This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gancedo, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gancedo, J. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, June 1998, p. 334-361, Vol. 62, No. 2
1092-2172/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Yeast Carbon Catabolite Repressiondagger

Juana M. Gancedo*

Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas, Unidad de Bioquímica y Genética de Levaduras, CSIC, 28029 Madrid, Spain

SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
LEVELS OF CONTROL
ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM
    Activators
        The Hap2/3/4/5 complex.
        Gal4.
        Mal63.
        Adr1.
        Other activators.
    Repressors
        The Mig1 complex.
        Other repressors.
    Intermediary Elements
        The Snf1 complex.
        The Glc7 complex.
    Elements Involved in Glucose Signaling
    Elements Which Play an Indirect Role
        The Snf/Swi complex and the SPT proteins.
        The mediator.
        The Ada/Gcn5 complex.
        Other elements.
REGULATION OF SPECIFIC GENES
    The GAL Genes
    SUC2
    FBP1
    ADH2
    CYC1
    Other Genes
CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES

SUMMARY
Top
Next
References

Glucose and related sugars repress the transcription of genes encoding enzymes required for the utilization of alternative carbon sources; some of these genes are also repressed by other sugars such as galactose, and the process is known as catabolite repression. The different sugars produce signals which modify the conformation of certain proteins that, in turn, directly or through a regulatory cascade affect the expression of the genes subject to catabolite repression. These genes are not all controlled by a single set of regulatory proteins, but there are different circuits of repression for different groups of genes. However, the protein kinase Snf1/Cat1 is shared by the various circuits and is therefore a central element in the regulatory process. Snf1 is not operative in the presence of glucose, and preliminary evidence suggests that Snf1 is in a dephosphorylated state under these conditions. However, the enzymes that phosphorylate and dephosphorylate Snf1 have not been identified, and it is not known how the presence of glucose may affect their activity. What has been established is that Snf1 remains active in mutants lacking either the proteins Grr1/Cat80 or Hxk2 or the Glc7 complex, which functions as a protein phosphatase. One of the main roles of Snf1 is to relieve repression by the Mig1 complex, but it is also required for the operation of transcription factors such as Adr1 and possibly other factors that are still unidentified. Although our knowledge of catabolite repression is still very incomplete, it is possible in certain cases to propose a partial model of the way in which the different elements involved in catabolite repression may be integrated.

INTRODUCTION
Top
Previous
Next
References

Saccharomyces cerevisiae and many other yeasts may thrive on a variety of carbon sources, but glucose and fructose are the preferred ones. When one of these sugars is present, the enzymes required for the utilization of alternative carbon sources are synthesized at low rates or not at all. This phenomenon is known as carbon catabolite repression, or simply catabolite repression, and since no "catabolite" derived from glucose and involved in the repression has been yet identified, the term "glucose repression" has also been proposed. In this review, I still use the term "catabolite repression" as well as glucose repression, to stress that other sugars, such as galactose or maltose, are able to affect the synthesis of enzymes repressed by glucose (Table 1).

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1.   Catabolite repression caused by different sugars

A comprehensive picture of the mechanism(s) of catabolite repression is not yet available, in spite of the accumulation of information on the subject (for earlier reviews, see references 95, 96a, 96b, 124, 163, 289, and 346). Although the solution of the puzzle has progressed, important pieces are still missing and it has been found that other pieces, originally thought to belong, do not really pertain to the basic frame. The last few years have seen important advances, which are reviewed and discussed in this article. I also propose some models for catabolite repression of different genes and discuss some perspectives for future research. Although the review deals mainly with S. cerevisiae, reference to other yeast species is made, as far as information is available.

For easy reference, Table 2 provides an overview of the alternative names given to genes related to catabolite repression, since these genes have been repeatedly isolated by different groups and given different names.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2.   Alternative names for genes discussed in this review

LEVELS OF CONTROL
Top
Previous
Next
References

Glucose may affect enzyme levels by causing a decrease in the concentration of the corresponding mRNAs, a decrease in their translation rate, or an increase in the degradation rate of the protein. In turn, mRNA levels would depend both on the rate of transcription of the corresponding gene and on the stability of the mRNA. The main effect of glucose takes place at the transcriptional level; accordingly, this review deals mainly with this mechanism of regulation. Nevertheless, alternative mechanisms which are operative in certain cases are briefly discussed in this section.

Control of the mRNA translation rate is not common in yeast; however, in the case of the transcriptional activator Adr1, glucose appears to act at this step. While the concentration of Adr1 is at least 10-fold higher in ethanol-grown yeast than in glucose-grown yeast, there is only a 2-fold difference in the levels of the corresponding mRNAs (354). Since the half-life of Adr1 itself is not longer in ethanol-grown cells than in glucose-grown cells, it has been concluded that the observed decrease in the level of Adr1 is due mainly to a reduction in the rate of Adr1 synthesis brought about by glucose. The molecular mechanism by which glucose acts remains unclear, but it has been shown that the translational control does not depend on the long untranslated 5' leader sequence of ADR1 mRNA (354). Removal of the gene sequence corresponding to the 681 C-terminal residues of Adr1 (more than half the length of the protein) did not disrupt the translational control, but the ADR1 coding sequence between amino acids 262 and 642 is required for the control of ADR1 translation by glucose.

While translational control by glucose is rare, glucose triggers inactivation and/or proteolysis of a number of proteins. By analogy to catabolite repression, this phenomenon has been called catabolite inactivation (151); it affects a variety of proteins, from gluconeogenic enzymes to transport molecules, but it is not yet known whether the same mechanism underlies the inactivation in the different cases (125a). Inactivation of fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase (FbPase) by glucose (121) has been most extensively studied, and it has been shown that glucose causes a very rapid phosphorylation of FbPase and a proteolytic degradation of the enzyme (119, 224, 225, 236). Two alternative mechanisms for the proteolysis have been described: (i) transfer of FbPase to the vacuole and degradation by vacuolar proteases (56), and (ii) ubiquitination of FbPase (310) followed by degradation by the proteasome (309). The relative contribution of each pathway could depend on the physiological state of the yeast (306). Proteolysis of FbPase triggered by glucose can occur even in the absence of phosphorylation (291), but it has not been established whether phosphorylation may be a requirement or a facilitator of at least one of the degradation systems. The mechanism by which glucose triggers the proteolysis is not known, but glucose appears to induce the synthesis of proteins required for the degradation process. Some of these proteins would be transported to the vacuole, via the secretory pathway, and facilitate the uptake of FbPase by the vacuole (56). Other proteins would be required for ubiquitination of FbPase and its degradation in the proteasome (310). Recently, a series of mutants have been isolated in which inactivation and degradation of FbPase are uncoupled and the inactive protein accumulates in the cytosol and in small vesicles in the cytoplasm (149). Although the proteins involved in the process have not been identified yet, there is some evidence that in wild-type cells, FbPase could be imported in cytoplasmic vesicles before being degraded in the vacuole (155).

The most general system of catabolite repression involves a parallel decrease in mRNA and protein levels. Glucose has been reported to destabilize the corresponding mRNAs in a few systems: the functional half-life of CYC1 mRNA was shown to decrease from 12 min in derepressed cells to about 2 min when glucose was present (400, 401); for MAL6S (MAL62) mRNA the decrease was from 25 to 6 min (107); glucose also had a very strong effect on the mRNAs encoding subunits of succinate dehydrogenase, decreasing the half-life from more than 60 min to less than 10 min (198); for PCK1 mRNA, glucose accelerated the degradation rate only twofold (230). In no case, however, was information available about a possible mechanism for this effect of glucose.

