4.6 Article

Absolute gene occupancies by RNA polymerase III, TFIIIB, and TFIIIC in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 283, 期 39, 页码 26568-26576

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M803769200

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM018386]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A major limitation of chromatin immunoprecipitation lies in the challenge of measuring the immunoprecipitation effectiveness of different proteins and antibodies and the resultant inability to compare the occupancies of different DNA-binding proteins. Here we present the implementation of a quantitative chromatin immunoprecipitation assay in the RNA polymerase III (pol III) system that allowed us to measure the absolute in vivo occupancy of pol III and its two transcription factors, TFIIIC and TFIIIB, on a subset of pol III genes. The crucial point of our analysis was devising a method that allows the accurate determination of the immunoprecipitation efficiency for each protein. We achieved this by spiking every immunoprecipitation reaction with the formaldehyde cross-linked in vitro counterparts of TFIIIB-, TFIIIC-, and pol III-DNA complexes, measuring the in vitro occupancies of the corresponding factors on a DNA probe and determining probe recovery by quantitative PCR. Analysis of nine pol III-transcribed genes with diverse sequence characteristics showed a very high occupancy by TFIIIB and pol III ( pol III occupancy being generally similar to 70% of TFIIIB occupancy) and a TFIIIC occupancy that ranged between similar to 5 and 25%. Current data suggest that TFIIIC is released during transcription in vitro, and it has been proposed that TFIIIB suffices for pol III recruitment in vivo. Our findings point to the transient nature of the TFIIIC- DNA interaction in vivo, with no significant counter-correlation between pol III and TFIIIC occupancy and instead to a dependence of TFIIIB- DNA and TFIIIC- DNA complex maintenance in vivo on pol III function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据