New & Noteworthy
Some Like it Hot
June 28, 2016
Like Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in “Some Like it Hot”, some transcription factors take on dual roles. Image from Wikimedia Commons.
According to an AFI poll, the best comedy of all time was the 1959 film “Some Like It Hot.” In this classic screwball comedy two men have to dress up as women to escape the mob and still make money as musicians. All sorts of hilarity ensues as one of them falls in love with a woman and a man falls in love with the other as a woman.
The key to this comedy is that the two actors, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon, have to play both the male and female parts. If they were played by separate actors and actresses, the movie would die at the box office. It would be a lethal mutation.
A new study by Solis and coworkers in Molecular Cell presents evidence that in yeast, the heat shock transcription factor Hsf1p is a bit like Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon—it plays dual roles, both in maintaining basal levels of various heat shock proteins and in turning the appropriate genes up in response to a heat shock. This is different than in mammalian cells where HSF1 is only responsible for turning up heat shock genes in response to a spike in temperature. Something else maintains the levels of these proteins needed for survival.
So yeast is more like the comedy “Some Like it Hot,” or perhaps Tootsie, while mammalian cells are more conventional comedies where different actors play the male and female roles. Because Hsf1p plays a dual role in yeast, its deletion causes the cell to die. Mammalian cells can survive without HSF1 as long as it doesn’t encounter any temperature spikes.
Solis and coworkers started out by coming up with a way to dissociate the genes that Hsf1 regulates under normal conditions from those upregulated under heat shock conditions. For this they used the “Anchor-Away” approach to remove Hsf1p from the nucleus under normal conditions.
Basically, they co-expressed HSF1 fused to FRB, the FKBP rapamycin-binding domain, and a ribosomal protein L13A-FKBP12 fusion. When they add rapamycin to this strain, the two proteins heterodimerize and Hsf1p is dragged out of the nucleus. They confirmed that Hsf1p was gone from the nucleus within a few minutes.
Next, they used native elongating transcript sequencing (NET-seq) 15, 30, and 60 minutes after rapamycin addition to see which genes were affected when Hsf1p left the nucleus. They found that only 25 genes were repressed and five were induced at these time points. Using RNA-seq and ChIP of Hsf1p they showed that Hsf1p was probably responsible for the expression of 18 of the 25 repressed genes and none of the induced ones.
So yeast Hsf1p is involved in the basal expression of a number of chaperone genes. In a set of experiments that I don’t have time to go over here, they also showed that most of the heat shock response was independent of Hsf1p in yeast. Their data suggests that Msn2/4p may be the key player instead.
They next did a similar set of experiments in mammalian cells but with a couple of differences. First off, these cells can survive HSF1 deletion, meaning they didn’t need to do anything fancy—they just used CRISPR/Cas9 to delete the gene in mouse embryonic stem cells and mouse embryonic fibroblasts.
Under normal conditions they found that the deletion of this gene caused two genes to go up in expression and two to go down. This is what you might expect by chance suggesting that in mammalian cells, HSF1 isn’t involved in basal expression of any genes.
They next used RNA-seq to compare gene expression of these cells and their undeleted counterparts under normal and heat shock conditions. They found a set of nine genes that were induced in both wild type cells and repressed in the HSF1-deleted cells under heat shock conditions. Eight out of nine of these are involved in chaperone pathways and they overlap surprisingly well with the yeast genes that Hsf1p controls under basal conditions.
Taken together these experiments paint an interesting picture. In yeast, HSF1 is mostly responsible for the basal expression of chaperone genes, and in mouse cells it is a key player in the heat shock response of a similar set of genes. This suggests that deletion of HSF1 is lethal in yeast because the decreased expression of one or more of the genes it regulates under normal conditions.
In cancer cells, HSF1 takes on dual roles, like both Curtis and Lemmon in “Some Like it Hot”. Image from cinema-stache.com.
They tested this by expressing 15 of the 18 genes (three are redundant to some of the others) on four different plasmids and saw that a yeast strain that is deleted for HSF1 now survives. So one or more of these genes is responsible for yeast death in the absence of HSF1.