More recently, it has been shown that the 5' untranslated end of the mRNA encoding the iron protein (Ip) subunit of succinate dehydrogenase is able to promote rapid degradation of a fusion mRNA upon glucose addition (48). The 5' exonuclease Xrn1 seems to play an important role in the mRNA degradation, and it has been suggested that the rate of degradation of mRNA could be set by a competition between initiation of translation and nuclease action (48). In this case, glucose could promote mRNA degradation by blocking mRNA translation. Phosphorylation of glucose or fructose was required to trigger Ip mRNA turnover, but any of the hexose kinases would be effective. Although further metabolism of the hexose phosphate formed does not seem to be required (both glucose and fructose increased turnover in a pgi mutant), addition of 2-deoxyglucose to a derepressed yeast culture did not decrease Ip mRNA stability (49). A possible interpretation for this could be that 2-deoxyglucose would decrease ATP levels and that the triggering of mRNA degradation would be energy dependent. Most factors required for glucose repression of genes such as SUC2 or the GAL genes (Hxk2, Grr1, Tup1, and Cyc8) did not markedly affect mRNA turnover in the presence of glucose, and the protein Ume5 (Srb10), which has been reported to destabilize SPO13 mRNA in a glucose-containing medium (331), was not needed for differential turnover of Ip mRNA (49). On the other hand, the regulatory protein Reg1 was required for increased degradation of Ip mRNA upon glucose addition (49).

The mechanism(s) regulating mRNA turnover in response to the carbon source remain to be worked out, but it is clearly established that for a subset of genes regulated by glucose, control is operating on mRNA stability instead of (or in addition to) on transcription rates. However, in the rest of this review, catabolite repression is considered in the narrow sense of the repression of transcription caused by glucose, since, as mentioned above, this is the major control mechanism.

ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM
Top
Previous
Next
References

Glucose and other repressing sugars can affect the rate of transcription by two basic mechanisms: they interfere with activators of transcription, or they facilitate the action of proteins with a negative effect on transcription. In bacteria, one or the other of these control mechanisms regulates catabolite repression in different species (297). Our present picture is that in yeast, the different sugars do not act directly on DNA-binding proteins but produce signals that are transmitted through a series of proteins to the promoters of the corresponding genes. To unravel the mechanisms of catabolite repression, it is therefore necessary to identify the signals produced by the sugar, the proteins which respond to them, and their substrates, down to the proteins binding to the promoter of the regulated genes.

To find the different elements that participate in the cascade of reactions between glucose and the final target, mutants affected in the process have been invaluable. Two kinds of mutants were sought, mutants for which glucose was no longer repressing and mutants in which derepression did not occur even when the glucose in the medium had been used up. To obtain these mutants, a variety of strategies were used (see reference 125 for a review), and the number of different genes isolated has increased in a bewildering manner. However, in the last few years it has become apparent that a number of these genes are not specifically related to the control by glucose but play a more general role in the control of transcription.

In the following sections, we consider in detail the different elements of the system: proteins which act as specific transcriptional repressors or activators, intermediary regulatory factors, and elements involved in glucose signalling. A number of proteins which somehow affect catabolite repression but are not directly involved in the response to glucose are also discussed.

Activators

The Hap2/3/4/5 complex. A large number of genes are regulated by a complex containing the proteins Hap2, Hap3, Hap4, and Hap5 (see reference 79 for a compilation of such genes). The complex, which activates transcription when yeast grows on a nonfermentable carbon source, binds DNA and makes contacts with a consensus ACCAA(T/C)NA sequence called the CCAAT box (255). In a search for yeasts unable to activate a CCAAT box-containing fusion gene, hap2, hap3, and hap4 mutants were isolated (114, 134, 136). Hap5 was identified by the two-hybrid assay with the core region of Hap2 as a bait (227). Hap2, Hap3, and Hap5 are absolutely required for CCAAT-binding activity, as shown in band shift experiments, and the three subunits are also sufficient for DNA binding, since a mixture of the three purified recombinant proteins allows binding to a CCAAT box in vitro (227). This is in contrast to initial reports that Hap4 was required for binding (114). It appears now that Hap4 is mainly responsible for the activation of transcription produced by the complex (257). The stoichiometry of the complex is not yet clear, but it has been reported to contain a single Hap2 molecule (384).

A 60-amino-acid core region of Hap2 is sufficient for functionality: within this region, there is a DNA binding domain and a subunit association domain (256, 257). This last domain is essential for interactions between Hap2 and other subunits of the complex and is able to form a helical structure (384). The DNA-binding domain of Hap2 is a 21-amino-acid region in which three critical histidines and three critical arginines have been identified (383). Hap3 contains also a 7-amino-acid region required for DNA binding, but its subunit association domain has not been clearly delineated (383).

It has been proposed that Hap5 interacts with both Hap2 and Hap3 and brings the proteins together, allowing the interaction between the DNA-binding domains of Hap2 and Hap3 (227). The proteins Hap3 and Hap5, but not Hap2, contain the histone fold motif, a structural feature first identified in histones and now found in a large group of proteins, involved in protein-protein and/or protein-DNA interactions (8).

It is not clear to what extent glucose affects Hap2 levels, since it was reported (272) that glucose decreased the levels of the HAP2 transcript fivefold whereas it was stated later that HAP4, "unlike HAP2 and HAP3," was induced fivefold when yeast cells were shifted from glucose to lactate (114). The effect of glucose on HAP4 is clearer, and the presence of a strong Mig1 binding site in the promoter of HAP4 suggested that catabolite repression of HAP4 would operate through Mig1 (79). However, it has been found that HAP4 is still repressed by glucose in a mig1 mutant (200). A possible interpretation for this observation is that an analog of Mig1, Mig2 (see the section on repressors, below), is sufficient to maintain HAP4 in a repressed state. Although it has been established that genes such as CYC1 or COX6, regulated by the Hap2/3/4/5 complex, require Snf1 for derepression (382), there have been no reports on a possible role of Snf1 on HAP4 expression.

The interesting observation has been made that while the expression of CYC1-lacZ in a galactose medium decreases over 25-fold in a hap2 or a hap3 mutant, the decrease is less than 4-fold in a hap4 mutant (67). This could suggest that the Hap2/3/4/5 complex plays a double role: remodeling of the chromatin structure, which does not require Hap4, and direct activation of the RNA polymerase, in which Hap4 would be involved. In fact, a short region of the general transcription factor TFIIB, which contains an amphipathic helix unique to yeast TFIIB, is specifically required for activation of transcription by the Hap2/3/4/5 complex (315).

Homologs of the HAP genes have been identified in other yeast species. In Schizosaccharomyces pombe, the php2 gene is able to complement an S. cerevisiae hap2 mutant, but in contrast to S. cerevisiae, the capacity of cellular extracts of S. pombe to bind to a CCAAT probe was similar for glucose- and glycerol-grown cells (256). Nevertheless, since disruption of php2 made S. pombe unable to grow in glycerol, the fission yeast gene also appears to be involved in mitochondrial function. The situation is different in Kluyveromyces lactis, where disruption of the functional homologs of HAP2 or HAP3 had no significant effect on the growth of the yeast on respiratory substrates (235, 248).

Gal4. The protein Gal4 (184) activates the transcription of a family of genes, GAL1, GAL2, GAL7, GAL10, and MEL1, involved in the catabolism of galactose and melibiose (for a review, see references 161 and 228). These genes contain one to four copies of a regulatory element, UASGAL, with the palindromic consensus binding site CGGA(G/C)GACAGTC(C/G)TCCG (129), to which Gal4 can bind.

