We have constructed yeast strains in which chromosomal rDNA repeats are completely deleted and rRNA is synthesized from a DNA template on a plasmid, either rRNA genes transcribed by Pol I or the
GAL7–
35S rDNA fusion gene transcribed by Pol II. The growth rate of
rdnΔΔ strains with a standard wild-type Pol I plasmid (e.g. NOY908) was only ~20% slower than the strain without such a chromosomal rDNA deletion (e.g. NOY505) in YEPD. We have not determined the reason for this small decrease in growth rate, but speculate that it is caused by disruption of the intact nucleolar structure. We have previously reported nucleolar structures of
rdnΔΔ strains carrying a helper Pol I plasmid (NOY770) or helper Pol II plasmid (NOY773) and found alterations of nucleolar structures in these
rdnΔΔ strains (
14). The
rdnΔΔ strains used in the current work showed the same alterations, namely the crescent-shaped organization of the nucleolus as seen for the wild-type (
RDN1) yeast strain was absent and the
rdnΔΔ strains carrying a helper Pol I plasmid showed fragmented mini-nucleoli localized primarily at the nuclear periphery, whereas the
rdnΔΔ strains carrying a helper Pol II plasmid contained a round nucleolus that often lacked extensive contact with the nuclear periphery (M.Oakes and M.Nomura, unpublished results; see
14). Altered nucleolar structures might have caused the inefficiency in rDNA transcription which we observed (Fig. and Table ). However, we cannot conclude that the reduction in rRNA synthesis is a direct consequence of the disrupted nucleolar structure rather than an indirect consequence of some other defect, e.g. inefficient rRNA processing/ribosome assembly or possible defects in regulation of the cell cycle (for the involvement of nucleolar structures in cell cycle regulation see for example
29). If disrupted nucleolar structures in
rdnΔΔ strains are responsible for the small reduction in growth rate one might expect that strains with a new integrated rDNA in an expanded form may have a growth rate similar to the wild-type, since these strains contain a crescent-shaped nucleolar structure similar to that in wild-type strains as judged by immunofluorescence microscopy (M.Oakes and M.Nomura, unpublished results). However, as mentioned in Results, we constructed these strains with a new integrated rDNA using an rDNA fragment carrying the
hyg1 mutation, which is somewhat harmful to normal growth. Repeating rDNA repeat integration experiments using the wild-type rDNA without the hygromycin selection step is necessary to confirm the expected wild-type growth rate of strains with integrated new rDNA repeats.
Mutational analysis of rRNA in relation to ribosome function was previously carried out (
13) using a system corresponding to the
rdnΔ system described in this and a previous paper (
14). In
rdnΔ strains there are residual copies of rDNA repeats and these strains are not completely stable, although deletion of the
FOB1 gene may help to prevent an increase in the residual rDNA repeats (see
10). The
rdnΔΔ system described in this paper, which utilizes a helper Pol II plasmid in addition to a Pol I plasmid with a single native rDNA repeat, may represent an improved system to carry out mutational analysis of the structure–function relationship of rRNAs. Similarly, the present system could also be used for mutational analysis of processing of the 35S precursor rRNA to mature rRNA products. Although we have not done such experiments, we have used the system to study nucleolar structures (
14; unpublished results) and to analyze promoter elements as described in this paper. We also used this system to study the significance of the enhancer element in rDNA transcription, the results of which will be reported elsewhere.
Two
cis elements of the yeast Pol I promoter were previously defined by
in vivo experiments using a reporter gene on a plasmid (
30) and by
in vitro experiments using crude or partially fractionated extracts (
19,
27,
28) or using a system consisting of purified Pol I and transcription factors (
31). In the present mutational analysis of the promoter we measured the synthesis of actual rRNAs as well as the growth-promoting activity of these rRNA products in
rdnΔΔ strains which have the chromosomal rDNA repeats completely deleted. The results generally support the previous conclusions on the presence of two elements, the upstream element and core promoter, for the Pol I promoter. The upstream element was previously demonstrated to be the region required for stable binding of transcription factor UAF, as judged by template competition experiments. Deletion analysis showed that its upstream end is between –155 and –119 and its downstream end is between –70 and –41 (
28). As observed in previous
in vitro transcription experiments using crude extracts (
19,
27), partial deletion from upstream to –101 partially decreased transcription in the present
in vivo experiments. However, transcription experiments using all purified components gave a different result (
31). Deletion to –101 still allowed a high level of transcription, almost comparable with the intact (–207) promoter. It appears that there are some components present
in vivo or in crude extracts, but not in the purified transcription system, which may interact, specifically or non-specifically, with the upstream element and that such interactions might be responsible for the apparent discrepancy in the effects of partial deletion of the upstream element between the present
in vivo analysis (or
in vitro experiments using crude extracts) and the
in vitro analysis using purified components.
Deletion of the promoter from upstream to –76 and farther led to inviability of
rdnΔΔ strains, indicating a further reduction in rRNA transcription and suggesting that the basal transcription observed
in vitro, if it does operate
in vivo in the
rdnΔΔ strains, is insufficient to sustain growth. We have previously observed that in mutants defective for a Pol I-specific subunit of UAF there is residual transcription of rRNA genes (a few percent of the control), but it is not transcription by Pol I, rather transcription by Pol II using several different upstream start sites, and that in a majority of cells this weak transcription is insufficient to sustain growth to form colonies (
21). Because of the upstream deletions we do not expect any transcription by Pol II in deletions (such as –56) which remove the upstream element completely but leave the core promoter intact. We have not studied the question of whether weak basal transcription by Pol I takes place with such promoters in the
rdnΔΔ strains as in the case of
in vitro transcription.
Integration of a new rDNA unit at the original locus in rdnΔΔ strains and its expansion were achieved using a rDNA unit with the hyg1 mutation and the attached L sequence. As mentioned above, hygromycin selection was not necessary for rDNA repeat expansion. We should also be able to devise a scheme to eliminate the use of attached sequences, such as the L sequence, for repeat expansion, so that the reconstituted rDNA repeats would be identical to the original one. Regardless of this question, mutational analyses now appear to be applicable to studies of rDNA elements involved not only in rDNA transcription but also in rDNA replication, recombination and nucleolar organization in the context of rDNA repeat structures. In addition, integration of rDNA repeats in other chromosomal loci should also be possible. This would then answer the question of the significance of the chromosomal location of rDNA repeats in relation to the structural organization and functions of the nucleolus.