27.2: Regulation of Gene Expression in Eukaryotes

Search Fundamentals of Biochemistry

Learning Goals (ChatGPT o3-mini)

• Understand Transcription Initiation and Enhancer Function:

  • Explain how transcription initiation requires the coordinated assembly of multiple transcription factors (TFs) at promoter regions.
  • Describe the role of distant enhancers and the looping of DNA in stabilizing RNA polymerase binding and enhancing transcription initiation.

• Comprehend Transcription Factor Activation:

  • Detail how TFs are maintained in inactive states and become activated by cellular signals via post-translational modifications or allosteric changes (e.g., via cell cycle signals or steroid hormones).
  • Evaluate the pleiotropic effects of TF activation on downstream gene expression and cellular physiology.

• Analyze the Role of p53 in Gene Regulation and Cell Cycle Control:

  • Describe p53’s functions as a transcription factor and its role as the “guardian of the genome” by mediating cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, and DNA repair.
  • Understand how post-translational modifications (phosphorylation, acetylation, ubiquitination, etc.) regulate p53 stability, tetramerization, nuclear localization, and target gene specificity.

• Examine Steroid Hormone Receptor Mechanisms:

  • Illustrate the modular structure of steroid hormone receptors (SHRs) including the DNA binding domain (DBD) and ligand binding domain (LBD).
  • Explain how ligand binding induces receptor dimerization, nuclear translocation, and binding to Hormone Response Elements (HREs) to regulate gene transcription.
  • Differentiate between receptor agonists, partial antagonists (SERMs), and full antagonists (SERDs), and their impact on receptor conformation and function.

• Explore Mechanisms of TF Target Search and DNA Binding:

  • Describe the multiple mechanisms (sliding, hopping, intersegmental transfer) by which transcription factors locate their specific DNA binding sites amidst a background of nonspecific interactions.
  • Analyze how clusters of degenerate binding sites (e.g., short tandem repeats) surrounding target elements can increase effective binding affinity and local concentration of TFs.

• Investigate Chromatin Remodeling and Epigenetic Regulation:

  • Explain the roles of histone post-translational modifications (acetylation, methylation) in dictating chromatin states (euchromatin vs. heterochromatin) and gene accessibility.
  • Discuss ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complexes and their functions in nucleosome sliding, eviction, and histone variant exchange, and how these processes impact transcriptional regulation.

• Assess the Concepts and Evidence of Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance:

  • Define epigenetic mechanisms (e.g., DNA methylation, histone modifications, non-coding RNAs) that contribute to cellular memory and the maintenance of gene expression states across cell divisions.
  • Evaluate the experimental strategies and challenges involved in distinguishing epigenetic inheritance from genetic, ecological, and cultural inheritance.
  • Critically analyze case studies (e.g., effects of environmental stress on sperm RNA and DNA methylation, fetal programming) that suggest the potential for epigenetic marks to be transmitted across generations.

These learning goals provide a framework to deepen your understanding of the complex layers of gene regulation—from transcription factor activation and chromatin remodeling to the potential for epigenetic changes to influence inheritance and cellular phenotypes.

As seen in Chapter 26, the initiation of transcription requires the assembly of a multitude of transcription factors (TF) localized at the promoter region. Transcription can also utilize far-reaching interactions of enhancers, which bind at a distant DNA site and loop back around to stabilize the RNA polymerase at the promoter. Control of transcriptional initiation depends on the activation of TF factors, their binding to specific DNA recognition sequences, and chromatin remodeling.

Transcription Factor (TF) Activation

Many transcription factors (TFs) are expressed within cells and remain in an inactive conformation until the proper environmental stimulus is present. Cellular signaling pathways can cause post-translational protein modifications, leading to transcription factor (TF) activation, or small molecules may physically bind and allosterically modify the protein structure to mediate activation. Here, we will use examples from the cell cycle signaling cascade and steroid hormone receptor pathways to highlight some mechanisms of transcription factor (TF) activation. A key takeaway from this section is that transcription factor activation is often highly pleiotropic, exhibiting numerous cellular effects. Depending on the cell type and the environmental conditions, different combinations of downstream target genes may be activated or inactivated. Teasing apart these intricacies and the physiological effects that they have within an organism is a major goal of ongoing research.

Cell Cycle Regulation by p53

p53 is one of the most studied proteins in science. To date, over 68,000 papers appear in PubMed containing p53 or TP53 in the title and/or abstract. Originally described as an oncogene (since a mutated, functionally altered form of the protein was first characterized), p53 is now recognized as the most frequently inactivated tumor suppressor in human cancers. It is a transcription factor that controls the expression of genes and miRNAs affecting many important cellular processes, including proliferation, DNA repair, programmed cell death (apoptosis), autophagy, metabolism, and cell migration, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\). Many of those processes are critical to a variety of human pathologies and conditions extending beyond cancer, including ischemia, neurodegenerative diseases, stem cell renewal, aging, and fertility. Notably, p53 also has non-transcriptional functions, ranging from intrinsic nuclease activity to activation of mitochondrial Bak (Bcl-2 homologous antagonist killer) and caspase-independent apoptosis.

As a transcription factor, p53 responds to various genotoxic insults and cellular stresses (e.g., DNA damage or oncogene activation) by inducing or repressing the expression of over a hundred different genes. p53 transcriptional regulation plays a dominant role in causing the arrest of damaged cells, facilitating their repair and survival, or inducing cell death when DNA damage is irreparable. p53 can also cause cells to become permanently growth arrested, and there is compelling in vivo evidence that these “senescent” cells secrete factors that enhance their clearance by the immune system, leading to tumor regression. Through these mechanisms, p53 helps maintain genomic stability within an organism, thereby justifying its long-held nickname, “the guardian of the genome.” Other p53 gene targets are involved in inhibiting tumor cell angiogenesis, migration, metastasis, and other important processes (such as metabolic reprogramming) that normally promote tumor formation and progression.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Cellular stress leads to p53 transcriptional activation of downstream targets. Reed, S.M., and Quelle, D.E. (2015) 7(1):30-69.

 

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\) shows an interactive iCn3D model of the human p53 tetramer bound to the natural CDKN1A(p21) p53-response element (3TS8).

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Human p53 tetramer bound to the natural CDKN1A(p21) p53-response element (3TS8). (Copyright; author via source). Click the image for a popup or use this external link: https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...cvfiRBEzfxJuk6

Each monomer of the p53 tetramer is shown in a different color. The noncovalent interactions of the brown monomer with DNA are illustrated, with key amino acids and nucleic acid bases depicted in CPK-colored sticks.  They interact with the Zn²⁺ ions, shown in the light green monomer.

