The TRRAP transcription cofactor represses interferon-stimulated genes in colorectal cancer cells

  1. Dylane Detilleux
  2. Peggy Raynaud  Is a corresponding author
  3. Berengere Pradet-Balade  Is a corresponding author
  4. Dominique Helmlinger  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Montpellier, CNRS, France

Abstract

Transcription is essential for cells to respond to signaling cues and involves factors with multiple distinct activities. One such factor, TRRAP, functions as part of two large complexes, SAGA and TIP60, which have crucial roles during transcription activation. Structurally, TRRAP belongs to the PIKK family but is the only member classified as a pseudokinase. Recent studies established that a dedicated HSP90 co-chaperone, the TTT complex, is essential for PIKK stabilization and activity. Here, using endogenous auxin-inducible degron alleles, we show that the TTT subunit TELO2 promotes TRRAP assembly into SAGA and TIP60 in human colorectal cancer cells (CRC). Transcriptomic analysis revealed that TELO2 contributes to TRRAP regulatory roles in CRC cells, most notably of MYC target genes. Surprisingly, TELO2 and TRRAP depletion also induced the expression of type I interferon genes. Using a combination of nascent RNA, antibody-targeted chromatin profiling (CUT&RUN), ChIP, and kinetic analyses, we propose a model by which TRRAP directly represses the transcription of IRF9, which encodes a master regulator of interferon stimulated genes. We have therefore uncovered an unexpected transcriptional repressor role for TRRAP, which we propose contributes to its tumorigenic activity.

Data availability

The raw sequencing data reported in this publication have been deposited in NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus and are accessible through GEO Series accession number GSE171454 and GSE192527.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Dylane Detilleux

    CRBM, University of Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Peggy Raynaud

    CRBM, University of Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier, France
    For correspondence
    peggy.raynaud@crbm.cnrs.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Berengere Pradet-Balade

    CRBM, University of Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier, France
    For correspondence
    berengere.pradet-balade@crbm.cnrs.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1720-3739
  4. Dominique Helmlinger

    CRBM, University of Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier, France
    For correspondence
    dhelmlinger@crbm.cnrs.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1501-0423

Funding

Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (PJA-20181208277)

  • Dominique Helmlinger

Institut National Du Cancer (PLBIO 2016-161)

  • Berengere Pradet-Balade
  • Dominique Helmlinger

Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (Graduate Student Fellowship)

  • Dylane Detilleux

Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (Comité Hérault)

  • Peggy Raynaud

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2022, Detilleux et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,937
    views
  • 244
    downloads
  • 9
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Dylane Detilleux
  2. Peggy Raynaud
  3. Berengere Pradet-Balade
  4. Dominique Helmlinger
(2022)
The TRRAP transcription cofactor represses interferon-stimulated genes in colorectal cancer cells
eLife 11:e69705.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69705

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69705

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Timothy Fuqua, Yiqiao Sun, Andreas Wagner
    Research Article

    Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Valentin Babosha, Natalia Klimenko ... Oksana Maksimenko
    Research Article

    The male-specific lethal complex (MSL), which consists of five proteins and two non-coding roX RNAs, is involved in the transcriptional enhancement of X-linked genes to compensate for the sex chromosome monosomy in Drosophila XY males compared with XX females. The MSL1 and MSL2 proteins form the heterotetrameric core of the MSL complex and are critical for the specific recruitment of the complex to the high-affinity ‘entry’ sites (HAS) on the X chromosome. In this study, we demonstrated that the N-terminal region of MSL1 is critical for stability and functions of MSL1. Amino acid deletions and substitutions in the N-terminal region of MSL1 strongly affect both the interaction with roX2 RNA and the MSL complex binding to HAS on the X chromosome. In particular, substitution of the conserved N-terminal amino-acids 3–7 in MSL1 (MSL1GS) affects male viability similar to the inactivation of genes encoding roX RNAs. In addition, MSL1GS binds to promoters such as MSL1WT but does not co-bind with MSL2 and MSL3 to X chromosomal HAS. However, overexpression of MSL2 partially restores the dosage compensation. Thus, the interaction of MSL1 with roX RNA is critical for the efficient assembly of the MSL complex on HAS of the male X chromosome.