Gal4 has a DNA binding domain at the N terminus, which is a C6 zinc cluster (162), and two acidic activation regions, one near the DNA binding domain and the other at the C terminus (206). Gal4 is found as a monomer in the absence of DNA, but it binds to DNA as a dimer, with the C6 zinc clusters making contacts with a conserved CCG triplet at each end of the site (213). A short coiled-coil dimerization element of Gal4 is responsible for the symmetrical binding (35). Gal4 forms a complex with the regulatory protein Gal80 (129), and this formation requires the carboxy-terminal 30 amino acids from Gal4 (206). In the absence of galactose in the medium, the complex binds to UASGAL but is not able to activate transcription (129); when galactose is present, the regulatory protein Gal3, a protein with strong homology to galactokinase, binds Gal80, thereby relieving its inhibitory action on Gal4 (333, 388). Since Gal4 has been shown to occur in vivo in different phosphorylation states, it has been proposed that regulated phosphorylation modulates Gal4 activity (239). Although Gal4 can be phosphorylated at multiple sites, phosphorylation at Ser-699 plays a special role, since it is required for maximal activated transcription (296). There is evidence that phosphorylation of Gal4 takes place after Gal4 has stimulated the assembly of the general transcriptional machinery (228).

When there is glucose in the medium, transcription of the GAL genes is repressed even if galactose is also present (1). Glucose could act on Gal4 at different levels: preventing its synthesis, blocking its capacity to bind to the UASGAL site, or interfering with its activating function. Expression of GAL4 is moderately repressed by glucose, and this repression involves the binding of the regulatory protein Mig1 to the GAL4 promoter (133, 241). In addition, glucose interferes with the release of the inhibition of Gal4 by Gal80 performed by galactose (164). This could be related to the observation that in the presence of Gal80, glucose prevents the phosphorylation of Gal4 (296). In a gal80 mutant with constitutive expression of Gal4, the activity of Gal4 appears to be unaffected by glucose (328) and the replacement of Ser-699 by alanine has no effect on the capacity of Gal4 to activate transcription (296).

In K. lactis a transcriptional activator called Lac9, equivalent to Gal4, has been identified (302). Lac9 and Gal4 are operative in the heterologous yeast (286, 302), even though they have diverged considerably and homologies between them are restricted to areas of the protein implicated in nuclear localization, DNA binding, and transcriptional activation. The main regulatory features of the system have been conserved, with some interesting variations. In K. lactis, there is a KlGal80 protein that is very similar to the Gal80 protein and is able to block transcriptional activation by Lac9 in the absence of galactose (394). In contrast, there is no protein homologous to Gal3, and its function is taken by the galactokinase itself. A KlGal1-KlGal80 complex can be formed in the presence of galactose and ATP (395), and its formation is relevant for the expression of the GAL genes in K. lactis, as shown by the fact that a mutant protein KlGal1-m1 with galactokinase activity but unable to form a complex with KlGal80 has lost its regulatory function (395).

Very large differences between strains, from no repression to 100-fold repression by glucose of the GAL genes from K. lactis, have been observed (24). These differences have been shown to depend on the LAC9 allele present in the strain. A 2-base difference in the LAC9 promoter region modifies the level of expression of the gene, and the small change (two- to threefold) in the concentration of the regulatory protein produces large effects in the expression of the GAL genes (178, 392). In contrast to the situation in S. cerevisiae, in K. lactis the absence of KlGal80 is sufficient to relieve the repression by glucose (394).

Mal63. In different S. cerevisiae strains, the genes required for maltose utilization may be found at different loci called MAL1, MAL2, MAL3, MAL4, or MAL6. The most extensively studied gene complex is MAL6; in this complex, MAL61 (MAL6T) encodes maltose permease, MAL62 (MAL6S) encodes maltase, and MAL63 (MAL6R) encodes a protein which activates the expression of the genes MAL61 and MAL62 and probably that of the MAL63 gene itself (51, 240).

The protein Mal63 belongs to the same family of C6 zinc cluster proteins as Gal4 (50, 168). In contrast to Gal4, it is found as a dimer even in the absence of DNA (323) and it lacks acidic or glutamine-rich regions which appear associated with the capacity to activate transcription in other systems. The DNA recognition motif for Mal63 has not been clearly established; it was first suggested that the sequence GAAA(A/T)TTTCGC, found twice in a 68-bp region situated between the MAL61 and MAL62 genes and necessary for their maltose-induced expression, could be important (188). However, a footprint assay revealed three protected sites in the MAL61-MAL62 promoter, none of which corresponded to this sequence (323). Among these sites, one contains the sequence CGGN9CGG, a structure similar to that bound by the zinc cluster protein Hap1 (396) and another contains the sequence CGCN9CGC; the third one looks like a half-site sequence. In addition, a sequence in the promoter of MAL63 itself which binds Mal63 (240) has a similar motif, CGGN9CGC. In all these sequences, the intermediary N9 region is very AT rich.

There is at present no information about the mechanism by which Mal63 is activated in the presence of maltose, although it has been speculated that maltose may bind to Mal63, yielding a conformation with functional activity (369). Constitutive alleles of MAL63, or the wild-type allele of MAL43 (an equivalent gene in the MAL4 locus), have multiple amino acid substitutions in the C-terminal region and may adopt the active conformation, even in the absence of maltose (369).

Glucose represses the expression of the MAL genes, even when maltose is present in the medium (107, 154), and it appears to affect both MAL63 transcription and the formation of the active conformation of Mal63 (154, 369). The effect on MAL63 transcription is mediated largely by Mig1 as the disruption of MIG1 (154) or the removal of a Mig1 binding site in the MAL63 promoter (369) increases MAL63 expression in the presence of glucose. On the other hand, glucose may also cause inducer exclusion, perhaps by inactivating the maltose permease (27, 131), thereby preventing the conformational change of Mal63. Glucose repression of the MAL genes decreases strongly in strains carrying constitutive alleles of the regulatory proteins Mal63 or Mal43 (154, 369).

In Candida albicans, an alpha -glucosidase encoded by the CAMAL2 gene is induced by both maltose and sucrose and repressed by glucose (127). The regulatory gene CASUC1, which is also required for the utilization of sucrose or maltose, encodes a C6 zinc cluster protein with 28% identity to the Mal63 protein from Saccharomyces and able to complement a mal63 mutation (167). An inspection of the promoter regions of CASUC1 and CAMAL2 reveals a number of sequences with some similarity to the consensus sequence able to bind Mig1 in S. cerevisiae, but none of them seems likely to have a strong affinity for this protein (200). However, a putative homolog of Mig1 has been only recently identified in C. albicans (393), and there is not yet any information on its precise requirements for DNA binding. It therefore remains possible that catabolite repression of the alpha -glucosidase from Candida, like that of its Saccharomyces counterpart, is partly mediated by Mig1.

Adr1. Adr1 is a zinc finger protein belonging to the C2H2 family (138), identified as a positive effector of the expression of ADH2, a gene which is repressed by glucose and which encodes alcohol dehydrogenase II (57). Adr1 has been localized in the nucleus, and its zinc fingers are essential for DNA binding (14). Adr1 binds a 22-bp palindromic sequence in the promoter of ADH2 (94) and may also bind sequences in the promoters of genes encoding peroxisomal proteins or proteins involved in glycerol utilization (266, 320). A consensus sequence for Adr1 binding, C(T/C)CC(A/G)N6-38(T/C)GG(A/G)G, has been proposed (53).

