we found that the complex nucleoprotein structures of the c-FOS and U6 promoters were dissociated during mitosis; not only were the transcription factors displaced, but the nucleosome positioning disappeared. Cell Culture—The HeLa S3 cell line was provided by the Health Science Research Resources Bank (Osaka, Japan). The cells were grown in Eagle's minimum essential medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum. Asynchronously growing cells were harvested by trypsinization. We collected mitotic cells by shaking them off the surfaces of the flasks after treatment with 50 ng/ml nocodazole for 16 h (3Martínez-Balbás M.A. Dey A. Rabindran S.K. Ozato K. Wu C. Cell. 1995; 83: 29-38Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar, 10Christova R. Oelgeschläger T. Nat. Cell Biol. 2002; 4: 79-82Crossref PubMed Scopus (127) Google Scholar). For preparation of cells released from mitotic arrest, the mitotic cells collected as described above were allowed to proceed through the cell cycle and to adhere to the surfaces in nocodazole-free medium for 5 h and then were harvested by trypsinization. The mitotic indexes of these cell preparations were determined by microscopy after hypotonic treatment, fixation, and Giemsa staining. Treatment with Dimethyl Sulfate—DNA extracted from untreated cells (0.3 μg/μl) was treated in vitro with 0.05% dimethyl sulfate (DMS) 1The abbreviations used are: DMS, dimethyl sulfate; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; TBS, Tris-buffered saline; LM-PCR, ligation-mediated PCR; TD-PCR, terminal transferase-dependent PCR; pol, RNA polymerase; TBP, TATA-binding protein; CRE, cAMP response element; DR, direct repeat; SRE, serum response element; SRF, serum response factor. at 20 °C for 5 min as described previously (11Pfeifer G.P. Chen H.H. Komura J. Riggs A.D. Methods Enzymol. 1999; 304: 548-571Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar). The cells in suspension were treated with 0.2% DMS in ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) for 4 min, collected by centrifugation at 200 × g for 5 min at 4 °C, washed three times with ice-cold PBS, resuspended in ice-cold Tris-buffered saline (TBS; 25 mm Tris (pH 8.0), 137 mm NaCl, and 2.7 mm KCl), and lysed by addition of an equal volume of 10 mm Tris (pH 8.0), 20 mm EDTA, 1% SDS, and 0.6–1.0 mg/ml proteinase K. DNA extraction (12Komura J. Sheardown S.A. Brockdorff N. Singer-Sam J. Riggs A.D. J. Biol. Chem. 1997; 272: 10975-10980Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar) and piperidine cleavage (11Pfeifer G.P. Chen H.H. Komura J. Riggs A.D. Methods Enzymol. 1999; 304: 548-571Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar) were carried out as described previously. Irradiation with UV Light—In vitro treatment of DNA with UV light was performed by exposure of 100-μl ice-cold droplets containing 0.1 μg/μl DNA, 10 mm Tris (pH 8.0), and 1 mm EDTA to 1500 J/m2 short wavelength UV light from germicidal lamps. The dose rate of UV light was 23–25 J/m2/s. The cells suspended in ice-cold PBS in plastic dishes were irradiated with 1500 J/m2 UV light, recovered by centrifugation, resuspended in TBS, and lysed. Treatment with 4,5′,8-Trimethylpsoralen—Treatment with psoralen plus long wavelength UV light was done essentially as described previously (13Komura J. Ikehata H. Hosoi Y. Riggs A.D. Ono T. Biochemistry. 2001; 40: 4096-4105Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar). DNA (0.1 μg/μl) was treated in vitro with 2.5 μm psoralen and 20 kJ/m2 UV light. The dose rate of UV light was 43–46 J/m2/s. The cells suspended in ice-cold PBS containing 2.5 μm psoralen in plastic dishes were irradiated with 40 kJ/m2 UV light, washed twice with PBS, resuspended in TBS, and lysed. Treatment with DNase I—DNA (0.1 μg/μl) was digested in vitro with 0.1 unit/ml DNase I (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) at 23 °C for 5 min as described previously (7Komura J. Ono T. Biochemistry. 2003; 42: 15084-15091Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar). Treatment of cells with DNase I was performed essentially as described (11Pfeifer G.P. Chen H.H. Komura J. Riggs A.D. Methods Enzymol. 1999; 304: 548-571Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar). The cells were suspended in ice-cold solution I containing lysolecithin (0.0025% for mitotic cells and 0.01% for asynchronous and released cells), immediately collected by centrifugation at 200 × g for 5 min at 4 °C, and resuspended in solution II containing 3 units/ml DNase I. After incubation at 23 °C for 3 min, they were lysed by the addition of 4 volumes of 10 mm Tris (pH 8.0), 12.5 mm EDTA, 150 mm NaCl, 0.625% SDS, and 0.375 mg/ml proteinase K. Analysis by Ligation-mediated PCR (LM-PCR) and Terminal Transferase-dependent PCR (TD-PCR)—LM-PCR and TD-PCR were carried out by use of the Expand Long Template PCR System (Roche) in the PCR step as described previously (13Komura J. Ikehata H. Hosoi Y. Riggs A.D. Ono T. Biochemistry. 