Current models of HIV-1 transcription activation propose that Tat and P-TEFb are recruited to the promoter by binding to TAR on the nascent transcript. However, here we provide evidence that Tat and P-TEFb, in complex with the inhibitory 7SK snRNP, are loaded into HIV-1 PICs prior to transcription initiation and in the absence of TAR ( and ). Further, we provide evidence that Tat can displace the 7SK snRNP to activate the Cdk9 kinase (), consistent with previous reports that Tat releases Hexim1 from the large and inactive P-TEFb complexes
23,24,30, and importantly, that this activation step occurs as TAR emerges on the transcript () from a promoter-paused Pol II
7. These results lead to the following two-step model for Tat activation (): First, the catalytically inactive P-TEFb/7SK snRNP complex is recruited to the promoter with Tat, most likely as a pre-assembled complex () and through interactions with Sp1 or other basal transcription factors, and remains bound in promoter-paused transcription complexes ( and ). Second, the inhibitory 7SK snRNP is released by competitive binding of the Tat:P-TEFb complex to TAR as it is transcribed, thereby activating Cdk9 and Pol II CTD phosphorylation (). Importantly, Tat and P-TEFb/7SK snRNP complexes are recruited to PICs even in a TAR-deleted promoter (), and in the absence of transcription (), providing direct evidence that TAR does not function solely as a recruitment site for Tat and CycT1. Even though Tat assembles into PICs in the TAR-deleted promoter, it does not activate Cdk9 and therefore the transcription complexes remain incompetent for elongation (). In this revised model, TAR provides the essential function of transferring Tat and CycT1 to the nascent RNA, displacing the inhibitory 7SK snRNP in the process ().
Several previous observations are consistent with this basic model of Tat activation: (i) P-TEFb has been found in HIV-1 PICs in the absence of Tat and remains associated with productive elongation complexes
31–34,43; (ii) Tat has been found in complexes with Pol II and HIV-1 PICs prior to synthesis of TAR
21,35,44; and Hexim1 over-expression inhibits Tat activation
45. The finding that Tat is present in PICs is consistent with the observation that it stimulates HIV-1 transcription complex assembly
5, perhaps by enhancing P-TEFb recruitment or stabilizing PICs at the promoter ( and ).
In our model, P-TEFb is transferred to the nascent RNA co-transcriptionally soon after TAR is synthesized, allowing Tat and CycT1 to bind and competitively displace the 7SK snRNP. We envision that the role of TAR in ejecting the inhibitory 7SK snRNP subunits ensures that Cdk9 becomes activated on the nascent RNA and effectively times the switch between initiation and elongation. The precise nature of the nascent RNA appears unimportant for triggering Cdk9 activation, as the Tat-TAR interaction can be functionally replaced by heterologous RNA-protein interactions when the Tat activation domain is fused to the cognate RNA-binding domain
46–49. Therefore, it is not TAR per se but rather the protein-RNA binding step that dissociates 7SK snRNP and activates the P-TEFb kinase. In contrast, the Tat activation domain is indispensable for activation, consistent with the observation that it is the minimal domain required to displace Hexim1 from P-TEFb by competing for the same interaction surface on CycT1, and to activate Cdk9
10,23,39. Even when the Tat activation domain alone is recruited to the HIV-1 promoter (
Supplementary Fig. 4), it does not activate transcription, consistent with the idea that Tat does not dissociate the 7SK snRNP without the TAR binding step ( and ). In agreement with the proposed co-transcriptional role for TAR, our ChIP data show that Tat cannot displace Hexim1 from the 7SK snRNP or increase Pol II Ser2 CTD-phosphorylation when TAR is deleted (), although recombinant Tat can do so at high concentrations
in vitro in the absence of template DNA or TAR (). We speculate that an additional step in which Tat does not activate the P-TEFb kinase until TAR is synthesized is not recapitulated under these
in vitro conditions.
It is interesting that both Tat and Hexim1 are able to bind to a 5’ region of 7SK snRNA
in vitro30,38, that Hexim1 possesses an arginine-rich similar to the RNA-binding of Tat
10, and that both compete for the same interaction surface on CycT1
23,39,45. These results provide evidence for molecular mimicry between the viral and host protein-RNA complexes (Tat-TAR and Hexim1-7SK snRNA) and suggest a competition model in which Tat takes the place of Hexim1 during the formation of transcription elongation complexes (), consistent with the observation that Tat displaces Hexim1 from the 7SK snRNP. Our findings also help resolve two apparent paradoxes. First, drugs that impair Pol II activity, like actinomycin D, activate the HIV-1 promoter
50; and intriguingly it stimulates the release of Hexim1 from the HIV-1 promoter mimicking Tat, albeit not as efficiently (
Supplementary Fig. 6). Second, drugs that reduce the levels of the inactive P-TEFb complex correspondingly reduce HIV-1 replication rates
51.
There are striking similarities between Tat:P-TEFb loading at the HIV-1 promoter and transfer to the nascent pre-mRNA with co-transcriptional processes in which some pre-mRNA processing factors, such as the capping machinery and splicing factors, initially are loaded on a promoter-paused Pol II complex and later transferred to the pre-mRNA
36,52,53. The proposed co-transcriptional mechanism helps solve a longstanding puzzle as to why HIV-1 evolved the use of an RNA site, in this case TAR, to regulate transcription. In our model, TAR does not function like a simple enhancer to recruit Tat to the nascent RNA, but rather allows an RNA-binding step to time the transition into productive elongation. This resembles the stimulatory effect of splicing factors on transcription elongation
54. It remains to be determined if cellular promoters regulate P-TEFb activity by related mechanisms, but it is interesting that the 3’ UTR of HIC mRNA activates HIV-1 transcription elongation in a P-TEFb-dependent manner by displacing 7SK snRNA through a yet uncovered mechanism
55. It is further possible that inactive P-TEFb complexes are assembled at cellular promoters and become activated by mechanisms that do not require a TAR-like RNA element. Indeed, Gal4-Tat and Gal4-P-TEFb fusions can activate transcription of an HIV-1 promoter containing several Gal4 DNA-binding sites, although multiple sites are required and activation is weaker than with TAR (
5,56; D’Orso, unpublished data), implying that the normal pathway of activation may not be fully recapitulated by artificial tethering of transcription factors or co-activators. Similarly, recruiting a Gal4-P-TEFb fusion to the
hsp70 promoter in
Drosophila activates transcription in the absence of heat shock, but to a lower level than when activated by heat shock factor-1
57.
HIV-1 transcription activation by Tat provides yet another example in which a virus exploits a cellular control mechanism, in this case the coupling of transcription with pre-mRNA processing
53 through the use of a regulatory non-coding RNA. It will be interesting to test if acetylation of the Tat activation domain, which enhances formation of the elongation complex on TAR
49, facilitates Tat-7SK snRNP assembly or the eviction of 7SK snRNP from the HIV-1 promoter. Understanding how Tat-7SK snRNP assembly/disassembly may be coordinated with the activity of the 7SK snRNA capping enzyme Mepce
20,30, with the activities of other elongation factors, such as DSIF and NELF, or with histone modifications at the HIV-1 promoter
6,26 also requires further investigation. Finally, as mentioned above, it seems unlikely that the assembly of inactive P-TEFb/7SK snRNP complexes at the HIV-1 promoter is unique, raising the question of whether other cellular genes utilize similar mechanisms to control the switch between initiation and elongation.