Several regions in Adr1, named TADI to TADIII, may act as transcription activation domains (60); a fourth region (TADIV) would be required for the activation of peroxisomal genes (322). To activate transcription efficiently, Adr1 requires a coactivator complex which includes among its components Ada2 and the histone acetyltransferase Gcn5 (55). There is evidence that Ada2 interacts specifically with TADII while Gcn5 may interact with any of the four TADs. In addition, TADI and TADIV bind to the C-terminal half of the RNA polymerase II subunit TFIIB (55). It would appear, therefore, that Adr1 interacts with several components of the coactivator complex, thus facilitating the acetylation of histones and a nucleosomal rearrangement which allows transcription to proceed (362). The interaction with TFIIB could also recruit the transcriptional machinery to the promoter, contributing further to the activation of the gene regulated by Adr1.

Adr1 activity is sensitive to catabolite repression, with glucose acting at different levels; the relative importance of the different effects of glucose may vary depending on the genetic background. Glucose decreases the rate of transcription of ADR1 10- to 20-fold in some strains and has no significant effect in others (15). In a yeast strain where ADR1 was not repressed by glucose, a mutation in any of the genes SAF1, SAF2, or SAF3 made ADR1 sensitive to glucose (61). Although this may be related to the differences observed between strains, there have been no further reports on the role of the SAF genes. Since transcription of ADR1 is inhibited when the activity of the cyclic AMP (cAMP)-dependent protein kinase is unregulated (82), a possible way for glucose to affect ADR1 expression would be through an increase in the cAMP level. An effect of glucose on the stability of the ADR1 mRNA has also been observed; in the presence of glucose, the half-life of the mRNA decreases from about 2 h to 45 min (61). The main effect of glucose, however, appears to be on ADR1 mRNA translation, as discussed in the section on levels of control (above).

It had also been reported that glucose could act at a posttranslational level. Since Adr1 is a substrate for cAMP-dependent protein kinases in vitro and since increased kinase activity in vivo inhibits ADH2 expression, it was suggested that an increase in the cAMP level during growth on glucose would cause the phosphorylation of Adr1, possibly at Ser-230 (54). The phosphorylated Adr1 would still bind to the ADH2 promoter but would not interact with the transcription machinery (337). The existence of ADR1c mutations, which cause enhanced ADH2 transcription under repressed conditions and which interfere with the phosphorylation of Ser-230 in vitro, appeared to support the idea that Adr1 would be regulated by phosphorylation. However, it was concluded later that the ADR1c mutations may be acting by a different mechanism, either blocking the binding of a putative repressor to Adr1 or altering the conformation of Adr1 in such a way that it retains activity in the presence of glucose (75). It should also be noted that phosphorylation of Adr1 in vivo occurs at multiple sites and that the pattern of phosphorylation is similar in glucose- or ethanol-grown cells (354).

The existence of an Adr1 homolog in Hansenula polymorpha was suggested by the fact that the promoter of the MOX gene (encoding methanol oxidase) from H. polymorpha is able to bind Adr1 (268). Moreover, the expression of MOX-lacZ in S. cerevisiae is dependent on the endogenous Adr1 and repressed by glucose, as occurs with the ADH2 from S. cerevisiae.

Other activators. There are a number of proteins related to catabolite repression which have features of a transcriptional activator but for which no targets have been identified. The characteristics of Sip3 and Sip4 which have been isolated by their capacity to interact with the protein kinase Snf1 in the two-hybrid assay (186, 187) are described in the section on the Snf1 complex (below).

Cat8 is a protein required for the derepression of the gluconeogenic enzymes FbPase, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase, and isocitrate lyase but dispensable for the derepression of invertase or maltase (141). Cat8 is a C6 zinc cluster protein, which is strongly repressed by glucose. Repression still occurs in a hxk2 mutant (278) but is reduced to twofold in the absence of the regulatory protein Mig1 (276, 278). There is a binding site for the Hap2/3/4/5 complex in the promoter of CAT8, and derepression is only partial in a hap2 mutant (278). Although derepression of Cat8, as well as that of the gluconeogenic enzymes, requires the Cat5 protein (276), Cat5 does not seem to be itself an activator of transcription. Cat5 may have only an indirect effect on catabolite repression, its role being to participate in ubiquinone biosynthesis (211).

The Cat8 protein undergoes phosphorylation under derepressing conditions yielding different modified forms (279). Two of these forms are found only in SNF1 strains, but another one can be formed in the absence of Snf1. While Snf1 is required for the activation of transcription depending on Cat8 (278), it is not yet known to what extent the Snf1-independent modification is required for Cat8 to be operative. Glucose triggers the dephosphorylation of Cat8, a process which does not appear to require protein phosphatase 1, since it occurs in a glc7 mutant (279).

Repressors

The Mig1 complex. The MIG1 gene, an important element in glucose repression, was identified in a search for genes which would turn off the GAL1 promoter of S. cerevisiae (243). Mutations called cat4 or ssn1, which turned out to be allelic to MIG1, were also isolated as extragenic suppressors of snf1 and snf4 mutations (311, 356). Mig1 is a C2H2 zinc finger protein that is able to bind to the promoters of a variety of genes repressed by glucose. Binding requires a GC box with the consensus sequence (G/C)(C/T)GGGG, but it also requires an AT-rich region 5' to the GC box (200). It has been suggested that finger 1 from Mig1 recognizes a G(G/A)G triplet and finger 2 recognizes a (G/C)(C/T)G triplet. The specific residues involved in the contacts would be an arginine at position 21, a histidine at position 18, and an arginine at position 15 for the first finger and an arginine, a glutamic acid, and an arginine at the same positions for the second finger. The AT-rich region would be required to stabilize the interaction, since it would allow bending of the DNA and facilitate further protein-DNA contacts (200).

A LexA-Mig1 fusion protein is able to repress a reporter gene with several Lex operators in a yeast growing on high glucose (352). The repression is much reduced at low glucose concentrations and disappears when galactose is the carbon source (344). A reporter gene containing a Mig1 binding site is also repressed in the presence of glucose; in a snf1 background, repression is maintained even when glucose is removed (365).

Deletion mapping of the MIG1 gene has been performed to delineate possible effector domains implicated in the repression by Mig1 and to delineate regulatory domains which would block the repression in the absence of glucose (258). It was found that the C-terminal 24 amino acids of Mig1 are sufficient for repression, when fused to the DNA binding domain. For repression to be relieved as the concentration of glucose in the medium decreases, two internal elements of the Mig1 protein are also required. One of these elements includes two RXXS motifs, potential substrates for some protein kinases. Another important feature of Mig1 is a basic domain 3' to the zinc fingers, which could be involved in targeting Mig1 to the nucleus (258).

Although the operation of Mig1 appears to be controlled by the protein kinase Snf1 (258, 344, 365), as yet there is no evidence that Mig1 is actually phosphorylated by Snf1. In the Mig1 sequence, two sites which correspond to the consensus sequence for phosphorylation by Snf1 (defined in reference 68) can be identified, as well as a third site at which Snf1 would be less efficient (Fig. 1). By using a Mig1-viral protein 16 fusion protein that may function as an activator of transcription controlled by Snf1, it has been found that replacing the serines at positions 278, 310, and 311 by alanines affected the phosphorylation state of the fusion protein and strongly decreased the negative effect of Snf1 on its activity (258a). On the other hand, a Mig1 protein with both serines at position 311 and 381, which could be phosphorylated by Snf1, replaced by alanine is still subject to regulation by glucose in the same way as the wild-type protein (365).


View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1.   Sequences of the Mig1 proteins from different yeasts which may be substrates of the protein kinase Snf1; the serine which may be phosphorylated is underlined. Amino acids which were found to be important in a study with artificial peptides as substrates for Snf1 (68) are shown in boldface type; amino acids in parentheses are suboptimal. Equivalent regions in the different proteins are aligned.