Typically, p53 levels are maintained at low levels by its major antagonist, Mdm2, an E3 ubiquitin ligase that is also a transcriptional target of p53. Stress signals, such as DNA damage, oncogene activation, and hypoxia, promote p53 stability and activity by inducing post-translational modifications (PTMs) and tetramerization of the p53 protein. p53 functions as a transcription factor that binds to specific p53 response elements upstream of its target genes. p53 affects many important cellular processes linked to tumor suppression, including the induction of senescence (green), apoptosis, and DNA repair, as well as the inhibition of metabolism (red), angiogenesis, and cell migration. These functions are primarily mediated through transcriptional regulation of their targets (examples given).

p53 protein function is regulated post-translationally by coordinated interaction with signaling proteins, including protein kinases, acetyltransferases, methyltransferases, and ubiquitin-like modifying enzymes, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\). The majority of covalent modification sites occur at intrinsically unstructured linear peptide docking motifs that flank the DNA-binding domain of p53, which plays a role in anchoring or allosterically activating the enzymes that mediate the covalent modification of p53. In undamaged cells, the p53 protein has a relatively short half-life and is degraded by a ubiquitin-proteasome-dependent pathway through the action of E3 ubiquitin ligases, such as MDM2 (Fig 28.3.1). Following stress, p53 is phosphorylated at multiple residues, thereby modifying its biochemical functions and increasing its activity as a transcription factor. Post-translational modifications help stabilize the tetramer formation of the protein and enhance its translocation from the cytoplasm into the nucleus. The tetrameric form of p53 is then functional in binding to DNA in a sequence-specific manner and either activating or repressing transcription, depending on the target sequence. Some post-translational modifications, such as acetylation, are DNA-dependent and can play a role in chromatin remodeling and activation of p53 target gene expression.

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): Sites of Post-Translational Modification on p53. Schematic representation of the 393 amino acid domain structure of human p53 showing the sites of post-translational modification including phosphorylation, acetylation, ubiquitination, methylation, neddylation, and sumoylation. Abbreviations: N-terminal transactivation domain (TAD); proline-rich domain (PRD); tetramerization domain (TET); C-terminal regulatory domain (REG); arginine (R); lysine (K); serine (S); threonine (T). Maclaine, N.J., and Hupp T.R. (2009) Aging 1(5):490-502

It should be noted that single-point mutations that modify the ability of the protein to be phosphorylated in one position typically do not show a decrease in the stabilization or activation of the protein following a damage or stress event. Thus, multiple modifications likely allow for redundancy within this pathway, ensuring the activation of the protein following a stress event. Furthermore, the environment within the cell can lead to different p53 phenotypes, such as the activation of growth arrest and DNA repair processes (ie if there is not a lot of damage) or it can lead to the activation of apoptosis or programmed cell death pathways (ie if the damage is too extensive to be repaired).

Steroid Hormone Receptors

Steroid hormone receptors (SHRs) belong to the superfamily of nuclear receptors (NRs), which are one of the essential classes of transcriptional factors. NRs play a critical role in all aspects of human development, metabolism, and physiology. Since they generally act as ligand-activated transcription factors, they are an essential component of cell signaling. NRs form an ancient and conserved family that arose early in the metazoan lineage. Major events of gene duplication and gene loss characterize the molecular evolution of NR. Phylogenetic analysis revealed a distinct separation of NR ligand binding domains (LBDs) into four monophyletic branches, the steroid hormone receptor-like cluster, the thyroid hormone-like receptors cluster, the retinoid X-like and steroidogenic factor-like receptor cluster, and the nerve growth factor-like/HNF4 receptor cluster, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\).

Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): Phylogenetic tree of the nuclear receptors’ ligand binding domain. Four distinct monophyletic branches are visible. Those monophyletic branches are divided into subcategories. The phylogenetic trees confidently separate the steroid hormone-like (branch colored green), the retinoid X-like and steroidogenic factor-like receptors cluster (branch colored orange), the thyroid hormone-like receptors cluster (branch colored blue), and the nerve growth factor-like/hepatocyte nuclear factor-4 receptors cluster (branch colored yellow). Mitsis, T., et. al. (2020) World Acad Sci J 1: 264-274, 2019

Here, we will focus on the Steroid Hormone-Like Receptors (SHRs) branch. SHRs play a crucial role in various important physiological processes, including organ development, metabolite homeostasis, and response to external stimuli. The estrogen receptor comes in two major forms, ERα and ERβ. Other members of this subgroup include the cortisol-binding glucocorticoid receptor (GR), the aldosterone-binding mineralocorticoid receptor (MR), the progesterone receptor (PR), and the dihydrotestosterone (DHT) binding androgen receptor (AR), as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\ below.

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\): Overview of Steroid Hormone Receptor Family (SHR). riekspoor, A., et. al. (2007) Nucl Recept Signal. 5:e003 A. Phylogenetic tree of the Steroid Hormone Receptor (SHR) family showing the evolutionary interrelationships and distance between the various receptors. Based on alignments available at The NucleaRDB [Horn et al., 2001]. B. All steroid receptors are composed of a variable N-terminal domain (A/B) containing the AF-1 transactivation region, a highly conserved DNA-binding domain (DBD), a flexible hinge region (D), and a C-terminal ligand-binding domain (LBD, E) containing the AF-2 transactivation region. The estrogen receptor α is unique in that it contains an additional C-terminal F domain. Numbers represent the length of the receptor in amino acids.

Panel A displays a phylogenetic tree of the Steroid Hormone Receptor (SHR) family, illustrating the evolutionary relationships and distances between the various receptors. Based on alignments available at The NucleaRDB [Horn et al., 2001].

Panel B shows that all steroid receptors are composed of a variable N-terminal domain (A/B) containing the AF-1 transactivation region, a highly conserved DNA-binding domain (DBD), a flexible hinge region (D), and a C-terminal ligand-binding domain (LBD, E) containing the AF-2 transactivation region. The estrogen receptor α is unique in that it contains an additional C-terminal F domain. Numbers represent the length of the receptor in amino acids.

The members of the Steroid Hormone Receptor family share a similar, modular architecture, consisting of several independent functional domains (Fig. 5B above). Most conserved is the centrally located DNA-binding domain (DBD), which contains the characteristic zinc-finger motifs. The DBD is followed by a flexible hinge region and a moderately conserved Ligand Binding Domain (LBD), located at the carboxy-terminal end of the receptor. The estrogen receptor α is unique in that it contains an additional F domain, the function of which is unclear. The LBD is composed of twelve α-helices (H1-H12) that together fold into a canonical α-helical sandwich. Besides its ligand-binding capability, the LBD also plays a crucial role in nuclear translocation, chaperone binding, receptor dimerization, and coregulator recruitment through its potent ligand-dependent transactivation domain, referred to as AF-2. A second, ligand-independent, transactivation domain is located in the more variable N-terminal part of the receptor, designated as AF-1. To date, no crystal structure of a full-length SHR exists, though structures of the DBD and LBD regions of most SHRs are available. These have helped significantly in understanding the molecular aspects of DNA and ligand binding, but have also, to some extent, led to biased attention to these parts of the receptor alone. For example, many coregulator interaction studies are still performed with the LBD only, while numerous studies have demonstrated that the AF-2 domain often tells only part of the story. With the help of biophysical techniques, however, it is feasible to study the full-length receptor in its native environment.

