Alex Maas, Catherine Miquel, Jan H.J. Hoeijmakers, Wim Vermeulen, Jan de Wit, Lise O. Andrieux, Nils Wijgers, Maria Fousteri, Pierre-Olivier Mari, Julie Nonnekens, Sophie Mourgues, Arjan F. Theil, Giuseppina Giglia-Mari, Institut de pharmacologie et de biologie structurale (IPBS), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées, Department of Molecular Genetics [Rotterdam, The Netherlands] (Erasmus MC), Oncode Institute [Rotterdam, The Netherlands]-Cancer Genomics Netherlands [Rotterdam, The Netherlands], Service de Neuropathologie [Sainte-Anne], Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Erasmus University Medical Center [Rotterdam] (Erasmus MC), Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - UFR d'Arts plastiques et sciences de l'art (UP1 UFR04), Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (UP1), Department of Cell Biology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute [Bethesda] (NCI-NIH), National Institutes of Health [Bethesda] (NIH), Molecular Genetics, and Cell biology
A novel mouse model reveals that the dynamic behavior of transcription factors can vary considerably between different cells of an organism., Studies based on cell-free systems and on in vitro–cultured living cells support the concept that many cellular processes, such as transcription initiation, are highly dynamic: individual proteins stochastically bind to their substrates and disassemble after reaction completion. This dynamic nature allows quick adaptation of transcription to changing conditions. However, it is unknown to what extent this dynamic transcription organization holds for postmitotic cells embedded in mammalian tissue. To allow analysis of transcription initiation dynamics directly into living mammalian tissues, we created a knock-in mouse model expressing fluorescently tagged TFIIH. Surprisingly and in contrast to what has been observed in cultured and proliferating cells, postmitotic murine cells embedded in their tissue exhibit a strong and long-lasting transcription-dependent immobilization of TFIIH. This immobilization is both differentiation driven and development dependent. Furthermore, although very statically bound, TFIIH can be remobilized to respond to new transcriptional needs. This divergent spatiotemporal transcriptional organization in different cells of the soma revisits the generally accepted highly dynamic concept of the kinetic framework of transcription and shows how basic processes, such as transcription, can be organized in a fundamentally different fashion in intact organisms as previously deduced from in vitro studies., Author Summary The accepted model of eukaryotic mRNA production is that transcription factors spend most of their time diffusing throughout the cell nucleus, encountering gene promoters (their substrate) in a random fashion and binding to them for a very short time. A similar modus operandi has been accepted as a paradigm for interactions within most of the chromatin-associated enzymatic processes (transcription, replication, DNA damage response). However, it is not known whether such behavior is indeed a common characteristic for all cells in the organism. To answer this question, we generated a knock-in mouse that expresses in all cells a fluorescently tagged transcription factor (TFIIH) that functions in both transcription initiation and DNA repair. This new tool, when combined with quantitative imaging techniques, allowed us to monitor the mobility of this transcription factor in virtually all living tissues. In this study, we show that, in contrast to the aforementioned paradigm, in highly differentiated postmitotic cells such as neurons, hepatocytes, and cardiac myocytes, TFIIH is effectively immobilized on the chromatin during transcription, whereas in proliferative cells, TFIIH has the same dynamic behavior as in cultured cells. Our study also points out that results obtained from in vitro or cultured cell systems cannot always be directly extrapolated to the whole organism. More importantly, this raises a question for researchers in the transcription field: why do some cells opt for a dynamic framework for transcription, whereas others exhibit a static one?