Genes similar to MIG1 have been cloned in the yeasts K. lactis (42), K. marxianus (43), S. pombe (336a), and C. albicans (393) and in the ascomycetes fungus Aspergillus nidulans (87). In addition, two further proteins with zinc fingers similar to those of Mig1 have been identified in S. cerevisiae (202). One of them, Mig2, binds to the promoter of SUC2 and contributes to its repression by glucose but has little affinity for the GAL1 promoter. The second protein, Yer028, has not been found to play a role in glucose repression. A comparison between the sequences of the homologous proteins from S. cerevisiae does not reveal extensive common motifs outside the zinc finger region (202). However, while potential phosphorylation sites for Snf1 are not found in these proteins, in both Mig2 and Yer028, as in Mig1, there is a stretch of basic amino acids 3' to the zinc fingers and a 7-amino-acid sequence [LPP(I/V)(R/K)(S/N)(L/I)] in the C-terminal effector domain, which appears to be conserved. The different functional domains identified in S. cerevisiae have clear counterparts in K. lactis (42) and K. marxianus (43), and even sites which are potential substrates for Snf1 are conserved (Fig. 1). In fact, the genes from K. lactis or K. marxianus are able to complement an S. cerevisiae mig1 mutant. Although Mig1 from C. albicans is also functional in S. cerevisiae, preliminary results show that its sequence does not retain homology to that of S. cerevisiae Mig1 outside the very strongly conserved zinc fingers region and an adjacent 3' domain with five positively charged residues (393). The equivalent protein from A. nidulans, CREA, plays a double role in the control of the expression of the ethanol regulon genes, since it acts on the promoters of both the structural genes and on a regulatory gene alcR, encoding a transcriptional activator (218). It has been further shown that CREA acts by competing directly with the binding of the ALCR activator to the promoters. In S. cerevisiae, as discussed in a later section, Mig1 also interacts with the promoters of the GAL genes, encoding enzymes required for galactose metabolism, and with the promoter of the regulatory gene GAL4. However, there is no evidence for a direct competition for DNA binding between Mig1 and the transcriptional activator Gal4. On the other hand, there could be competition between Mig1 and Mal63 at the MAL62 promoter (370), and very recent results suggest competition for GC boxes between Mig1 and a still unidentified SUC2 activator (26a).

A number of mutants with mutations which act synergistically with mig1 to relieve glucose repression of SUC2 and to suppress the effect of a snf1 mutation on invertase expression (356) or on the growth on gluconeogenic carbon sources (5) have been isolated. These mutants were affected in components of a multiprotein complex associated with RNA polymerase II (5, 176, 324) and are discussed below.

There is strong evidence that Mig1 exerts its repressive effect by recruiting a complex which contains the proteins Tup1 and Cyc8 (Ssn6) (344, 351). Mutations in TUP1 and CYC8 affect catabolite repression but are also highly pleiotropic and have been repeatedly isolated by different groups and given different names (see references 124 and 375).

Tup1 contains in its carboxyl region seven copies of a beta -transducin motif (171a, 374). Although these motifs are not absolutely required for repression or for interaction with Cyc8, they appear to play an important role in Tup1 function (351, 352). Deletion analysis experiments suggest that the N-terminal 72-residue stretch of Tup1 is necessary and sufficient for the binding of Tup1 to Cyc8. In addition, Tup1 contains a domain, responsible for repression, which includes at least two separate transcriptional repression regions. These regions have little sequence similarity but are characterized by being alanine rich and almost completely uncharged (351).

Cyc8 is a large protein with a very high proportion of glutamine residues (313, 345). It contains near its amino terminus 10 copies of a 34-amino-acid motif, the tetratricopeptide repeat TPR (319). A number of TPR units are required for Cyc8 function (314), and it was proposed that they mediate protein-protein interactions (144). Later, two-hybrid assays showed that the amino-terminal region of Cyc8, comprising the first three TPR motifs interacts, with Tup1 (352). The two-hybrid system also indicates interaction between Cyc8 and Mig1 (344), and according to functional tests, TPR motifs 8 to 10 from Cyc8 would be involved in this interaction (352).

Cyc8 and Tup1 are associated in a high-molecular-weight complex (375) composed of one Cyc8 and four Tup1 subunits (359). The Cyc8-Tup1 complex is able to repress different classes of yeast genes depending on the DNA-binding protein with which it associates (166). The mechanism by which this complex exerts transcriptional repression is not yet clear, but two possibilities, not mutually exclusive, have been considered. Cyc8-Tup1 could modify the chromatin structure and control nucleosome positioning, and/or it could interfere directly with components of the basal transcription machinery. Much information on the mode of action of Cyc8-Tup1 has been obtained in studies of the alpha 2-Mcm1-Cyc8-Tup1 complex, which is involved in sexual differentiation. In cyc8 or tup1 mutants, there is a perturbation in the placement and stability of nucleosomes around the alpha 2 binding site (62). There is also evidence for an organized chromatin structure at the promoter of a gene such as SUC2 under repressed conditions (145, 217), and in cyc8 mutants an open chromatin structure is observed, even in the presence of glucose. Further support for the role of Tup1 on chromatin structure comes from the observation that Tup1 binds to histones H3 and H4 (90). This interaction is weakened by amino-terminal mutations in H3 and H4, which also cause a derepression of genes regulated by the Cyc8-Tup1 complex (90). Regarding possible interactions with the RNA polymerase II complex, recent experiments suggest that such interactions take place for the alpha 2-Mcm1-Cyc8-Tup1 complex (282).

An important point to consider is how glucose regulates repression by the Mig1-Cyc8-Tup1 complex. An excess of Mig1 interferes with derepression of SUC2 and of the GAL genes and inhibits growth on maltose (243), and overproduction of Cyc8 or Tup1 reduces the transcription of SUC2 even in the absence of glucose (313, 374). Nevertheless, neither the amount of Mig1 (243) nor the amounts of Cyc8 and Tup1 (314, 375) are regulated by glucose. The facts that Mig1 is phosphorylated to different extents in repressed and derepressed cells and that relief of Mig1 repression requires the protein kinase Snf1 suggested a role for phosphorylation of Mig1 in the control of repression (344). This is strongly supported by recent observations which show that Mig1 is localized in the nucleus in repressed cells and that a few minutes after glucose removal from the medium, Mig1 is both phosphorylated and translocated to the cytosol (78). A generalized scheme for the role of Mig1 in catabolite repression is shown in Fig. 2. Although both Cyc8 and Tup1 have been reported to exist in a phosphorylated form (281, 314), there is no evidence that changes in their degree of phosphorylation have a regulatory significance.


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 2.   Schematic view of the mode of action of Mig1 and its regulation. In the presence of glucose, Mig1 is found in the nucleus, where it represses the transcription of genes encoding activators such as GAL4 and MAL63 and of genes whose products are implicated in the metabolism of alternative carbon sources. Glucose removal causes both phosphorylation of Mig1, depending on the Snf1 complex, and its translocation to the cytoplasm. For details, see the text.

Other repressors. There is not much evidence about proteins different from the Mig1 family that are able to bind to the promoters of genes subject to catabolite repression and to inhibit the transcription of these genes. The SKO1 gene, which was isolated by the same procedure as MIG1, encodes a protein that is able to bind to the promoter of SUC2, but its role in mediating repression by glucose is doubtful (242). Although transcription of SUC2 is increased up to twofold in a sko1 strain, the effect of the SKO1 disruption is more marked during growth on raffinose than in the presence of glucose. Moreover, the lack of Sko1 has no effect on the expression of GAL genes or on growth on different carbon sources (242).

Since the binding site for Sko1 (Acr1) has the characteristics of a cAMP responsive element (CRE) (242, 363), repression by Sko1 could be due to competition with a potential CRE binding activator, for which some evidence exists (252, 363). In this regard, it should be noted that it has not been yet established whether CRE motifs in S. cerevisiae are really responsive to cAMP.