Most SHRs remain in the cytoplasm of the cell until they are bound with the appropriate steroid, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\). Steroid binding causes the dimerization of SHRs and localization to the cell nucleus, where the SHRs interact with the DNA at sequence-specific motifs known as Hormone Response Elements (HREs) (Step 5). Many SHRs can also interact with membrane-bound receptors and affect cellular signaling pathways, in addition to activating gene expression (step 6).

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): Steroid Hormone Receptors (SHR) act as hormone-dependent nuclear transcription factors. Upon entering the cell by passive diffusion, the hormone (H) binds the receptor, which is subsequently released from heat shock proteins, and translocates to the nucleus. There, the receptor dimerizes, binds specific sequences in the DNA, called Hormone Responsive Elements or HREs, and recruits a number of coregulators that facilitate gene transcription. Griekspoor, A., et. al. (2007) Nucl Recept Signal. 5:e003

Steroid hormones, such as estrogens, reach their target cells via the blood, where they are bound to carrier proteins. Naturally occurring estrogens, including estradiol, estrone, and estriol, differ primarily in structure in the presence of hydroxyl groups (Fig. 28.3.6). Estradiol is the predominant estrogen during reproductive years, both in terms of absolute serum levels as well as in terms of estrogenic activity. During menopause, estrone is the predominant circulating estrogen, and during pregnancy, estriol is the predominant circulating estrogen in terms of serum levels. Another type of estrogen called estetrol (E4) is also produced predominantly during pregnancy, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\). Estrogens play a crucial role in various physiological processes, including the regulation of the menstrual cycle and reproduction, maintenance of bone density, brain function, cholesterol mobilization, and the maturation of reproductive organs during development, as well as in controlling inflammation.

Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\): Naturally Occurring Estrogens. Wikipedia (2020) Estrogen.

Due to their lipophilic nature, it is believed that steroid hormones, such as estrogen, cross the cell membrane by simple diffusion. However, some evidence suggests that they can also be actively taken up through the endocytosis of carrier protein-bound hormones. For a long time, it has been assumed that binding of the ligand resulted in a simple on/off switch of the receptor (Fig. 6, step 1). While this is likely the case for typical agonists like estrogen and progesterone, this is not always correct for receptor antagonists, used in drug therapy. These antagonists come in two types: so-called partial antagonists (for the estrogen receptors, known as SERMs, or Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators) and full antagonists. The partial antagonist can, depending on the cell type, act as either an SHR agonist or antagonist. In contrast, full antagonists (for ER, known as SERDs, or Selective Estrogen Receptor Downregulators) always inhibit the receptor, independent of cell type, in part by targeting the receptor for degradation. Binding of either type of antagonist results in major conformational changes within the LBD and in the release from heat shock proteins that thus far had protected the unliganded receptor from unfolding and aggregation (Fig. 6 step 2).

Figure \(\PageIndex{8}\) shows an interactive iCn3D model of the Androgen Receptor DNA-Binding Domain Bound to a Direct Repeat Response Element (1R4I).

Figure \(\PageIndex{8}\): Androgen Receptor DNA-Binding Domain Bound to a Direct Repeat Response Element (1R4I). (Copyright; author via source). Click the image for a popup or use this external link: https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...FKLa7aaZiq6Hz8

Transcription Factor (TF) Recognition and Binding to DNA

TF controls gene expression by binding to their target DNA site to recruit, or block, the transcription machinery onto the promoter region of the gene of interest. Their function relies on the ability to find their target site quickly and selectively. In living cells, transcription factors (TFs) are present in nM concentrations and bind the target site with comparable affinity. However, they also bind to any DNA sequence (nonspecific binding), resulting in millions of low-affinity (i.e., > 10^-6 M) competing sites. Nonspecific binding facilitates the search for the target site by three major mechanisms, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{9}\).

The second scenario is a ‘hopping’ mechanism, in which a TF might hop from one site to another in 3D space by dissociating from its original site and subsequently binding to the new site. This may occur within the same chain, and re-association takes place adjacent to the former dissociated site. A third search mechanism is described as "intersegmental transfer." In this scenario, the protein moves between two sites via an intermediate ‘loop’ formed by the DNA and subsequently binds at two different DNA sites. This mechanism applies to transcription factors (TFs) with two DNA-binding sites. Proteins with two DNA-binding sites can occasionally bind non-specifically to two locations situated far apart within the DNA strand, which are brought into close contact through the formation of these loops. Such TFs transfer across a point of close contact without dissociating from the DNA.

Figure \(\PageIndex{9}\): Protein-DNA recognition mechanisms. The main three protein-DNA recognition mechanisms are shown. Yesudhas, D., et.al. (2017) Genes 8(8):192

Top: When the transcription factor (pink ring) moves from one site to another by sliding along the DNA and is transferred from one base pair to another without dissociating from the DNA, this mechanism is called sliding.

Center: Hopping occurs when the transcription factor moves along the DNA by dissociating from one site and re-associating with another site.

Bottom: Intersegmental transfer describes the mechanism by which the transcription factor gets transferred through DNA bending or the formation of a DNA loop, resulting in the protein being bound transiently to both sides and subsequently moving from one site to the other.

One of the main scenarios involves a ‘sliding’ mechanism, in which the protein moves from its initial non-specific site to its actual target site by sliding along the DNA (also known as 1-dimensional (1D) sliding). When the TF starts to move and shift counterions from the phosphate backbone, the same number of counterions bind to the site left free by the protein. The sliding rate is also dependent on the hydrodynamic radius of the protein; the required rotational movement over the DNA backbone is greater for larger proteins, which tend to slide slowly.

---

Recent Updates:  9/25/23

The sliding model that Von Hippel proposed and Berg suggests that a DNA-binding protein exists in two interconverting conformations.  One is a specific form (O) that can bind to a target DNA sequence, such as an operator in DNA, through specific hydrogen bonds (along with electrostatic interaction) characterized by a low K_D.  The other is a nonspecific form (D) that binds mainly with weaker affinity through electrostatic interactions and a high K_D. Nonspecific binding brings the protein to the DNA surface.  Dynamic conformational changes from the O to D allow sampling of hydrogen bonds between donors and acceptors in the protein and in the major groove of the protein.  The protein can diffuse much more quickly along the DNA to find its target site, as the search for the specific target site is now effectively one-dimensional instead of three-dimensional.  There is no thermodynamic barrier to sliding since counterions that leave the DNA when bound to the protein rebind behind it as the protein slides.  These processes are illustrated in Figure \(\PageIndex{10}\) below.

