1. Cell Biology
  2. Computational and Systems Biology

Transcriptional regulation of Sis1 promotes fitness but not feedback in the heat shock response

  1. Rania Garde
  2. Abhyudai Singh  Is a corresponding author
  3. Asif Ali
  4. David Pincus  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Chicago, United States
  2. University of Delaware, United States
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79444
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Rania Garde
  2. Abhyudai Singh
  3. Asif Ali
  4. David Pincus
(2023)
Transcriptional regulation of Sis1 promotes fitness but not feedback in the heat shock response
eLife 12:e79444.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79444
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

The heat shock response (HSR) controls expression of molecular chaperones to maintain protein homeostasis. Previously, we proposed a feedback loop model of the HSR in which heat-denatured proteins sequester the chaperone Hsp70 to activate the HSR, and subsequent induction of Hsp70 deactivates the HSR (Krakowiak et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2016). However, recent work has implicated newly synthesized proteins (NSPs) - rather than unfolded mature proteins - and the Hsp70 co-chaperone Sis1 in HSR regulation, yet their contributions to HSR dynamics have not been determined. Here we generate a new mathematical model that incorporates NSPs and Sis1 into the HSR activation mechanism, and we perform genetic decoupling and pulse-labeling experiments to demonstrate that Sis1 induction is dispensable for HSR deactivation. Rather than providing negative feedback to the HSR, transcriptional regulation of Sis1 by Hsf1 promotes fitness by coordinating stress granules and carbon metabolism. These results support an overall model in which NSPs signal the HSR by sequestering Sis1 and Hsp70, while induction of Hsp70 - but not Sis1 - attenuates the response.

Data availability

All data presented in the paper and custom analysis software are deposited in Dryad and Zenodo, respectively, with the following accessions: https://doi.org/doi:10.5061/dryad.b2rbnzsm6https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7860686

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Rania Garde

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Abhyudai Singh

    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Delaware, Delaware, United States
    For correspondence
    absingh@udel.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1451-2838

  3. Asif Ali

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. David Pincus

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    pincus@uchicago.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9651-6858

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM124446)

  • Abhyudai Singh

National Science Foundation (OMA-2121044)

  • David Pincus

National Institutes of Health (GM138689)

  • David Pincus

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

Copyright

© 2023, Garde 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

  • 948
    views
  • 151
    downloads
  • 7
    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. Rania Garde
  2. Abhyudai Singh
  3. Asif Ali
  4. David Pincus
(2023)
Transcriptional regulation of Sis1 promotes fitness but not feedback in the heat shock response
eLife 12:e79444.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79444

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79444

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology

    Hsf1 and Hsp70 constitute a two-component feedback loop that regulates the yeast heat shock response

    Joanna Krakowiak, Xu Zheng ... David Pincus
    Research Advance Updated

    Models for regulation of the eukaryotic heat shock response typically invoke a negative feedback loop consisting of the transcriptional activator Hsf1 and a molecular chaperone. Previously we identified Hsp70 as the chaperone responsible for Hsf1 repression and constructed a mathematical model that recapitulated the yeast heat shock response (Zheng et al., 2016). The model was based on two assumptions: dissociation of Hsp70 activates Hsf1, and transcriptional induction of Hsp70 deactivates Hsf1. Here we validate these assumptions. First, we severed the feedback loop by uncoupling Hsp70 expression from Hsf1 regulation. As predicted by the model, Hsf1 was unable to efficiently deactivate in the absence of Hsp70 transcriptional induction. Next, we mapped a discrete Hsp70 binding site on Hsf1 to a C-terminal segment known as conserved element 2 (CE2). In vitro, CE2 binds to Hsp70 with low affinity (9 µM), in agreement with model requirements. In cells, removal of CE2 resulted in increased basal Hsf1 activity and delayed deactivation during heat shock, while tandem repeats of CE2 sped up Hsf1 deactivation. Finally, we uncovered a role for the N-terminal domain of Hsf1 in negatively regulating DNA binding. These results reveal the quantitative control mechanisms underlying the heat shock response.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology

    Dynamic control of Hsf1 during heat shock by a chaperone switch and phosphorylation

    Xu Zheng, Joanna Krakowiak ... David Pincus
    Research Article Updated

    Heat shock factor (Hsf1) regulates the expression of molecular chaperones to maintain protein homeostasis. Despite its central role in stress resistance, disease and aging, the mechanisms that control Hsf1 activity remain unresolved. Here we show that in budding yeast, Hsf1 basally associates with the chaperone Hsp70 and this association is transiently disrupted by heat shock, providing the first evidence that a chaperone repressor directly regulates Hsf1 activity. We develop and experimentally validate a mathematical model of Hsf1 activation by heat shock in which unfolded proteins compete with Hsf1 for binding to Hsp70. Surprisingly, we find that Hsf1 phosphorylation, previously thought to be required for activation, in fact only positively tunes Hsf1 and does so without affecting Hsp70 binding. Our work reveals two uncoupled forms of regulation - an ON/OFF chaperone switch and a tunable phosphorylation gain - that allow Hsf1 to flexibly integrate signals from the proteostasis network and cell signaling pathways.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology

    Lens Development: Bringing signaling complexity into focus

    Sarah Y Coomson, Salil A Lachke
    Insight

    A study in mice reveals key interactions between proteins involved in fibroblast growth factor signaling and how they contribute to distinct stages of eye lens development.