A number of genes have been identified which could formally encode repressors, since mutations in them increase expression of repressible genes in the presence of glucose. However, in most cases, the encoded proteins such as Hxk2, Reg1, or Glc7 have been found not to act directly on the corresponding promoters. In other cases, the genes, such as GAL82 or SRG1 (102, 223), have not yet been cloned, and their mode of action remains obscure. Mutations in different genes (URR1, URR3, and URR4) have been isolated as relieving glucose repression conferred to a heterologous promoter by two different upstream repressor sequences (URSs) from the GAL1 promoter (111, 113). Although it has been suggested that the URR genes encode negative regulators which may be controlled by the Snf1 protein kinase, the genes have not been characterized further.

Intermediary Elements

The Snf1 complex. The SNF1 gene (also called CAT1 or CCR1) is absolutely required for the derepression of genes repressed by glucose (40, 58, 399). SNF1 encodes a Ser/Thr protein kinase (44), the first member of a growing family of protein kinases to be identified (9). In particular, it has a mammalian homolog, which is the catalytic alpha  subunit of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) (36, 234, 380).

In yeast cells, the Snf1 protein is found associated with other proteins: Snf4, Sip1, Sip2, and Gal 83 (45, 46, 385, 386). While snf4 mutants are unable to derepress the genes controlled by catabolite repression (98, 244), sip1, sip2, and gal83 mutants and even the sip1Delta sip2Delta gal83Delta triple mutant have no defect in the expression of a GAL gene (101) or the SUC2 gene (386). It has recently been reported that the sequence of the beta  subunit of the mammalian AMPK has 35% identity to the yeast Sip2 protein and that the sequence of the gamma  subunit is also 35% identical to that of Snf4 (126, 379). This identity is not restricted to parts of the protein but is found all along the sequence. Taking into account the homology of function and sequence of the yeast proteins Sip1, Sip2, and Gal83 (101, 102) and the data on interactions between Snf1, Snf4, and these proteins (159a), it appears possible that Snf1 participates, together with Snf4, in a family of complexes containing either Sip1, Sip2, or Gal83. These complexes may be, at least to some extent, functionally equivalent, but the observation that a sip1Delta sip2Delta gal83Delta mutant is able to maintain normal regulation of a set of glucose-repressed genes would suggest the existence of still unidentified additional regulatory proteins. It would be interesting to examine whether other genes, such as those encoding gluconeogenic enzymes, are also unaffected by the triple mutation.

In the mammalian AMPK, the beta  subunit interacts with both the alpha  and gamma  subunits in vitro but the alpha  and gamma  subunits are unable to interact under the same conditions (379). Snf1 and Snf4 do not interact in two-hybrid experiments in glucose-grown yeast (159), while Sip1 and Sip2 interact with Snf1 (386). Moreover, Sip1 and Sip2 coimmunoprecipitate with Snf1, even in the absence of Snf4 (386). However, when the glucose concentration in the medium is low, there is a direct interaction between Snf1 and Snf4 in vivo (159). Although there are no published data on interactions between the Sip proteins and Snf4, it has been suggested that the Sip1, Sip2, or Gal83 proteins would act as a bridge between Snf1 and Snf4, bringing them together in a complex (159).

Genetic and biochemical evidence allows the construction of the model shown in Fig. 3 for the regulation of the interactions within the S. cerevisiae Snf1 complex. The protein kinase Snf1 has two domains: an amino-terminal catalytic domain (KD) and a carboxy-terminal regulatory domain (RD). Although the deletion of the regulatory domain bypasses the requirement for Snf4, it does not abolish the repression by glucose (45), and therefore Snf4 is not the (only) target of the glucose signal. At high glucose concentrations, the Snf1 regulatory domain binds to the catalytic domain and inhibits the kinase activity; at low glucose concentrations, Snf4 interacts with the regulatory domain, counteracting its inhibitory effect (159). The bridging protein (Brp), which maintains Snf1 and Snf4 together, could play a role in the equilibrium between the active and inactive forms of the Snf1 complex. Two functionally similar dominant mutations GAL82-1 and GAL83-2000, which partially relieve glucose repression of the GAL genes, have been isolated (220). The mutant protein Gal83-2000 could have an altered conformation, allowing at least a partial dissociation of KD and RD in the presence of glucose and therefore some degree of phosphorylation of at least a subset of Snf1 substrates. Regarding Gal82-1, no model can be proposed, because the corresponding gene has not been yet cloned.


View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 3.   Model for the regulation of the Snf1 complex by glucose. The bridging protein (Brp) between Snf1 and Snf4 can be Gal83, Sip1, Sip2, or some other, as yet unidentified, protein. Glucose affects the interaction between the catalytic domain (KD) and the regulatory domain (RD) of Snf1, presumably by inhibiting the (auto)phosphorylation of Snf1 and/or activating its dephosphorylation. Glucose may act at the level of the corresponding kinase and phosphatase but may also alter the conformation of Snf1 or even Brp, making Snf1 a worse or better substrate for the corresponding enzyme. Hxk2 and Grr1 are required for transmitting the glucose signal. Redrawn from reference 159.

How does the presence of glucose affect Snf1 activity? Earlier measurements of the protein kinase activity of Snf1 did not detect differences between extracts of cells grown on different media, and it was suggested that Snf1 would not itself be sensitive to glucose but would be required to phosphorylate a specific substrate(s), which would be the real target(s) of glucose (106). More recently, however, it has been reported that Snf1 activity increases very strongly in extracts from derepressed cells (377). The dramatic activation of Snf1 which occurs upon derepression appears to be due to phosphorylation, because it disappears when the yeast extracts are treated with a protein phosphatase. It should be noted that the difference in protein kinase activity between extracts from repressed and derepressed cells is observed only if the cells are harvested by rapid membrane filtration and frozen in liquid nitrogen. If the cells are harvested by centrifugation (the usual method), the peptide kinase activity is as high under repressing conditions as under derepressing conditions (377). This very rapid activation of Snf1 upon glucose removal would explain the earlier observations of apparently constitutive Snf1 activity. The activation of Snf1 in the absence of glucose, which depends on phosphorylation, parallels the activation of the mammalian AMPK by phosphorylation triggered by cellular stress (140).

In the case of the mammalian enzyme, the AMPK kinase has been partially purified and characterized, and it has been established that it phosphorylates a threonine residue from AMPK at position 172 (139). AMP affects the phosphorylation reaction at different levels: it activates the AMPK kinase, it makes AMPK a better substrate for the kinase, and it inhibits the dephosphorylation of the phosphorylated AMPK (71). Since ATP antagonizes these effects, the signal for phosphorylation appears to be a high AMP/ATP ratio.