Figure \(\PageIndex{10}\): Two-state model sliding model of DNA protein binding to its specific binding site (operator)

There are a large number of overlapping nonspecific binding sites (let's say each is six base pairs in length), which also help drive the nonspecific binding of the protein to the DNA through entropy increases (i.e, consider the probability of binding to 1 site on the DNA versus multitudes of overlapping sites).  Experiments show that the on-rate for a DNA-binding protein, which is the rate at which it finds its target site, increases with the increasing length of the DNA molecule in which the specific site is embedded.  The opposite would be expected given the diffusion rate of large molecules.  The k_on was found to be greater than diffusion-controlled limits, which can be explained by the reduced dimensionality of the search for the specific site when the protein is loosely bound through nonspecific electrostatic interactions that enable the 1D search.  

Each eukaryotic transcription factor (TF) controls tens to hundreds of genes scattered throughout the genome, and expressing each gene requires various TFs simultaneously binding to their sites to form the transcription complex, an extremely rare event in probabilistic terms. As a result, the in vivo site occupancy patterns of eukaryotic TFs are more complex than predicted by their in vitro site-specific binding profiles and do not strongly correlate with the actual levels of gene expression. A notable feature highlighted by genome analysis is the accumulation of potential transcription factor (TF) binding sites in regions flanking eukaryotic genes. Such clusters of degenerate recognition sites are assumed to be key for transcription control and thus are generally classified as gene regulatory regions (RR). For example, the affinity of the Drosophila transcription factor Engrailed to the regulatory regions (RRs) of its target genes is strongly amplified by long tracts of degenerate consensus repeats that are present in these regions.

Role of Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) in the Genome

As we mentioned previously, only about 1.5% of the human genome encodes genes that produce actual proteins.  Much of the genome is transcribed at low levels into RNAs, some of which have clearly defined functions, such as rRNA, mRNAs, and regulatory RNAs.  A significant portion is presumably involved in facilitating the 3D organization of the genome and its dynamic architecture, which determines its replicative and transcriptional access. One poorly understood feature of genomic DNA is the presence of short tandem repeats (STRs).  These repeats stretch up to 100 nucleotides in length, with each repetitive tandem repeat running from just 1 to 6 bases long.  They comprise approximately 6% of the genome (compared to 1.5% for protein-coding genes) and are found in abundance in chromatin that is transcribed into mRNA for protein production. For example, a specific DNA sequence might be GTCACGTGAC, while a small STR would be (CG)₆C(CG)₁₁

Specifically, STRs surround sites where classic transcription factors (TF) bind.  As described in this and the previous chapter sections, TFs bind to specific DNA binding motifs (such as helix-loop-helix or Zn²⁺ fingers) on consensus sequences (like response elements and enhancers) in the DNA, thereby controlling transcription.  The binding of transcription factors or other proteins to target sequences occurs initially through nonspecific electrostatic interactions, followed by a dimensionally restricted diffusion along the DNA as the protein finds its specific sequence target.

In contrast, the STRs offer little sequence uniqueness for high-affinity, low K_D binding sites for specific protein interactions, so the question remains as to how they express function, which their omnipresence suggests they have.  Studies by Horton et al (Science 381, 1304 (2023) have shown that classic TFs do indeed bind STRs, albeit at lower affinity (higher K_D) compared to their binding to classic TF-specific sequences.  The bind with higher affinity than to nonspecific DNA sequences.  Just as nonspecific interactions facilitate TF binding to promoter sites, so do the multiple STRs that straddle the DNA binding element. 

If a TF binds its isolated target DNA with a low effective K_D (high affinity) and -ΔG⁰ value, a target DNA surrounded by multiple STRs would have an even lower effective K_D (higher affinity) and even more -ΔG⁰ value.  They do so by increasing the effective on rate (k_on) for protein binding.  (Remember that K_D = k_off/k_on. )  The effective size of the target for the TF becomes greater when it is an “island” in the middle of a STR “sea”. The increased affinity stems in large part from the more favorable entropy of having the TF bind not only to one site but effectively to multiple overlapping sites.  This also increases the localized concentration of TF near the specific site, which drives binding.  The k_off is not expected to change.

Another effect of the STRs on TF binding is that multiple DNA-binding proteins can bind to the same site through their interactions with STRs at the site, leading to new ways to regulate gene transcription.  The group studies just two TFS, but sequence analyses suggest that many TF would use a similar mechanism.

---

Histone Modification and Chromatin Remodeling

Regulation of transcription involves dynamic rearrangements of chromatin structure. Recall that eukaryotic DNA is complexed with histone octamers, which are composed of dimers of the core histones H2A, H2B, H3, and H4. 147 bp of DNA are wrapped 1.65 times around each octamer, forming nucleosomes, the basic packaging units of chromatin. Nucleosomes, connected by linker DNA of variable length as “beads on a string”, generate the 11 nm linear structure. The linker histone H1 is positioned at the top of the core histone octamer, enabling the higher-organized compaction of DNA into transcriptionally inactive 30 nm fibers.

To understand the role of chromatin in transcription regulation, it is essential to know where nucleosomes are positioned and how this positioning is achieved. There are four groups of activities that change chromatin structure during transcription: (1) histone modifications, (2) eviction and repositioning of histones, (3) chromatin remodeling, and (4) histone variant exchange. Histone modifiers introduce post-translational, covalent modifications to histone tails and thereby change the contact between DNA and histones. These modifications govern access to regulatory factors. Histone chaperones aid in the eviction and positioning of histones. A third class of chromatin restructuring factors is ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers. These multi-subunit complexes utilize energy from ATP hydrolysis for various chromatin remodeling activities, including nucleosome sliding, nucleosome displacement, and the incorporation and exchange of histone variants.

Post-translational modifications (PTMs) of histone proteins are a primary mechanism that controls chromatin architecture. Over 20 distinct types of histone PTMs have been described, among which the most abundant ones are acetylation and methylation of lysine residues. Histone PTMs can be deposited on and removed from chromatin by different enzymes, known as histone PTM ‘writers’ and ‘erasers’. Histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) exert their regulatory effects through two primary mechanisms. First, histone PTMs serve as docking sites for various nuclear proteins–histone PTM ‘readers’–that specifically recognize modified histone residues through their modification-binding domains. The recruitment of these proteins to specific genomic loci promotes key chromatin processes, including transcriptional regulation and DNA damage repair. Second, some histone post-translational modifications (PTMs), such as acetylation, directly affect chromatin's higher-order structure and compaction, thereby controlling chromatin accessibility to protein machinery, including those involved in transcription. Chromatin may adopt one of two major states, switching between them interchangeably. These states are heterochromatin and euchromatin. Heterochromatin is a compact form that is resistant to the binding of various proteins, such as transcriptional machinery. In contrast, euchromatin is a relaxed form of chromatin that is open to modifications and transcriptional processes, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{10}\). Histone methylation promotes the formation of Heterochromatin, whereas histone acetylation promotes euchromatin.

