Molecular Genetics and Genomics

, Volume 281, Issue 4, pp 437–445 | Cite as

A fitness-based interferential genetics approach using hypertoxic/inactive gene alleles as references

Original Paper
  • 83 Downloads

Abstract

Genetics, genomics, and biochemistry have all been of immense help in characterizing macromolecular cell entities and their interactions. Still, obtaining an overall picture of the functioning of even a simple unicellular species has remained a challenging task. One possible way to obtain a comprehensive picture has been described: by capitalizing on the observation that the overexpression on a multicopy plasmid of apparently any wild-type gene in yeast can lead to some negative effect on cell fitness (referring to the concept of “gene toxicity”), the FIG (fitness-based interferential genetics) approach was devised for selecting normal genes that are in antagonistic (and potentially also agonistic) relationship with a particular gene used as a reference. Herein, we take a complementary approach to FIG, by first selecting a “hypertoxic” allele of the reference gene—which easily provides the general possibility of obtaining gene products with the remarkable property of being inactive without altering their macromolecular interactivity—and then looking for the genes that interact functionally with this reference. Thus, FIG and the present approach (Trap-FIG), both taking advantage of the negative effects on cell fitness induced by various quantitative modulations in cellular networks, could potentially pave the way for the emergence of efficient in situ biochemistry.

Keywords

Fitness-based interferential genetics Ino4 transcription factor Macromolecular network Protein kinase C Interactive-inactive allele 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank D. Levin for strain DL106 and G. Paravicini (Glaxo) for plasmid pGEM7-PKC1. This work was supported by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France).