For Snf1, the putative Snf1 kinase has not been identified, but a Snf1-reactivating factor has been reported which reverses the effect of in vitro dephosphorylation and is likely to be an upstream protein kinase (377). The fact that no mutants affecting the activity of this postulated protein kinase have been isolated could be explained if there are redundant protein kinases or if a defect in the kinase results in a loss of viability. Alternatively, the Snf1-reactivating factor could act by potentiating the capacity for autophosphorylation of Snf1 (45). Although Snf1, in contrast to AMPK, is not allosterically activated by AMP, it has been proposed that adenine nucleotides could also control Snf1 activity in vivo (377). This suggestion is based on the fact that under the metabolic conditions tested there was a correlation between the AMP/ATP (or ADP/ATP) ratio and the activation state of Snf1. However, there are data showing that the concentrations of adenine nucleotides do not differ markedly in yeasts growing on glucose and on a gluconeogenic carbon source (6), although Snf1 is absolutely required in the latter case and is therefore likely to be active under these conditions. The nature of the signal triggering the cascade responsible for Snf1 activation therefore remains obscure. What is clearly established is that threonine 210 from Snf1, equivalent to threonine 172 from AMPK, is absolutely required for Snf1 function in vivo. If this threonine is mutated to alanine, or even to an acidic residue such as aspartic acid, there is a complete loss of function (106). A provisional model for the mode of action of glucose (Fig. 3) would be as follows. In the absence of glucose, Snf1 is phosphorylated, by autophosphorylation or otherwise, and its catalytic and regulatory domains are dissociated. If glucose becomes available, a signal requiring Grr1/Cat80 and Hxk2 is generated (see the section on elements involved in glucose signaling, below), which facilitates the dephosphorylation of Snf1 by a protein phosphatase which could be the Glc7 complex (see the section on the Glc7 complex, below). This dephosphorylation weakens the interaction between Snf4 and the regulatory domain of Snf1, with this last domain thus remaining free to block the catalytic domain.

While snf1 mutants do not grow on gluconeogenic carbon sources, the requirement for Snf1 can be bypassed, at least partially, by a decrease in the activity of the cAMP-dependent protein kinases (340). On the other hand, derepression of alcohol dehydrogenase II, invertase, and FbPase is still totally dependent on Snf1 in a bcy1tpkw mutant, where cAMP-dependent protein kinase is attenuated and is independent of the cAMP level in the cell (74, 157, 194). It can therefore be concluded that although Snf1 may, in some cases, counteract the effects of an activated cAMP-dependent protein kinase, it is also able to operate through a cAMP-independent pathway.

The search for proteins that are able to interact in vivo with the protein kinase Snf1 has allowed the identification of additional proteins which may participate in the transcriptional regulation mediated by Snf1. One of them is Sip3, which interacts with Snf1 only transiently, since the two proteins do not coimmunoprecipitate (186). Sip3 contains a leucine zipper motif and can activate transcription when fused to a protein that is able to interact with a promoter region. This activation, however, is independent of Snf1. Although a SIP3 deletion did not affect yeast growth on different media and overexpression of SIP3 in a snf4 background caused only a slight increase in SUC2 expression, it has been suggested that Sip3 could be functionally related to Snf1 (186).

Another protein that interacts with Snf1 in the two-hybrid system is Sip4. It has the characteristics of a C6 zinc cluster protein, and a LexA-Sip4 fusion protein is able to activate transcription (187). This activation is dependent on Snf1 and is lowered about sevenfold in the presence of glucose. Glucose also represses the expression of a fusion gene, SIP4-lacZ, about 10-fold. Sip4 shows a weak interaction with Gal83, and this interaction, as well as that of Sip4 with Snf1, is independent of the presence of glucose. Nevertheless, phosphorylation of the fusion protein HA-Sip4 in vivo takes place only when there is no glucose in the medium. The fact that this phosphorylation is dependent on Snf1 would suggest that Sip4 is the long-sought substrate of Snf1. However, a sip4Delta mutant has no special phenotype, even when carrying a sip1Delta , sip2Delta , or sip3Delta mutation. This could indicate that some functional homolog of Sip4 is operative in S. cerevisiae, although no gene homologous to SIP4 was detected by Southern analysis under low stringency. The role of Sip4 remains obscure, since no promoter binding Sip4 has been yet identified and overexpression of SIP4 is not able to bypass the requirement for Snf4 to derepress invertase (187).

Very recently, a further protein, Sip5, has been identified (199). It interacts with both Snf1 and Snf4 and coimmunoprecipitates with them. It can also interact in the two-hybrid system with Reg1, a regulatory subunit of the protein phosphatase 1 complex (see the section on the Glc7 complex, below).

In K. lactis, proteins homologous to Snf1 and to the Gal83, Sip1, Sip2 group have been identified (130). The KlFOG2 gene is not only homologous to SNF1 but is also able to complement a snf1 S. cerevisiae mutant. The KlFOG1 gene encodes a protein with a sequence similar to that of Gal83, and no genes homologous to FOG1 have been detected by Southern blotting. It is likely, therefore, that in K. lactis there is a single complex equivalent to the family of Snf1 complexes in S. cerevisiae. Besides, both fog1 and fog2 mutants are unable to grow on galactose, melibiose, maltose, raffinose, glycerol, ethanol, or lactate. This can be correlated with the fact that the mutants are unable to derepress maltase, or L- and D-lactate ferricytochrome c oxidoreductase. On the other hand, the fog1 and fog2 mutants are able to partially derepress invertase and beta -galactosidase and can grow on sucrose or lactose (130). It is not known whether K. lactis also contains a protein homologous to Snf4 from S. cerevisiae.

The Glc7 complex. GLC7 (DIS2S1) is an essential gene, encoding a protein phosphatase type 1, which controls a variety of processes including glycogen accumulation (108, 254). A mutation called cid1, which partially relieved the repression of invertase by glucose (245), turned out to be a glc7-T152K mutation (348). This mutation did not impair glycogen accumulation (348), while a different mutation, glc7-1, which interfered with glycogen synthesis (34, 267), did not affect the repression of invertase by glucose (348). Since the mutant protein Glc7-1 was shown to be defective in its interaction with Gac1, a protein that appears to be a glycogen-specific regulatory subunit of the protein phosphatase type 1 (330), it was suggested that Glc7-T152K could be impaired in its interaction with a different regulatory protein, which would direct the phosphatase to some substrate(s) specifically related to the control of catabolite repression (348).

A hex2 mutation relieving glucose repression of invertase (97) and a reg1 mutation conferring resistance to catabolite repression of galactokinase synthesis (223) were later found to be allelic (249). When the REG1 gene was cloned and sequenced (250), the sequence did not show significant features, and the role of the corresponding protein remained obscure. However, since the reg1 and glc7-T152K mutations showed similar phenotypes, both suppressed by a snf1 mutation, Reg1 appeared to be a promising candidate for the putative regulatory protein modulating Glc7 activity. A strong interaction between the Reg1 and Glc7 proteins was observed in the two-hybrid system; this interaction decreased markedly when the Glc7 fusion protein carried the T152K mutation (349). Moreover, the LexA-Reg1 and HA-Glc7 fusion proteins were shown to coimmunoprecipitate, and additional evidence that Glc7 and Reg1 work together in glucose repression was provided by the observation that overexpression of REG1 restores glucose repression of invertase in a glc7-T152K mutant (349). On the other hand, it is not yet clear whether glucose can regulate the activity of the Glc7-Reg1 complex. Expression of REG1 is not regulated by glucose (250), and the observation that interaction between Reg1 and Glc7, in the two-hybrid system, is higher in repressed than in derepressed cells could be due to a variety of causes (349). Recently, further glc7 mutants, specifically affected in catabolite repression, were obtained (4). The fact that the mutated residues in the protein phosphatase are clustered on one face of the protein suggests that this is the region where Reg1 binds.

Although genetic evidence shows that the Snf1 protein kinase and the Glc7 complex play antagonistic roles, the targets of the phosphatase activity have not yet been identified. Potential candidates would be substrates of Snf1, regulators of Snf1, and the Snf1 protein itself (349). Specifically, it has been proposed that Mig1 would be phosphorylated by Snf1 and dephosphorylated by Glc7 (78). A new protein, Sip5, which is able to interact with Snf1, Snf4 (even in the absence of Snf1), and Reg1 has been identified (199). It could provide a link between the Snf1 and the Glc7 complex. There is also preliminary evidence, using the two-hybrid system, that Reg1 interacts with the catalytic domain of Snf1 (38). It has been reported (189) that Reg1 interacts with the yeast regulatory protein Grr1 (see the next section), and it has been suggested that Grr1 may recognize PEST sequences, a potential signal for protein degradation, in Reg1. The physiological significance of this finding remains unclear: if Grr1 facilitated the degradation of Reg1, reg1 and grr1 mutants would be expected to have opposite phenotypes; instead, they have similar ones (97).

