Protein sequestration generates a flexible ultrasensitive response in a genetic network

Ultrasensitive responses are crucial for cellular regulation. Protein sequestration, where an active protein is bound in an inactive complex by an inhibitor, can potentially generate ultrasensitivity. Here, in a synthetic genetic circuit in budding yeast, we show that sequestration of a basic leucine zipper transcription factor by a dominant‐negative inhibitor converts a graded transcriptional response into a sharply ultrasensitive response, with apparent Hill coefficients up to 12. A simple quantitative model for this genetic network shows that both the threshold and the degree of ultrasensitivity depend upon the abundance of the inhibitor, exactly as we observed experimentally. The abundance of the inhibitor can be altered by simple mutation; thus, ultrasensitive responses mediated by protein sequestration are easily tuneable. Gene duplication of regulatory homodimers and loss‐of‐function mutations can create dominant negatives that sequester and inactivate the original regulator. The generation of flexible ultrasensitive responses is an unappreciated adaptive advantage that could explain the frequent evolutionary emergence of dominant negatives.

[1]  M. Savageau Biochemical Systems Analysis: A Study of Function and Design in Molecular Biology , 1976 .

[2]  G. Fink,et al.  Methods in yeast genetics , 1979 .

[3]  J W Szostak,et al.  Yeast transformation: a model system for the study of recombination. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  D E Koshland,et al.  Sensitivity amplification in biochemical systems , 1982, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[5]  D. Koshland,et al.  Ultrasensitivity in biochemical systems controlled by covalent modification. Interplay between zero-order and multistep effects. , 1984, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[6]  D E Koshland,et al.  The branch point effect. Ultrasensitivity and subsensitivity to metabolic control. , 1984, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[7]  A. Riggs,et al.  Determinator-inhibitor pairs as a mechanism for threshold setting in development: a possible function for pseudogenes. , 1986, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  I. Herskowitz Functional inactivation of genes by dominant negative mutations , 1987, Nature.

[9]  Mark Ptashne,et al.  Negative effect of the transcriptional activator GAL4 , 1988, Nature.

[10]  Rodney Rothstein,et al.  Elevated recombination rates in transcriptionally active DNA , 1989, Cell.

[11]  Harold Weintraub,et al.  The protein Id: A negative regulator of helix-loop-helix DNA binding proteins , 1990, Cell.

[12]  J. Posakony,et al.  The Drosophila extramacrochaetae protein antagonizes sequence-specific DNA binding by daughterless/achaete-scute protein complexes. , 1991, Development.

[13]  M. Olive,et al.  Extending dimerization interfaces: the bZIP basic region can form a coiled coil. , 1995, The EMBO journal.

[14]  J. Ferrell Tripping the switch fantastic: how a protein kinase cascade can convert graded inputs into switch-like outputs. , 1996, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[15]  C. Vinson,et al.  A general method to design dominant negatives to B-HLHZip proteins that abolish DNA binding. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  J E Ferrell,et al.  How responses get more switch-like as you move down a protein kinase cascade. , 1997, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[17]  B. Kholodenko,et al.  Quantification of information transfer via cellular signal transduction pathways , 1997, FEBS letters.

[18]  K. Mathee,et al.  The anti-sigma factors. , 1998, Annual review of microbiology.

[19]  H. Jäckle,et al.  Cooperative DNA‐binding by Bicoid provides a mechanism for threshold‐dependent gene activation in the Drosophila embryo , 1998, The EMBO journal.

[20]  D. Wolf,et al.  On the relationship between genomic regulatory element organization and gene regulatory dynamics. , 1998, Journal of theoretical biology.

[21]  M. Crabeel,et al.  A strong carbon source effect is mediated by pUC plasmid sequences in a series of classical yeast vectors designed for promoter characterization , 1999, Yeast.

[22]  H. Blau,et al.  Transcriptional control: rheostat converted to on/off switch. , 2000, Molecular cell.

[23]  S. Kay,et al.  Time zones: a comparative genetics of circadian clocks , 2001, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[24]  R. Weiss,et al.  Directed evolution of a genetic circuit , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  N. Wingreen,et al.  The Small RNA Chaperone Hfq and Multiple Small RNAs Control Quorum Sensing in Vibrio harveyi and Vibrio cholerae , 2004, Cell.

[26]  V. Hakim,et al.  Design of genetic networks with specified functions by evolution in silico. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  J. Strathern,et al.  Methods in yeast genetics : a Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory course manual , 2005 .

[28]  P. Swain,et al.  Gene Regulation at the Single-Cell Level , 2005, Science.

[29]  Hernan G. Garcia,et al.  Transcriptional Regulation by the Numbers 2: Applications , 2004, q-bio/0412011.

[30]  Nils Blüthgen,et al.  Quantitative analysis of ultrasensitive responses , 2005, The FEBS journal.

[31]  M. Yanagita BMP antagonists: their roles in development and involvement in pathophysiology. , 2005, Cytokine & growth factor reviews.

[32]  R. Weiss,et al.  Ultrasensitivity and noise propagation in a synthetic transcriptional cascade. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  Paul François,et al.  Core genetic module: the mixed feedback loop. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[34]  A. van Oudenaarden,et al.  Noise Propagation in Gene Networks , 2005, Science.

[35]  J. Gunawardena Multisite protein phosphorylation makes a good threshold but can be a poor switch. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Nils Blüthgen,et al.  Ultrasensitization: Switch-Like Regulation of Cellular Signaling by Transcriptional Induction , 2005, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[37]  R. Losick,et al.  Bistability in bacteria , 2006, Molecular microbiology.

[38]  D. Volfson,et al.  Origins of extrinsic variability in eukaryotic gene expression , 2006, Nature.

[39]  James E. Ferrell,et al.  Substrate Competition as a Source of Ultrasensitivity in the Inactivation of Wee1 , 2007, Cell.

[40]  G. Friedlander,et al.  Regulation of gene expression by small non-coding RNAs: a quantitative view , 2007, Molecular systems biology.

[41]  T. Hwa,et al.  Quantitative Characteristics of Gene Regulation by Small RNA , 2007, PLoS Biology.

[42]  W. Bialek,et al.  Probing the Limits to Positional Information , 2007, Cell.

[43]  M. Crosby,et al.  Cell Cycle: Principles of Control , 2007, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[44]  David A. Drubin,et al.  Rational design of memory in eukaryotic cells. , 2007, Genes & development.

[45]  Nicolas E. Buchler,et al.  Molecular titration and ultrasensitivity in regulatory networks. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[46]  E. O’Shea,et al.  A quantitative model of transcription factor–activated gene expression , 2008, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[47]  N. Wingreen,et al.  A quantitative comparison of sRNA-based and protein-based gene regulation , 2008, Molecular systems biology.

[48]  Ilka M. Axmann,et al.  Small RNAs establish delays and temporal thresholds in gene expression. , 2008, Biophysical journal.