References

  1. Alvaro D, Lisby M, Rothstein R (2007) Genome-wide analysis of Rad52 foci reveals diverse mechanisms impacting recombination. PLos Genet 3:2439–2449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balciunas D, Ronne H (1999) Yeast genes GIS1-4: multicopy suppressors of the Gal- phenotype of snf1 mig1 srb8/10/11 cells. Mol Gen Genet 262:589–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boeke JD, Lacroute F, Fink GR (1984) A positive selection for mutants lacking orotidine-5-phosphate dicarboxylase activity in yeast: 5-fluoro-orotic acid resistance. Mol Gen Genet 197:345–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson M, Botstein D (1982) Two differentially regulated mRNAs with different 5′ ends encode secreted and intracellular forms of yeast invertase. Cell 28:145–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chant J, Corrado K, Pringle J, Herskowitz I (1991) Yeast BUD5, encoding a putative GDP-GTP exchange factor, is necessary for bud-site selection and interacts with bud-formation gene BEM1. Cell 65:1213–1224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen M, Lopes JM (2007) Multiple basic helix-loop-helix proteins regulate expression of the ENO1 gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Eukaryot Cell 6:786–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daniel J (1993) Potentially rapid walking in cellular regulatory networks using the gene-gene interference method. Mol Gen Genet 240:245–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daniel J (1995) DNA insertion system for complex yeast shuttle vectors. Curr Genet 27:309–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniel J (1996a) Detection of antagonistic cellular regulatory functions by the gene-gene interference method in yeast. Curr Genet 29:114–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniel J (1996b) Measuring the toxic effects of high gene dosage in yeast cells. Mol Gen Genet 253:393–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniel J (2005) Sir-dependent downregulation of various aging processes. Mol Gen Genom 274:539–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniel J (2007) Direct in vivo access to potential gene targets of the RPD3 histone deacetylase using fitness-based interferential genetics. Yeast 24:575–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniel J (2008) A potentially general method for the in-vivo selection of inhibitory peptides targeted at a specific protein using yeast. Curr Genet 53:373–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de la Torre Ruiz MA, Lowndes NF (2000) DUN1 defines one branch downstream of RAD53 for transcription and DNA damage repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEBS Lett 485:205–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickson RC (2008) New insights into sphingolipid metabolism and function in budding yeast. J Lipid Res 49:909–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fong CS, Temple MD, Alic N, Chiu J, Durchdewald M, Thorpe GW, Higgins VJ, Dawes IW (2008) Oxidant-induced cell-cycle delay in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: the involvement of the SWI4 transcription factor. FEMS Yeast Res 8:386–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gardner R, Putnam CW, Weinert T (1999) RAD53, DUN1 and PDS1 define two parallel G2/M checkpoint pathways in budding yeast. EMBO J 18:3178–3185Google Scholar
  18. Ghugtyal V, Vionnet C, Roubaty C, Conzelmann A (2007) CWH43 is required for the introduction of ceramides into GPI anchors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Microbiol 65:1493–1502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ho H-L, Shiau Y-S, Chen M-Y (2005) Saccharomyces cerevisiae TSC11/AVO3 participates in regulating cell integrity and functionally interacts with components of the Tor2 complex. Curr Genet 47:273–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ito H, Fukuda Y, Murata K, Kumura A (1983) Transformation in yeast cells treated with alkali cations. J Bacteriol 153:163–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jesch SA, Zhao X, Wells MT, Henry SA (2005) Genome-wide analysis reveals inosotol, not choline, as the major effector of Ino2p-Ino4p and unfolded protein response target gene expression in yeast. J Biol Chem 280:9106–9118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levin DE, Bartlett-Heubusch E (1992) Mutants in the S. cerevisiae PKC1 gene display a cell cycle-specific osmotic stability defect. J Cell Biol 116:1221–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levin DE (2005) Cell wall integrity signaling in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 69:262–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loewy BS, Henry SA (1984) The INO2 and INO4 loci of Saccharomyces cerevisiae are pleiotropic genes. Mol Cell Biol 4:2479–2485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Odat O, Matta S, Khalil H, Kampranis SC, Pfau R, Tsichlis P, Makris AM (2007) Old yellow enzymes, highly homologous FMN oxidoreductases with modulating roles in oxidative stress and programmed cell death in yeast. J Biol Chem 282:36010–36023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orlean P, Menon AK (2007) GPI anchoring of protein in yeast and mammalian cells, or: how we learned to stop worrying and love glycophospholipids. J Lipid Res 48:993–1011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paravicini G, Cooper M, Friedli L, Smith DJ, Carpentier JL, Klig LS, Payton MA (1992) The osmotic integrity of the yeast cell requires a functional PKC1 gene product. Mol Cell Biol 12:4896–4905PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Reinders J et al (2007) Profiling phosphoproteins of yeast mitochondria reveals a role of phosphorylation in assembly of the ATP synthase. Mol Cell Proteom 6:1896–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rep M, Reiser V, Gartner U, Thevelein JM, Hohmann S, Ammerer G, Ruis H (1999) Osmotic stress-induced gene expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae requires Msn1p and the novel nuclear factor Hot1p. Mol Cell Biol 19:5474–5485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Robinson KA, Koepke JI, Khadorawala M, Lopes JM (2000) A network of yeast basic helix–loop–helix interactions. Nucleic Acids Res 28:4460–4466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robinson KA, Lopes JM (2000) Saccharomyces cerevisiae basic helix-loop-helix proteins regulate diverse biological processes. Nucleic Acids Res 28:1499–1505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring HarborGoogle Scholar
  33. Sherman F, Fink G, Hicks J (1987) Methods in Yeast Genetics: A Laboratory Course Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring HarborGoogle Scholar
  34. Shimoi H, Kitagaki H, Ohmori H, Iimura Y, Ito K (1998) Sed1p is a major cell wall protein of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the stationary phase and is involved in lytic enzyme resistance. J Bacteriol 180:3381–3387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Su X, Dowhan W (2006) Regulation of cardiolipin synthase levels in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 23:279–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tan K, Feizi H, Luo C, Fan SH, Ravasi T, Ideker TG (2008) A systems approach to delineate functions of paralogous transcription factors: role of the Yap family in the DNA damage response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:2934–2939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Workman CT, Mak CH, McCuine S, Tagne J-B, Agarwal M, Ozier O, Begley TJ, Samson LD, Ideker T (2006) A system approach to mapping DNA damage response pathways. Science 312:1054–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xu ZB, Chaudhari D, Olland S, Wolfrom S, Czerwinski R, Malakian K, Lin L, Stahl ML, Joseph-McCarthy D, Benander C, Fitz L, Greco R, Somers WS, Mosvak L (2004) Catalytic domain crystal structure of protein kinase C-θ (PKCθ). J Biol Chem 279:50401–50409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yoshida S, Ikeda E, Uno I, Mitsuzawa H (1992) Characterization of a staurosporine- and temperature-sensitive mutant, stt1, of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: STT1 is allelic to PKC1. Mol Gen Genet 231:337–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Génétique MoléculaireCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueGif-sur-YvetteFrance

Personalised recommendations