2001; 40: 4096-4105Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar). DMS-treated DNA (1 μg/sample) and UV light-irradiated DNA (2 μg/sample) were subjected to LM-PCR after piperidine cleavage, whereas DNase I-digested DNA (1 μg/sample) was directly subjected to LM-PCR. Psoralen-treated DNA (2 μg/sample) was subjected to TD-PCR following restriction digestion (PvuII for c-FOS analysis, SacI for U6 analysis, and PstI for c-MYC analysis) and alkaline reversal. Two sets of primers specific for the human U6 gene were used: the primer set U6A (primer U6A1, 5′-CCAAGGTCGGGCAGGAAGAG, nucleotides –266 to –247 relative to the transcription start site; U6A2, 5′-GCAGGAAGAGGGCCTATTTCCCATGATT, –256 to –229; U6A3, 5′-GGCCTATTTCCCATGATTCCTTCATA, –246 to –221) and the primer set U6H (U6H1, 5′-CGAAGCGAGCACGGTGTT, +12 to –6; U6H2, 5′-GCACGGTGTTTCGTCCTTTCCACAAGATA, +4 to –25; U6H3, 5′-GTCCTTTCCACAAGATATATAAAGCCAAGA, –9 to –38). We used DNA fragments from –743 to –123 and from –152 to +372 as templates when synthesizing radioactive U6 probes with primers U6A3 and U6H3, respectively. The c-MYC P2 promoter was analyzed by use of the primer set MYCA (MYCA1, 5′-AGGGTCTGGACGGCTGAGGA, –180 to –161; MYCA2, 5′-CTGAGGACCCCCGAGCTGTGCTG, –167 to –145; MYCA3, 5′-CCCCCGAGCTGTGCTGC, –160 to –144) and the DNA fragment from –296 to +320. The primer sets and the DNA fragment for c-FOS analysis have been described previously (13Komura J. Ikehata H. Hosoi Y. Riggs A.D. Ono T. Biochemistry. 2001; 40: 4096-4105Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar). Displacement of Transcription Factors from Recognition Sequences during Mitosis—Using four footprinting agents, DMS, UV light, 4,5′,8-trimethylpsoralen, and DNase I, we analyzed the local chromatin structure of the c-FOS and U6 promoters in three populations of HeLa cells: “asynchronous cells” (mainly interphase, mitotic index = 4%), “mitotic cells” (arrested with nocodazole and collected by shake-off, mitotic index = 98%), and “released cells” (incubated for 5 h after the release from mitotic arrest, mitotic index = 3%). The cells were treated with one of the footprinting agents, and then the genomic DNA was extracted and subjected to LM-PCR or TD-PCR. As a control, naked DNA was treated in vitro with the agent. We discerned footprints by comparing the resultant pattern of in vivo formation of DNA damage along a specific sequence with the pattern of in vitro formation. The results of the analysis of the proximal and distal regions of the c-FOS promoter are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Those of the U6 promoter are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.Fig. 3In vivo footprinting analysis of the upper strand of the distal region of the c-FOS promoter. The primer set FOSE was used. The asterisk on the left indicates the position of the G residues in the SRE (5′-CCATATTAGG at nucleotides –312 to –303). Other denotations are similar to those in Fig. 2. SIE, sis-inducible element; TCF, ternary complex factor.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)Fig. 4In vivo footprinting analysis of the lower strand of the proximal region of the U6 promoter. The primer set U6A was used. The box on the right indicates the position of the large footprint with strong protection from DNase I cleavage in interphase cells. Other denotations are similar to those in Fig. 2. PSE, proximal sequence element.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)Fig. 5In vivo footprinting analysis of the upper strand of the distal region of the U6 promoter. The primer set U6H was used. Denotations are similar to those in Fig. 2. SPH, SPH element; OCT, octamer sequence.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) DMS is the most commonly used agent for the detection of the sequence-specific binding of transcription factors (11Pfeifer G.P. Chen H.H. Komura J. Riggs A.D. Methods Enzymol. 1999; 304: 548-571Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar), although it is insensitive to histone-DNA interactions. Treatment of asynchronous cells with this agent produced footprints (usually the sites of G residues protected from alkylation but sometimes the sites of hyper-reactive G residues) at or near various cis-acting elements in these promoters (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, the upper parts of lanes 3 and 4). For example, clear protection was found at the cAMP response element (CRE) and at the direct repeat (DR) in the promoter of the c-FOS gene (Fig. 2), which is transcribed by RNA polymerase II (pol II), and at the proximal sequence element in the promoter of the U6 gene (Fig. 4), which is transcribed by pol III. We observed that in contrast to asynchronous cells, mitotic cells had no DMS footprints in these promoters (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, lanes 5 and 6). The displacement of transcription factors from their recognition sequences during mitosis had been reported previously for three human pol II promoters (2Hershkovitz M. Riggs A.D. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1995; 92: 2379-2383Crossref PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar, 3Martínez-Balbás M.A. Dey A. Rabindran S.K. Ozato K. Wu C. Cell. 1995; 83: 29-38Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar, 14Boyd D.C. Pombo A. Murphy S. Gene (Amst.). 2003; 315: 103-112Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar). We confirmed this phenomenon in another pol II promoter and, for the first time, in a pol III promoter. In the cells released from mitotic arrest, the footprints reappeared (lanes 7 and 8). Transcription factors can modulate the induction of (6-4) photoproducts as well as cyclobutane dimers by UV light at the sites of dipyrimidines (15Tornaletti S. Pfeifer G.P. J. Mol. Biol. 1995; 249: 714-728Crossref PubMed Scopus (103) Google Scholar). Piperidine cleavage of UV light-irradiated DNA enables the detection of (6-4) photoproducts by LM-PCR. In most parts of the c-FOS and U6 promoters in UV light-irradiated asynchronous cells, the modulation of (6-4) photoproduct induction was rather weak (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, lanes 11 and 12). The strongest enhancement was seen at the 5′-TTTT sequence at position –25 to –28 on the lower strand of the c-FOS promoter (Fig. 2). These nucleotides are in the TATA box (5′-TATAAAAG on the upper strand). The unusual formation of (6-4) photoproducts at the 5′-TT dinucleotides in vivo should be due to the severe bending of DNA caused by the interaction of TATA-binding protein (TBP) with the TATA box (12Komura J. Sheardown S.A. Brockdorff N. Singer-Sam J. Riggs A.D. J. Biol. Chem. 1997; 272: 10975-10980Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar, 15Tornaletti S. Pfeifer G.P. J. Mol. Biol. 1995; 249: 714-728Crossref PubMed Scopus (103) Google Scholar, 16Selleck S.B. Majors J. Nature. 1987; 325: 173-177Crossref PubMed Scopus (75) Google Scholar). Previous cytochemical and immunological studies have revealed that during mitosis at least a fraction of TBP remains associated with condensed chromosomes, especially with previously active genes on them, in contrast to most of the other sequence-specific transcription factors (10Christova R. Oelgeschläger T. Nat. Cell Biol. 2002; 4: 79-82Crossref PubMed Scopus (127) Google Scholar, 17Segil N. Guermah M. Hoffmann A. Roeder R.G. Heintz N. Genes Dev. 1996; 10: 2389-2400Crossref PubMed Scopus (161) Google Scholar, 18Chen D. Hinkley C.S. Henry R.W. Huang S. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2002; 13: 276-284Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar). Based on these observations, it has been proposed that TBP (or TFIID) marks the genes that should be reactivated after mitosis. Therefore, we expected the persistence of the UV light footprint at the TATA box during mitosis. Contrary to our expectation, mitotic cells failed to show the footprint at the TATA box of the c-FOS promoter (Fig. 2, lanes 13 and 14), suggesting the loss of the DNA bending and hence the loss of the direct binding of TBP to the TATA box. In addition to the c-FOS promoter, another pol II promoter exhibited the disappearance of the UV light footprint at the TATA box during mitosis; as shown in Fig. 6, enhancement of (6-4) photoproduct induction at the 5′-TTTT sequence at position –23 to –26 on the lower strand of the P2 promoter of the c-MYC gene was observed in asynchronous cells but not in mitotic cells. These results do not support the idea that the direct binding of TBP to the TATA boxes is maintained during mitosis. We speculate that the association of TBP with DNA in mitotic chromatin may be indirect; TBP should be in a large complex, and some members of the complex may remain associated with DNA or structural proteins of chromosomes even during mitosis. For example, some of TBP-associated factors (TAF) can form a histone octamer-like structure that interacts with DNA, and TAFII250 has bromodomains that may recognize acetylated histone (19Burley S.K. Roeder R.G. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1996; 65: 769-799Crossref PubMed Scopus (628) Google Scholar). The situation may be similar to that of TATA-less promoters. In fact, it has been reported that TBP remains associated with a TATA-less gene (ets-2) as well as genes with TATA boxes during mitosis (10Christova R. Oelgeschläger T. Nat. Cell Biol. 2002; 4: 79-82Crossref PubMed Scopus (127) Google Scholar). As to the U6 promoter, we could not analyze the occupancy of its TATA box by using the UV light footprinting assay (Fig. 4, lanes 9–16), because this TATA box (5′-TATATAT at position –29 to –23) did not contain dipyrimidines, the targets of UV light. Thus, the protein binding status of the TATA box of this pol III-transcribed gene is formally unknown, although DNase I footprinting (Fig. 4, lanes 25–32) revealed that a large footprint (at nucleotides –71 to –20) over the proximal sequence element and the TATA box disappeared during mitosis, implying the dissociation of a large protein complex from this region. We presume that the association of some other sequence-specific transcription factors with DNA in mitotic chromatin may also be indirect. Immunocytochemical studies, which have limited resolution, have revealed a few exceptional transcription factors that remain associated with chromosomes during mitosis (3Martínez-Balbás M.A. Dey A. Rabindran S.K. Ozato K. Wu C. Cell. 1995; 83: 29-38Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar, 20Gauthier-Rouvière C. Cavadore J-C. Blanchard J.