Figure \(\PageIndex{11}\): Schematic drawing of histone methylation and acetylation in relation to chromatin remodeling. Kim, S., and Kaang, B-K. (2017) Exp & Mol. Med. 49:e281

The addition of methyl groups to the tails of histone core proteins leads to histone methylation, which in turn leads to the adoption of a condensed state of chromatin called ‘heterochromatin.’ Heterochromatin blocks the transcription machinery from binding to DNA, resulting in transcriptional repression. The addition of acetyl groups to lysine residues in the N-terminal tails of histones causes histone acetylation, which leads to the adoption of a relaxed state of chromatin called ‘euchromatin.’ In this state, transcription factors and other proteins can bind to their specific DNA binding sites and initiate active transcription.

Chromatin remodeling can also be an ATP-dependent process and involve histone dimer ejection, full nucleosome ejection, nucleosome sliding, and histone variant exchange as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{12}\). ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complexes bind to nucleosome cores and the surrounding DNA, utilizing energy from ATP hydrolysis to disrupt DNA-histone interactions, slide or eject nucleosomes, alter nucleosome structures, and modulate the access of transcription factors to the DNA (Figure 28.3.9). In addition to modulating gene expression, some of the complexes are involved in nucleosome assembly and organization, following transcription at locations in which nucleosomes have been ejected, packing of DNA following replication, and DNA repair.

Figure \(\PageIndex{12}\): Overview of the functions of ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complexes. Hasan, N., and Ahuja, N. (2019) Cancers 11(12):1859

Panel (a) shows a subset of ISWI and CHD complexes that are involved in nucleosome assembly, maturation, and spacing.

Panel (b) shows SWI/SNF complexes are primarily involved in histone dimer ejection, nucleosome ejection, and nucleosome repositioning through sliding, thus modulating chromatin access.

Panel (c) shows INO80 complexes are involved in histone exchange. It is worth noting that the complexes may be involved in other chromatin remodeling functions.

Figure \(\PageIndex{13}\)s shows the effects of Histone Variant H3.3 on C. elegans Lifespan

Figure \(\PageIndex{13}\): The Effects of Histone Variant H3.3 on C. elegans Lifespan. H3.3 expression increases over time in C. elegans during their normal lifespan. In organisms with impaired Inulin/IGF-1 signaling, germline deficiency of H3.3 resulted in significant decreases in lifespan. Piazzesi, A., et. al. (2016) Cell Rep 17(4):987-996.

Protein-DNA Interactions

Proteins utilize a diverse range of DNA-binding structural motifs, including the homeodomain (HD), helix-turn-helix (HTH), and high-mobility group box (HMG), to recognize DNA. HTH is the most common binding motif and can be found in several repressor and activator proteins, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{14}\). Despite their structural diversity, these domains participate in a variety of functions, including acting as substrate interaction mediators, enzymes that operate on DNA, and transcriptional regulators. Several proteins also contain flexible segments outside the DNA-binding domain to facilitate specific and non-specific interactions. For example, many HD proteins use N-terminal arms and a linker region to interact with DNA. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) data suggest that about 99.8% of putative binding motifs of TFs are not bound by their respective TFs in the genome. It is, therefore, clear that the presence of a single binding motif per TF is not adequate for TF binding.

Figure \(\PageIndex{14}\): Representative figures of the transcription factor binding domains. The figure shows the crystal structures of different types of TF domains (3l1p, 4m9e, 5d5v, 1lbg, 1gt0, and 1nkp). The structures were obtained from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) and redrawn using Chimera. The respective domains and important regions have been labeled. HTH stands for the helix-turn-helix domain. bHLH stands for the basic helix-loop-helix motif. HD and HMG stand for homeodomain and high-mobility group box domain, respectively. Yesudhas, D., et.al. (2017) Genes 8(8):192

 

Figure \(\PageIndex{14}\) shows interactive iCn3D models of the transcription factor binding domains as depicted in the figure above. (Copyright; author via source)

POU protein:DNA complex HTH-HD domain (3l1p) Click the image for a popup or use this external link: https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...fHmWMvUCiJus77	Human Hsf1 with Satellite III repeat DNA - HTH Domain (5d5v) Click the image for a popup or use this external link: https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...qkHMwpH7LdDmr7	POU-HMG-DNA ternary complex - HTM-HMG domain (1gt0) Click the image for a popup or use this external link: https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...b9X7DEGSK2n2V7
Klf4 zinc finger DNA binding domain in complex with methylated DNA(4m9e) Click the image for a popup or use this external link: https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...T7ZXxMhQ66WNL9	Lactose operon repressor and its complexes with DNA and inducer (1lbg) Click the image for a popup or use this external link:https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...6v3y24U7N2qYC8	Myc-Max and Mad-Max recognizing DNA(1nkp) Click the image for a popup or use this external link: https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...qcTBN4UwxPFH99

Most search mechanistic studies that attempt to determine how transcription factors (TFs) find their binding sites are limited to naked DNA-protein complexes, which do not accurately reflect the actual crowded environment of a cell. Studies using naked DNA and transcription factors have shown that many DNA-binding proteins travel a long distance through one-dimensional diffusion. However, the search process for eukaryotes must occur in the presence of chromatin, which can hinder protein mobility. In this case, the protein must dissociate from the DNA, enter a 3D mode of diffusion state, and continue the target site searching process. The sliding and intersegmental transfer mechanisms can be explained through the example of the lac repressor. The lac repressor consists of four identical monomers, forming a dimer of dimers for its DNA binding. The binding sequence of these dimers is symmetric or pseudo-symmetric, and these identical monomers identify each half. The HTH domain of the lac repressor is the DNA-binding domain that facilitates the interaction with its target site on DNA, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{15}\).

Figure \(\PageIndex{15}\): The Helix-Turn-Helix Motif of the Lac Repressor. Lac repressor binds to DNA non-specifically, enabling it to slide rapidly along the DNA double helix until it encounters the lac operator sequence. The DNA-binding domain employs a helix-turn-helix (HTH) motif (Alpha Helices, Turns). During non-specific binding, the hinge region is disordered. The DNA double helix is depicted as straight in the model when the Lac Repressor binds non-specifically. Upon recognizing the specific operator sequence, the non-specific binding converts to specific binding. During this conversion, the hinge region changes from disordered loops to Alpha Helices, which bind to the minor groove of the DNA. As explained below, this binding stabilizes a kinked (“bent”) DNA double helix conformation. Protopedia – Life in 3D

As a result of a rapid search (sliding) along the DNA molecule and intersegmental transfer between distant DNA sequences, the lactose repressor finds its target sites faster than the diffusion limit. The section, comprising residues 1–46 of the HTH protein domain, characterized by three α-helices, maintains its secondary structure through both specific and non-specific binding. When the repressor binds to a non-specific site, the HTH domain interacts with the DNA backbone and maintains its interaction with the helix region in the major groove. This arrangement facilitates the interaction of the recognition helix with the edges of the DNA bases, enabling the repressor to walk or search for its specific site on the DNA. The C-terminal residues of the DNA-binding domain, residues 47–62, form the hinge region and are normally disordered during non-specific recognition; however, during specific site recognition, residues 50–58 acquire an α-helix configuration (hinge helix) (Fig. 15 above). The disordered hinge region and the flexibility of the HTH domain enable the protein to move freely along the DNA, allowing it to search for its target site. In specific binding complexes, the hinge helix of each monomer is located at the symmetrical center of the binding site, allowing the hinge helices to interact with each other (intersegmental transfer) and thereby enhancing stability. Moreover, DNA bends at the symmetrical center of the specific binding site (37° angle), thereby supporting monomer-monomer interactions.