Through a process of elimination, Solis and coworkers found that the key genes were SSA2, a member of the HSP70 family, and HSC82, an HSP90 family member. The decrease in expression of these two genes cause by the deletion of HSF1 results in a dead yeast cell.
These experiments are so cool. In yeast, HSF1 makes sure there is enough of these chaperones around in good times to fold proteins properly and has a minor role in the heat shock response, while in mouse cells, the same gene plays no real role in basal levels of expression of chaperone genes and instead is critical for responding to heat shock. The protein regulates similar genes, just under different conditions.
These neat science experiments can tell us more about diseases, like cancer too. Turns out that some cancer cells may be more like yeast cells in that deletion of HSF1 stops them from growing and causes an increase in poisonous protein aggregates which may give us a new way to target HSF1-dependent cancers. For example, it may be that targeting Hsp70 or Hsp90 could be useful for treating HSF1-dependent cancers.
In cancer cells then, HSF1, like Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, Milton Berle in the Milton Berle Show, or Bugs Bunny in many different cartoon shorts, takes on dual roles in the cell. And as we learned from yeast, this could be these cancers’ Achilles heel.
by Barry Starr, Ph.D., Director of Outreach Activities, Stanford Genetics
Support Model Organism Databases!
June 22, 2016
Image from http://biology.uiowa.edu/.
Model Organisms such as yeast, worm, fly, fish, and mouse are key drivers of biological research, providing experimental systems that yield insights into human biology and health. Model Organism Databases (MODs) enable researchers all over the world to uncover basic, conserved biological mechanisms relevant to new medical therapies. These discoveries have been recognized by many Nobel Prizes over the last decades.
NHGRI/NIH has recently advanced a plan in which the MODs will be integrated into a single combined database, along with a 30% reduction in funding for each MOD (see also these Nature and Science news stories). While integration presents advantages, the funding cut will cripple core functions such as high quality literature curation and genome annotation, degrading the utility of the MODs.
Leaders of several Model Organism communities, working with the Genetics Society of America (GSA), have come together to write a Statement of Support for the MODs, and to urge the NIH to revise its proposal. We ask all scientists who value the community-specific nature of the MODs to sign this ‘open letter’. The letter, along with all signatures, will be presented to NIH Director Francis Collins at a GSA-organized meeting on July 14, 2016 during The Allied Genetics Conference in Orlando. We urge you to add your name, and to spread the word to all researchers who value the MODs.
In other words, sign this letter!
Look Before You Leap…Into DNA Repair
June 9, 2016
It is worth a pause before leaping into action. This is true at the edge of a cliff, making a life or death situation, and before DNA repair. Cliff jumping image from Evan Bench on flickr, emergency technician image from Wikimedia Commons
Sometimes in an emergency, it can be useful to take a pause before trying to fix a problem. If the ambulance is on the way you may not want to start removing someone’s appendix right then and there. Yes you may save them, but the ambulance and EMTs will do less damage to the patient once they get there.
The same sort of logic applies to cells too. For example, a double stranded break is a deadly emergency that can wreak havoc with a cell’s genome.
The cell can deal with this in a few ways; the big two being non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR). NHEJ is the simplest in that the broken ends are simply stuck back together. However, it often results in a bit of DNA damage as a few bases are added or lost at the ligation point.
The other option, homologous recombination (HR), involves using a homologous DNA region as a template to essentially resynthesize the broken area. There are two possible ways this can happen in a cell: gene conversion and break induced replication (BIR).
If both ends are available without too much of a gap and in the right orientation, the cell opts for gene conversion, the safer of the two options. Only a small section of DNA is resynthesized, keeping most of the original DNA intact.
It is a different story for BIR, the second approach. Here, a large swath of DNA gets resynthesized, meaning a big loss of heterozygosity (LOH)—two sections of DNA are now identical over a large region. BIR only happens when there is only one end available or when there is a big gap of missing DNA.
Of the two HR possibilities, gene conversion is preferable over BIR. This is why the cell wisely waits to make sure there is no other option before starting down this path. This pause goes by the name of recombination execution checkpoint (REC).
A new study by Jain and coworkers out in GENETICS has identified two of the key players involved in this checkpoint—SGS1 and MPH1. Both are highly conserved 3’ to 5’ helicases.