-M. Lamb N.J.C. Fernandez A. Cell Regul. 1991; 2: 575-588Crossref PubMed Scopus (53) Google Scholar). For example, serum response factor (SRF) has been found to be retained on mitotic chromosomes, but our analysis of the c-FOS promoter showed that the DMS footprint at the serum response element (SRE), which is recognized by SRF, did not persist during mitosis (indicated by the asterisk in Fig. 3). This might be due to the interactions of SRF with other DNA-binding proteins such as high mobility group proteins (21Chin M.T. Pellacani A. Wang H. Lin S.S. Jain M.K. Perrella M.A. Lee M.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 9755-9760Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (68) Google Scholar, 22Spencer J.A. Baron M.H. Olson E.N. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 15686-15693Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar). The transcription factors that remain associated with chromatin during mitosis, such as TBP and SRF, are potential candidates for epigenetic marks of gene activity (4Michelotti E.F. Sanford S. Levens D. Nature. 1997; 388: 895-899Crossref PubMed Scopus (146) Google Scholar, 10Christova R. Oelgeschläger T. Nat. Cell Biol. 2002; 4: 79-82Crossref PubMed Scopus (127) Google Scholar, 18Chen D. Hinkley C.S. Henry R.W. Huang S. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2002; 13: 276-284Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar), but our results mentioned above suggest that even these proteins may lose direct contact with their target DNA sequences. Disappearance of Nucleosome Positioning during Mitosis— 4,5′,8-Trimethylpsoralen is an agent suitable for mapping translational positions of nucleosomes (23Lucchini R. Wellinger R.E. Sogo J.M. EMBO J. 2001; 20: 7294-7302Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar), because formation of DNA interstrand cross-links by this agent is inhibited by histone octamers as well as transcription factors. Our high resolution method for detecting psoralen cross-links (7Komura J. Ono T. Biochemistry. 2003; 42: 15084-15091Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar, 13Komura J. Ikehata H. Hosoi Y. Riggs A.D. Ono T. Biochemistry. 2001; 40: 4096-4105Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar) clearly showed large areas of protection from cross-linking, which corresponded to the positioned nucleosomes in the c-FOS and U6 promoters in asynchronous cells (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, the lower parts of lanes 19 and 20). We should point out the difficulty in determining nucleosome boundaries with single-nucleotide resolution caused by the strong sequence specificity of psoralen and the possibility that the nucleosome may have a set of overlapping positions rather than a single fixed position in each promoter (24Fragoso G. John S. Roberts M.S. Hager G.L. Genes Dev. 1995; 9: 1933-1947Crossref PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar). Nevertheless, psoralen footprinting revealed that the nucleosome positioning in these promoters was quite strong. For example, the reduction of the signal at the 5′-TA sequence at nucleotides –177 and –178 in the c-FOS promoter (indicated by the asterisk in Fig. 2) in asynchronous cells was more than 10-fold as compared with naked DNA, and the probability that this sequence was in the linker region appeared very low in this cell population. In contrast to asynchronous cells, mitotic cells did not have the large footprints; the distribution patterns of psoralen cross-links in mitotic cells (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, lanes 21 and 22) were similar to those of naked DNA (lanes 17 and 18). Because it has been demonstrated that core histones remain associated with mitotic chromosomes (3Martínez-Balbás M.A. Dey A. Rabindran S.K. Ozato K. Wu C. Cell. 1995; 83: 29-38Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar, 18Chen D. Hinkley C.S. Henry R.W. Huang S. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2002; 13: 276-284Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar), we suppose that our result indicates the disappearance of nucleosome positioning, i.e. the random or near random distribution of nucleosomes in these promoters during mitosis, although the possibility of the detachment or modification of the positioned nucleosomes is not formally excluded. In the case of the U6 promoter, we noticed a slight difference between the pattern of cross-linking in mitotic cells and that of naked DNA (Fig. 4); the region around the transcription start site was somewhat more reactive in mitotic cells than in naked DNA, suggesting that there might remain some kind of irregularity during mitosis. DNase I treatment of asynchronous cells produced a cleavage pattern with a periodicity of ∼10 nucleotides in the region of the positioned nucleosome in the c-FOS promoter (Figs. 2 and 3, lanes 27 and 28). Because DNase I attacks nucleosomal DNA preferentially at the sites furthest from the surface of the histone octamer, the periodicity suggests that the DNA helix of this region assumed highly preferred rotational orientation on the histone surface within the population of cells (25Simpson R.T. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol. 1991; 40: 143-184Crossref PubMed Scopus (202) Google Scholar, 26Thoma F. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1992; 1130: 1-19Crossref PubMed Scopus (111) Google Scholar). Mitotic cells did not show clear periodicity (lanes 29 and 30), and the cleavage patterns were similar to those of naked DNA (lanes 25 and 26). Thus, not only the translational positioning but the rotational phasing of the nucleosome in the c-FOS promoter seemed to disappear during mitosis. We also noticed similar periodicity in the U6 promoter of asynchronous cells (Figs. 4 and 5), but the cleavage patterns were somewhat irregular, and in addition, resembled those of naked DNA, making the interpretation of rotational orientation in this promoter ambiguous. The footprinting data described above can be summarized as in Fig. 7. Most aspects of the nucleoprotein complexes in the c-FOS and U6 promoters were lost during mitosis; all of the sequence-specific binding of transcription factors that was detectable in interphase cells was not found in mitotic cells. The nucleosome positioning that appeared to facilitate the communication between proximal promoter elements and distal enhancer elements through looping out of the intervening DNA in interphase cells was not observed during mitosis. The association of the unique organization with mitotic chromatin, where transcription is repressed, argues that the disappearance of nucleosome positioning, as well as the displacement of transcription factors, may be among the various mechanisms contributory to the repression (1Gottesfeld J.M. Forbes D.J. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1997; 22: 197-202Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (316) Google Scholar), at least of these genes. We presume that the disappearance of nucleosome positioning and the displacement of transcription factors may also contribute to the formation of highly condensed mitotic chromosomes of higher eukaryotes. A possibility has been pointed out that uniformity of internucleosomal distances, which is brought about by adjustment or sliding of nucleosomes, may improve the folding of chromatin into higher order structures (27Becker P.B. EMBO J. 2002; 21: 4749-4753Crossref PubMed Scopus (94) Google Scholar). The absence of large transcription complexes might also improve the regular stacking of nucleosomes in higher order structures. Because positioned nucleosomes are observed usually in the vicinity of regulatory sequences, it will be important to determine whether the disappearance of nucleosome positioning during mitosis is unique to the c-FOS and U6 genes or occurs in many genes. As far as we are aware, nucleosome positioning in mitotic cells has not been analyzed except for our study, but low resolution DNase I analysis of a few genes during mitosis has been performed: in the human heat shock protein 70 gene, DNase I-hypersensitive sites appear to be retained on mitotic chromosomes, leading to a speculation that the chromatin organization of the promoter is maintained during mitosis (3Martínez-Balbás M.A. Dey A. Rabindran S.K. Ozato K. Wu C. Cell. 1995; 83: 29-38Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar). In the chicken glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene, however, the locations of some of the hypersensitive sites seem to differ between interphase and mitotic chromatin (28Kuo M.T. Iyer B. Schwarz R.J. Nucleic Acids Res. 1982; 10: 4565-4579Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar). Our results do not appear to be consistent with the preservation of the local chromatin organization during mitosis. These discrepancies remain to be resolved. The concurrence of the disappearance of nucleosome positioning and the displacement of transcription factors suggests a possibility of a causal relationship between the two phenomena. Assuming that there are similar levels of DNA-histone interactions during interphase and during mitosis, our results seem to imply that the transcription factors bound to the cisacting elements can function very effectively as boundaries restricting the location of nucleosomes, supporting the notion that in vivo nucleosome positions are determined predominantly by transcription factors (25Simpson R.T. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol. 1991; 40: 143-184Crossref PubMed Scopus (202) Google Scholar, 26Thoma F. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1992; 1130: 1-19Crossref PubMed Scopus (111) Google Scholar, 29McPherson C.E. Shim E-Y. Friedman D.S. Zaret K.S. Cell. 1993; 75: 387-398Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (284) Google Scholar). However, we feel that this assumption may require validation, because it has been reported that the human SNF/SWI complexes are inactivated, degraded, or excluded from chromatin during mitosis (30Muchardt C. Reyes J-C. Bourachot B. Legouy E. Yaniv M. EMBO J. 1996; 15: 3394-3402Crossref PubMed Scopus (194) Google Scholar, 31Sif S. Stukenberg P.T. Kirschner M.W. Kingston R.E. Genes Dev. 1998; 12: 2842-2851Crossref PubMed Scopus (227) Google Scholar). In this case, the loss of the chromatin remodeling activity probably leads to the loss of the ability to activate target genes by modifying the local nucleosomal organization. It will be interesting to see whether other chromatin remodeling complexes are active in mitotic chromatin and increase the mobility of nucleosomes and the fluidity of chromatin when chromatin is being remodeled into condensed chromosomes. Cells should inherit their characteristic patterns of gene expression and silencing through successive cycles of cell division. In mitotic cells, we observed the loss of all of the detectable sequence-specific binding of transcription factors in the c-FOS and U6 promoters, confirming previous reports on the phosphoglycerate kinase 1, heat shock protein 70, and U2 genes (2Hershkovitz M. Riggs A.D. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1995; 92: 2379-2383Crossref PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar, 3Martínez-Balbás M.A. Dey A. Rabindran S.K. Ozato K. Wu C. Cell. 1995; 83: 29-38Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar, 14Boyd D.C. Pombo A. Murphy S. Gene (Amst.). 2003; 315: 103-112Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar). The dissociation of transcription complexes during mitosis and their reassembly after this phase in previously active genes suggest that the reassembly is directed by the information that somehow survives mitosis. Various mechanisms of the transfer of the epigenetic information through mitosis have been proposed, including chemical modifications of DNA and histones, and proteins that recognize these modifications (32Jeppesen P. BioEssays. 1997; 19: 67-74Crossref PubMed Scopus (104) Google Scholar, 33Dey A. Chitsaz F. Abbasi A. Misteli T. Ozato K. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2003; 100: 8758-8763Crossref PubMed Scopus (502) Google Scholar), and it has been argued that perhaps only several mechanisms acting together can provide the required fidelity of the information transfer (2Hershkovitz M. Riggs A.D. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1995; 92: 2379-2383Crossref PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar). An attractive scenario is that some protein molecule that remains attached to chromatin during mitosis (e.g. TBP) can exclude nucleosomes from the binding sites of other transcription factors in its vicinity and facilitate the reoccupancy of the sites by the transcription factors and the reassembly of the transcription complex after mitosis (4Michelotti E.F. Sanford S. Levens D. Nature. 1997; 388: 895-899Crossref PubMed Scopus (146) Google Scholar, 10Christova R. Oelgeschläger T. Nat. Cell Biol. 2002; 4: 79-82Crossref PubMed Scopus (127) Google Scholar). The absence of the footprints of transcription factors from mitotic chromosomes in this and previous studies does not exclude the possibility of the protein binding that has not been detected yet, especially the indirect binding. However, we observed the loss of nucleosome positioning during mitosis, and this is not consistent with the exclusion of nucleosomes from the recognition sequences of transcription factors. Thus, at least in the c-FOS and U6 promoters, the physical location of nucleosomes does not seem to be a major component of the mechanisms of the transfer of epigenetic information through mitosis. We thank Dr. A. D. Riggs for comments on the manuscript." @default.
• W2025179624 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2025179624 creator A5010276307 @default.
• W2025179624 creator A5022982782 @default.
• W2025179624 date "2005-04-01" @default.
• W2025179624 modified "2023-10-09" @default.