In addition to the helix-turn-helix structure, the zinc finger motif is also very common, especially in eukaryotic TFs, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{16}\). Proteins that contain zinc fingers (zinc finger proteins) are classified into several different structural families. Unlike many other clearly defined supersecondary structures, such as Greek keys or β hairpins, there are several types of zinc fingers, each with a unique three-dimensional architecture. This three-dimensional structure determines a particular zinc finger protein’s class. Still, it can also be recognized based on the primary structure of the protein or the identity of the ligands coordinating the zinc ion. Despite the large variety of these proteins, however, the vast majority typically function as interaction modules that bind DNA, RNA, proteins, or other small, useful molecules.  Variations in structures serve primarily to alter the binding specificity of a particular protein. The most common type of zinc finger motif utilizes two Cys and two His residues (CCHH) coordinating the Zn(II) ion to adopt a ββα fold with three hydrophobic residues responsible for the formation of a small hydrophobic core, which offers additional stabilization of the zinc finger domain.

Figure \(\PageIndex{16}\): Sequence alignments of the CCHH zinc fingers and a representative structure.Kluska, K., Adamczyk, J., and Krezel, A. (2018) Coord Chem Rev 367:18-64

Panel (a) shows the alignment of the TFIIIA-like zinc finger domains from different organisms. The green color denotes residues that are responsible for the hydrophobic core formation in most CCHH zinc fingers (L17, F11, and L2). Yellow and blue indicate the coordinating Cys and His residues, respectively.

Panel (b) shows the 3D NMR structure of 15-th ZF from zinc finger protein 478 [PDB: 2YRH]

Figure \(\PageIndex{17}\) shows an interactive iCn3D model of C2H2-type zinc finger domain (699-729) from zinc finger protein 473 (2YRH).

Figure \(\PageIndex{17}\): C2H2-type zinc finger domain (699-729) from zinc finger protein 473 (2YRH). (Copyright; author via source). Click the image for a popup or use this external link: https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...M5jGWvYU9NHP78

 

Overall, zinc finger motifs exhibit considerable versatility in binding modes, even among members of the same class (e.g., some bind DNA, while others bind protein), suggesting that they are stable scaffolds that have evolved specialized functions. For example, zinc finger-containing proteins are involved in various processes, including gene transcription, translation, mRNA trafficking, cytoskeleton organization, epithelial development, cell adhesion, protein folding, chromatin remodeling, and zinc sensing, among others. Zinc-binding motifs are stable structures, and they rarely undergo conformational changes upon binding their target.

The last binding domain that we will consider in detail here is the helix-loop-helix domain found in Leucine zipper-containing proteins. Specifically, bZIPs (Basic-region leucine zippers) are a class of eukaryotic transcription factors. The bZIP domain is approximately 60 to 80 amino acids in length, featuring a highly conserved DNA-binding basic region and a more diverse leucine zipper dimerization region. The two regions form α-helical structures that are connected via a looped region. This forms a core helix-loop-helix (HLH) structure within each monomer of the protein. Two monomers then join through the formation of a leucine zipper junction, forming a heterodimeric protein structure. The resulting heterodimer can bind with DNA in a sequence-specific manner through the basic α-helices as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{18}\).

Figure \(\PageIndex{18}\): Leucine Zipper Transcription Factors from the bZIP family. The monomer subunits of a heterodimeric bZIP protein contain a Helix-loop-Helix (HLH) core structure, where one helix forms the leucine zipper with the other monomer, and the basic helices of each monomer interact with the major groove of the target DNA. A flexible loop region holds the helices together. (One monomer is shown in blue and one monomer is shown in green). Latacca

Specifically, basic residues, such as lysines and arginines, interact in the major groove of the DNA, forming sequence-specific interactions. Most bZIP proteins show a high binding affinity for the ACGT motifs. The bZIP heterodimers exist in a variety of eukaryotes and are more common in organisms with higher evolutionary complexity.

Figure \(\PageIndex{19}\) shows an interactive iCn3D model of the GCN4 basic region leucine zipper binds DNA as a dimer of uninterrupted alpha helices (1YSA).

Figure \(\PageIndex{19}\): GCN4 basic region leucine zipper binds DNA as a dimer of uninterrupted alpha helices (1YSA). (Copyright; author via source). Click the image for a popup or use this external link: https://structure.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/i...hTPDCEQJeLm4z6

 

Epigenetics and Transgenerational Inheritance

Even though all somatic cells of a multicellular organism have the same genome, different cell types have different transcriptomes (sets of all expressed RNA molecules), different proteomes (sets of all proteins), and, hence, different functions. Cell differentiation during embryonic development requires the activation and repression of specific gene sets by the action of cell lineage-defining transcription factors. Within a cell lineage, gene activity states are often maintained over several rounds of cell division (a phenomenon known as “cellular memory” or “cellular inheritance”).

Since the rediscovery of epigenetics some 30 years ago (Conrad Hal Waddington originally proposed it in the early 1940s), cellular inheritance has been attributed to gene regulatory feedback loops, chromatin modifications (including DNA methylation and histone modifications), as well as long-lived non-coding RNA molecules, collectively referred to as the “epigenome”. Among the various chromatin modifications, DNA methylation and polycomb-mediated silencing are probably the most stable, endowing genomes with the ability to impose silencing of transcription for specific sequences even in the presence of all the factors required for their expression.

Defining Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance

The metastability of the epigenome explains why development is both plastic and canalized, as proposed initially by Waddington. Although epigenetics deals only with the cellular inheritance of chromatin and gene expression states, it has been proposed that epigenetic features could also be transmitted through the germline and persist in subsequent generations. The widespread interest in “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance” is nourished by the hope that epigenetic mechanisms might provide a basis for the inheritance of acquired traits. Yes, Lamarck has never been dead and every so often raises his head, this time with the help of epigenetics.

Although acquired traits related to body or brain functions can be encoded in the epigenome of a cell, they cannot be easily transmitted from one generation to the next. For this to occur, these epigenetic changes would have to manifest in the germ cells as well, which in mammals are separated from somatic cells by the so-called Weismann barrier. Further, the chromatin is extensively reshaped during germ cell differentiation as well as during the development of totipotent cells after fertilization, even though some loci appear to escape epigenetic reprogramming in the germline. Long-lived RNA molecules appear to be less affected by these barriers and are therefore more likely to carry epigenetic information across generations, although the mechanisms underlying this process are largely unresolved.