These researchers found that when both are deleted, the REC disappears. And that isn’t all. In situations where the wild type cell would choose to repair its DNA by BIR, the double deletion strain no longer does. Instead, it now uses a process that is more similar to gene conversion.
Jain and coworkers found this using a reporter that contained an HO endonuclease site in the middle of the LEU2 gene. Once the HO endonuclease is activated, it makes a double strand DNA break, cutting the LEU2 gene in half.
The cell was provided with a variety of templates to be used in HR. One of these only provides the part of the LEU2 gene to the right of the HO endonuclease site. As only one of the ends has homology to the cleaved LEU2 gene, with this template, the cell can only use BIR to repair the break.
The researchers saw a huge increase in how fast the DNA was repaired using the BIR-only template in the strain deleted for both sgs1 and mph1 compared to the wild type strain. The double mutant repaired the DNA using BIR nearly as quickly as a wild type cell could using gene conversion. The pause before repair was essentially lost in the double mutant.
The double deletion strain wasn’t just faster with the BIR-specific template either. It repaired DNA via this pathway about 4 times better than the wild type strain did.
There are at least a couple of different reasons why the double mutant could be so much better at repairing DNA in BIR situations. In the first, the cell is just better at BIR—it can initiate the BIR pathway much more quickly than wild type. The second possibility is that this double mutant isn’t using the BIR pathway anymore and is using something closer to gene conversion.
Jain and coworkers found that the second option is the more likely of the two. The way they figured this out was to make a mutation in the POL30 gene, a gene required for DNA repair by BIR but not gene conversion. So, they tested what happens when POL30 is mutated in the wild type and the sgs1 mph1 double deletion strains.
They found that while a dominant negative mutant of pol30 had the predicted effect of severely compromising repair in wild type cells using their BIR-specific reporter, it had no effect in the double deletion mutant. Since Pol30p is needed for the BIR pathway, the strain deleted for sgs1 and mph1 must be using a different pathway to fix the DNA damage. So the pause is eliminated because the cell isn’t really using the BIR pathway anymore.
Image from The Petrick on vimeo
We don’t have time to go into it here, but there is a lot more research in this paper that looks at why the REC might be lost and that probes the differences in how MPH1 and SGS1 influence the BIR pathway that I encourage you to read. For example, deleting SGS1 is not identical to deleting MPH1 in terms of the BIR DNA repair pathway. And each single mutant still uses the BIR DNA pathway as the pol30 mutation severely compromises the ability of each to repair the BIR-specific reporter.
There is a lot more fascinating stuff like this in the study. The bottom line, though, is that MPH1 and SGS1 are the level-headed people urging folks not to panic and to wait for the EMTs to get to the accident scene to help. When MPH1 and SGS1 are gone, the cell dives right in and starts repairing breaks without waiting for the safest option—gene conversion. Who knows what havoc is wreaked in their absence!
by Barry Starr, Ph.D., Director of Outreach Activities, Stanford Genetics
New High-throughput GO Annotations Added to SGD
June 6, 2016
We’ve added 1,400 high-throughput (HTP) cellular component GO annotations from a new paper published by Maya Schuldiner’s lab. In this paper, Yofe et al., 2016 devised and implemented a methodology, called SWAT (short for SWAp-Tag), creating a parental library containing 1,800 strains, all known or predicted to localize to the yeast endomembrane system. Once created, this novel acceptor library serves as a template that can be ’swapped’ into other libraries, thus facilitating the rapid interconversion to new libraries by simply replacing the acceptor module with a new tag or sequence of choice. As proof of principle, this paper describes the parental library (N’ SWAT-GFP), and its utility as a gateway to the construction of two additional libraries (N’ mCherry and N’ seamless GFP). A high-content screening platform was used to generate images that were then manually reviewed and used to assign subcellular locations for proteins in these collections. Based on these results, SGD has incorporated GO annotations for proteins when at least two of three tags gave the same cellular localization. In addition, Locus Summary page descriptions for genes within this collection that did not have a known cellular location prior to this study have been updated. Finally, this study also provides access to a list of proteins predicted to contain signal peptides using three different algorithms. We would like to thank Maya Schuldiner and members of her lab for help with the integration of this information into SGD.