• W2025179624 title "Disappearance of Nucleosome Positioning in Mitotic Chromatin in Vivo" @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1483522771 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1652729057 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1667902255 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1964702415 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1965588875 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1967453691 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1976040047 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1981593440 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1987109078 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W1997850825 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2004457270 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2013412029 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2017050402 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2023899444 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2037283338 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2038531677 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2043307124 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2043958496 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2052692973 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2056523061 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2061857365 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2064289656 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2076132501 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2095334164 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2098919421 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2116766341 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2140208392 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2143128546 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2154178774 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2159678021 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2165218504 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W2302993874 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W4211121711 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W73481865 @default.
• W2025179624 cites W88342265 @default.
• W2025179624 doi "https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m500637200" @default.
• W2025179624 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15705567" @default.
• W2025179624 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2025179624 type Work @default.
• W2025179624 sameAs 2025179624 @default.
• W2025179624 citedByCount "20" @default.
• W2025179624 countsByYear W20251796242012 @default.
• W2025179624 countsByYear W20251796242013 @default.
• W2025179624 countsByYear W20251796242016 @default.
• W2025179624 countsByYear W20251796242017 @default.
• W2025179624 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2025179624 hasAuthorship W2025179624A5010276307 @default.
• W2025179624 hasAuthorship W2025179624A5022982782 @default.
• W2025179624 hasBestOaLocation W20251796241 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C164974683 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C207001950 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C552990157 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C83640560 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C84772758 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C93304396 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C164974683 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C185592680 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C207001950 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C54355233 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C552990157 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C55493867 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C83640560 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C84772758 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C86803240 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C93304396 @default.
• W2025179624 hasConceptScore W2025179624C95444343 @default.
• W2025179624 hasIssue "15" @default.
• W2025179624 hasLocation W20251796241 @default.
• W2025179624 hasOpenAccess W2025179624 @default.
• W2025179624 hasPrimaryLocation W20251796241 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W2004767437 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W2010982418 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W2044495919 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W2065441847 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W2094588941 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W2163173912 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W2409578583 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W2468009595 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W2950884875 @default.
• W2025179624 hasRelatedWork W4251671146 @default.
• W2025179624 hasVolume "280" @default.
• W2025179624 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2025179624 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2025179624 magId "2025179624" @default.
• W2025179624 workType "article" @default.