Evidence for Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance

Over the past decade, numerous studies on transgenerational responses to environmental or metabolic factors in mice and rats have been published. The factors include endocrine disruptors, high-fat diet, obesity, diabetes, undernourishment, and trauma. These studies investigated DNA methylation, sperm RNA, or both. For example, when male mice are made prediabetic by treatment with streptozotocin, it affects the DNA methylation patterns in their resulting sperm, as well as the pancreatic islets of F1 and F2 of the resulting offspring. Furthermore, studies have shown that traumatic stress in early life altered behavioral and metabolic processes in the progeny and that injection of sperm RNAs from traumatized males into fertilized wild-type oocytes reproduced the alterations in the resulting offspring.

In humans, epidemiological studies have linked food supply in the grandparental generation to health outcomes in the grandchildren. An indirect study based on DNA methylation and polymorphism analyses has suggested that sporadic imprinting defects in Prader–Willi syndrome are due to the inheritance of a grandmaternal methylation imprint through the male germline. Due to the uniqueness of these human cohorts, these findings still require independent replication. Most cases of segregation of abnormal DNA methylation patterns in families with rare diseases, however, turned out to be caused by an underlying genetic variant. Thus, studies of this nature must rule out the effects of traditional genetic inheritance as a factor in the observed phenotypes.

Genetic inheritance alone cannot fully explain why we resemble our parents. In addition to genes, we inherit from our parents the environment and culture, which in part have been shaped by previous generations, as shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{20}\). A specific form of the environment is our mother’s womb, to which we were exposed during the first 9 months of our lives. The maternal environment can have a profound and lasting impact on our health. In the Dutch hunger winter, for example, severe undernourishment affected pregnant women, their unborn offspring, and the offspring’s fetal germ cells. The increased incidence of cardiovascular and metabolic disease observed in F1 adults is not due to the transmission of epigenetic information through the maternal germline, but a direct consequence of the exposure in utero, a phenomenon called “fetal programming” or—if fetal germ cells and F2 offspring are affected—“intergenerational inheritance”.

Figure \(\PageIndex{20}\): Transgenerational inheritance systems. Horsthemke, B. (2018) Nat Comm. 9:2973

Panel a illustrates that offspring inherit genes from their parents (black), the environment (green), and culture (blue). Genes and the environment affect the epigenome (magenta) and the phenotype. Culture also affects the phenotype; however, there is currently no evidence of a direct effect of culture on the epigenome (broken blue lines). It is a matter of debate how much epigenetic information is inherited through the germline (broken magenta lines). G genetic variant, E epigenetic variant.

Panel b shows that an epimutation (promoter methylation and silencing of gene B in this example) often results from aberrant read-through transcription from a mutant neighboring gene, either in sense orientation as shown here or in antisense orientation. The presence of such a secondary epimutation in several generations of a family mimics transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, although it represents a form of genetic inheritance. Black arrow, transcription; black vertical bar, transcription termination signal; broken arrow, read-through transcription

Roadmap to Proving Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance

Here are some steps to demonstrate that epigenetics, rather than classical genetics determine inheritance.

• Rule out genetic, ecological, and cultural inheritance. For studies in mice and rats, inbred strains and strictly controlled environments are necessary. When a pregnant female animal is exposed to a specific environmental stimulus, F3 offspring and subsequent generations must be studied to exclude a direct effect of the stimulus on the somatic cells and germ cells of the embryos. Even more desirable is the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryo transfer, and foster mothers. When a male animal is exposed to an environmental stimulus, F2 offspring must be studied to exclude transient effects on germ cells. To ensure that any phenotype is exclusively transmitted via gametes, IVF must be used, controlling for potential artifacts associated with IVF.
• In contrast to laboratory animals, it is impossible to rule out ecological and cultural inheritance in humans; however, genetic effects can be excluded. If an epimutation follows Mendelian inheritance patterns, be cautious: you are more likely looking at a secondary epimutation and genetic inheritance. Study the haplotype background of the epimutation: if it is always found on the same haplotype in a given family, you are most likely dealing with a secondary epimutation. Do whole genome sequencing to search for a genetic variant that might have caused the epimutation, and be aware that this variant might be distantly located. Good spots to start looking at are the two neighboring genes, where a mutation might cause transcriptional read-through in sense or antisense orientation into the locus under investigation. Unfortunately, if you don’t find anything, you still cannot be 100% sure that a genetic variant does not exist.
• Identify the responsible epigenetic factor in the germ cells. Admittedly, this is easier said than done, especially in female germ cells, which are scarce or unavailable. Be aware that germ cell preparations may be contaminated with somatic cells or somatic DNA. Use swim-up (sperm) or micromanipulation techniques to purify germ cells to the highest purity. Exclude the presence of somatic cells and somatic DNA by molecular testing, for example, by methylation analysis of imprinted genes, which are fully methylated or fully unmethylated only in germ cells.
• Demonstrate that the epigenetic factor in the germ cells is responsible for the phenotypic effect in the next generation. If possible, remove the factor from the affected germ cells and demonstrate that the effect is lost. Add the factor to control germ cells and demonstrate that the effect is gained. While RNA molecules can and have been extracted from the sperm of exposed animals and injected into control zygotes, DNA methylation, and histone modifications cannot easily be manipulated (although CRISPR/Cas9-based epigenome editors are being developed and used for this purpose), and all of these experiments can hardly be done in humans. In light of these problems, it may currently be too much to ask to prove transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans, but it should nevertheless be kept in mind and discussed.

Summary

This chapter provides an integrative overview of the multiple layers of gene regulation that determine cellular phenotype, despite the uniformity of the genomic DNA. It emphasizes both the regulation of transcription initiation by transcription factors (TFs) and the epigenetic mechanisms that contribute to cellular memory and potentially transgenerational inheritance.

Transcription Initiation and Enhancer Function

• TF Assembly at Promoters:
  The initiation of transcription requires the coordinated binding of numerous TFs at the promoter region. These factors not only help recruit RNA polymerase but also direct its activity by interacting with specific DNA recognition sequences.

• Enhancer-Mediated Regulation:
  Distant enhancer elements can loop back to interact with promoter regions, stabilizing the transcription complex and modulating gene expression. This dynamic interplay between promoters and enhancers underscores the complexity of transcriptional control.

• Chromatin Remodeling:
  Chromatin structure plays a pivotal role in regulating transcription. Transcriptional control is achieved through:

  • Activation of TFs by cellular signaling (often via post-translational modifications or allosteric binding of small molecules).
  • Specific binding of TFs to DNA regulatory elements.
  • Remodeling of chromatin, which involves histone modifications and the action of ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers to alter nucleosome positioning and accessibility.

Transcription Factor Activation and Function

• p53 – The Guardian of the Genome:
  p53 is a key transcription factor activated by various cellular stresses (e.g., DNA damage, oncogene activation). Once activated—often through phosphorylation, acetylation, and other post-translational modifications—p53 forms a tetramer that binds specific response elements to regulate a multitude of target genes. These targets control processes such as cell cycle arrest, DNA repair, apoptosis, and senescence, and are critical for tumor suppression as well as various physiological processes.

• Steroid Hormone Receptors (SHRs):
  As members of the nuclear receptor superfamily, SHRs serve as ligand-activated TFs. They possess modular domains—a variable N-terminal domain (with AF-1), a highly conserved DNA-binding domain, a flexible hinge, and a C-terminal ligand-binding domain (with AF-2). Binding of steroid hormones (or antagonists) triggers receptor dimerization, nuclear translocation, and subsequent binding to hormone response elements (HREs) to regulate gene expression.

Mechanisms of TF-DNA Recognition

• Target Search Strategies:
  TFs utilize a combination of sliding (1D diffusion), hopping, and intersegmental transfer along the DNA to locate their specific binding sites rapidly. This is exemplified by the lac repressor, whose helix-turn-helix domain facilitates both nonspecific and specific DNA interactions.

• Enhancement by Short Tandem Repeats (STRs):
  STRs surrounding TF target sites increase the effective binding affinity and local concentration of TFs, thereby enhancing specificity and transcriptional regulation.

Epigenetics and Transgenerational Inheritance

• Epigenetic Regulation and Cellular Memory:
  Despite identical genomic sequences, cells exhibit diverse transcriptomes and proteomes through differential gene expression, controlled in part by epigenetic mechanisms. Key epigenetic marks include DNA methylation, histone modifications, and the influence of long-lived noncoding RNAs.

• Transgenerational Inheritance:
  The chapter explores the concept of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance—the possibility that epigenetic information, acquired in response to environmental stimuli, can be passed through the germline to subsequent generations. It highlights the experimental challenges in distinguishing these effects from classical genetic, ecological, and cultural inheritance.

Conclusion

In summary, this chapter elucidates how transcription is finely tuned through the interplay of TF activation, DNA binding dynamics, enhancer interactions, and chromatin remodeling. Additionally, it considers the emerging field of epigenetics, which seeks to explain how gene expression states are maintained and, in some cases, transmitted across generations. Together, these processes form a complex regulatory network that not only drives cellular differentiation and adaptation but also has profound implications for human health and disease.

References

1. Parker, N., Schneegurt, M., Thi Tu, A-H., Lister, P., Forster, B.M. (2019) Microbiology. Openstax. Available at: https://opentextbc.ca/microbiologyopenstax/
2. Chan, K-G., Liu, Y-C., and Chang C-Y. (2015) Inhibiting N-acyl-homoserine lactone synthesis and quenching Pseudomonas quinolone quorum sensing to attenuate virulence. Front. Microbiol. 6:1173. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01173/full
3. Rukavina, Z., and Vanic Zeljka. (2016) Current trends in the development of liposomes targeting bacterial biofilms. Pharmaceutics 8(2):18. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4923/8/2/18/htm
4. Wikipedia contributors. (2020, April 18). Guanosine pentaphosphate. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:26, August 23, 2020, from https://en.Wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guanosine_pentaphosphate&oldid=951778776
5. Verbeke, F., De Craemer, S., Debunne, N., Janssens, Y., Wynendaele, E., Van de Wiele, C., and De Spiegeleer. B. (2017) Peptides as quorum sensing molecules: measurement techniques and obtained levels in vitro and in vivo. Frontiers in Neuroscience 11:183. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316055402_Peptides_as_Quorum_Sensing_Molecules_Measurement_Techniques_and_Obtained_Levels_In_vitro_and_In_vivo
6. Yesudhas, D., Batool, M., Anwar, M.A., Panneerselvam, S., and Choi, S. (2017) Proteins recognizing DNA: Structural uniqueness and versatility of DNA-binding domains in Stem Cell Transcription Factors. Genes 8(8):192. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/8/8/192/htm
7. Castellanos, M., Mothi, N., and Muñoz, V. (2020) Eukaryotic transcription factors can track and control their target genes using DNA antennas. Nature Comm. 11:540. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-14217-8
8. Neideracher, G., Klopf, E., and Schüller, C. (2011) Interplay of dynamic transcription and chromatin remodeling: Lessons from yeast. Int J Mol Sci 12(8):4758-4769. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179130/
9. Kim, S., and Kaang, B-K. (2017) Epigenetic regulation and chromatin remodeling in learning and memory. Exp. & Mol. Med. 49:e281. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/emm2016140#Fig1
10. Tvardovskly, A., Schwämmle, V., Kempf, S., Rogowska-Wrzesinka, A., and Jensen, O.N. (2016) Accumulation of histone variant H3.3 with age is associated with profound changes in the histone methylation landscape. Nuc. Acids Res. 45(16):1093. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318987684_Accumulation_of_histone_variant_H33_with_age_is_associated_with_profound_changes_in_the_histone_methylation_landscape
11. Cipolletti, M., Fernandez, V.S., Montalesi, E., Marino, M., Fiochetti, M. (2018) Beyond the antioxidant activity of dietary polyphenols in cancer: The modulation of estrogen receptors (ERs) signaling. Int J. Mol Sci 19(9)2624. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/9/2624/htm
12. Griekspoor, A., Zward, W., Neefjes, J., and Michalides, R. (2007) Visualizing the action of steroid hormone receptors in living cells. Nucl. Recept. Signal. 5:e003 Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1853070/
13. Mitsis, T., Papargeorgiou, L., Efthimiadou, A., Bacopoulou, F., Vlachakis, D., Chrousos, G.P., Eliopoulos, E. (2020) A comprehensive structural and functional analysis of the ligand binding domain of the nuclear receptor superfamily reveals highly conserved signaling motifs and two distinct canonical forms through evolution. World Acad Sci J 1: 264-274, 2019. Available at: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/wasj.2020.30
14. Reed, S.M., and Quelle, D.E. (2015) p53 Acetylation: Regulation and consequences. Cancers 7(1):30-69. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/7/1/30/htm.
15. Maclaine, N.J., and Hupp, T.R. (2009) The regulation of p53 by phosphorylation: a model for how distinct signals integrate into the p53 pathway. Aging 1(5):490-502. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2806026/
16. Wikipedia contributors. (2020, August 1). Estrogen. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 01:28, September 6, 2020, from https://en.Wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estrogen&oldid=970560042
17. Kluska, K., Adamczyk, J., and Krezel, A. (2018) Metal binding properties, stability, and reactivity of zinc fingers. Coord. Chem Rev. 367:18-64. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010854517305441
18. Wikipedia contributors. (2020, July 4). Leucine zipper. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:00, September 7, 2020, from https://en.Wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leucine_zipper&oldid=965962667
19. Wikipedia contributors. (2020, April 15). Zinc finger. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:28, September 7, 2020, from https://en.Wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinc_finger&oldid=951116840
20. Horsthemke, B. (2018) A critical view on transgenrational epigenetic inheritence in humans. Nat. Comm. 9:2973. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05445-5#rightslink