A protein of 38 kDa has been identified recently and called Reg2, since it showed a strong similarity to the central region of the 114-kDa protein Reg1 (118). Although this protein interacts with Glc7, it does not appear to play a role in the catabolite repression process.

Elements Involved in Glucose Signaling

When glucose is available to yeast, a series of reactions occur whose final result is a change in the amount and/or activity of proteins that bind to gene promoters and modulate their transcription rate. The first signal triggering these reactions may be a charged receptor in the membrane, or a change in the concentration of some intracellular metabolite, including glucose itself. There could be a single signal or several signals, each of which turns on different sets of reactions.

Glucose signaling has a variety of effects. It causes the repression and the inactivation of many enzymes but also the induction and the activation of other enzymes (122). It is possible that some signals cause different kinds of effects while others are more specific for particular systems. For genes encoding glycolytic enzymes and requiring glucose for full expression, induction by glucose depends on the accumulation of intermediary metabolites (16, 18, 238). For some genes, an increase in the level of hexose-6-phosphates is required, while for others, induction is triggered by glycolytic three-carbon metabolites.

There is strong evidence for specific glucose sensors in the yeast membrane. Among the large number of hexose transporter (HXT) genes identified in S. cerevisiae (17, 175), two genes, SNF3 and RGT2, are expressed at very low levels compared to most HXT genes and play a specific regulatory role (247, 259). While SNF3 is repressed by a high concentration of glucose, RGT2 is expressed constitutively. Since Snf3 is required for the induction by low levels of glucose of some hexose transporter genes such as HXT2, it is likely to function as a sensor for low glucose levels. Rgt2, which is required for the induction of HXT1 by high glucose levels, would be a sensor for high glucose levels (259). Since both Snf3 and Rgt2, unlike other glucose transporters, have a long cytoplasmic domain at the C terminus, it has been speculated that the binding of glucose to these proteins causes a conformational change affecting a putative C-terminal signaling domain (47, 259). Since the whole yeast genome has been now sequenced, it can be ascertained that no further protein with a structure similar to that of Snf3 and Rgt2 remains to be discovered (175).

A snf3Delta mutation does not relieve the repression of SUC2, GAL10, or ADH2 by high glucose levels (192, 247), but it abolishes the ability of raffinose to repress ADH2 (192) and the induction of SUC2 by low glucose levels (264). While an rgt2Delta mutation does not affect the repression of SUC2 or GAL1 by high glucose levels (259), an snf3 rgt2 double mutant grows very poorly in glucose, and in this mutant neither GAL1 nor SUC2 are repressed by 4% glucose (258b).

It is important to note that signaling by glucose does not have the same requirements for different systems. In a yeast strain with a mutant protein Rgt2-1, a gene such as HXT2 is induced even in the absence of glucose in the medium, suggesting that the signaling domain of the mutant protein is permanently activated. However, in an RGT2-1 strain, the SUC2 gene is still normally derepressed in a medium with low glucose (214).

Could other glucose transporters be involved in the signaling pathway leading to catabolite repression? To address this question, a yeast mutant strain, unable to transport glucose, has been constructed where all the genes from HXT1 to HXT7 are disrupted and a series of derived strains expressing one or several of the genes HXT1 to HXT7 have been studied with regard to their capacity to repress the MAL2, SUC2, or GAL1 genes (283). The results indicate that glucose repression does not depend on any specific transporter but that in the different strains, the extent of repression is correlated with the glucose uptake capacity, suggesting that the rate of glucose utilization determines the strength of the relevant glucose signal. Similarly, it has been reported that in a strain which retains only the HXT6/7 gene and has a low glucose transport capacity, SUC2 is no longer repressed by glucose (368). In contrast to these results, repression of SUC2 and ADH2 was observed in a yeast strain lacking the transport genes HXT1 through HXT4 and HXT6/7, after overnight growth in a medium containing glycerol, ethanol, and 5% glucose (192). It is possible, however, that under these particular conditions other transport genes are expressed at sufficient levels to allow glucose uptake and catabolite repression.

Other reports have shown a correlation between transport capacity and catabolite repression. A yeast strain with the dominant mutation DGT1-1 expresses glucose transporters at low levels, and in this strain glucose repression of a variety of enzymes, including the gluconeogenic ones, is totally or partially relieved while repression by galactose is not affected (120). Another dominant mutation, HTR1-23, has similar but less strong effects (260). HTR1 is allelic to MTH1 (312), and it has now been found that although HTR1-23 and DGT1-1 differ in some of their effects, they are alleles of the same gene (179). MTH1 appears to be involved in the expression of the HXT genes, and although its exact role has not been yet elucidated, another protein, Std1/Msn3, structurally and functionally related to Mth1, has been reported to interact directly with the TATA binding protein (341).

Another mutation, grr1/cat80, isolated as conferring resistance to catabolite repression (3, 97), has also been found to affect the regulation of glucose transporters. Induction of the HXT1 to HXT4 genes is defective in grr1 mutants (261). There is now evidence that Grr1, a large protein with multiple leucine-rich repeats and tightly associated with a particulate fraction (112), is a component of a ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme complex which would regulate, perhaps indirectly, Rgt1 (189). Rgt1 is a DNA-binding protein that is able to repress HXT genes in the absence of glucose and to activate some genes such as HXT1 at high concentrations of glucose (263). Grr1 would be required both at low glucose concentrations to inactivate the Rgt1 repressor function and at high glucose concentrations to turn Rgt1 into an activator. The glucose signal would be transmitted to Grr1 via Snf3 or Rgt2, depending on the concentration of external glucose. In the absence of Grr1, Rgt1 permanently acts as a repressor, the glucose transport capacity of the cell is low, and glucose repression of a number of genes is relieved. In fact, the lack of Rgt1 restores both glucose-induced expression of the HXT1 gene and glucose repression in a grr1 mutant (102, 261, 356a).

In K. lactis, sensitivity to glucose repression is correlated with the hexose transporter genes present in the yeast genome. Strains containing two transporter genes, KHT1 and KHT2, in tandem are very sensitive to glucose. Natural isolates in which most of KHT2 has been lost by a recombination event between KHT1 and KHT2 which generated the gene RAG1 are moderately repressed by glucose. Mutant rag1 strains, which do not synthesize the low-affinity glucose transporter, are nearly insensitive to glucose repression (372).

Among the earliest mutants isolated as defective in catabolite repression were mutants lacking hexokinase II (398); the mutation was first called hex1 (97) and was renamed hxk2 once the affected gene had been identified. Since there are three hexose kinases in S. cerevisiae, hexokinase I, hexokinase II, and glucokinase (195), and the hxk2 mutants can still phosphorylate glucose efficiently, it was first assumed that hexokinase II had a specific regulatory domain required for glucose repression (96). However, the study of a large number of strains with different mutations in the HXK2 gene showed a parallelism between glucose repression and the residual phosphorylating capacity of the mutated hexokinase (205). Later, strains containing either Hxk1 or Hxk2 or hybrid hexokinases between Hxk1 and Hxk2 were constructed, and a strong correlation was found between the capacity of these strains to phosphorylate glucose or fructose and the repression of maltase and invertase by glucose or fructose (290). None of these results supported the hypothesis of a separate regulatory domain in hexokinase II. Hxk2 is phosphorylated in vivo and can be autophosphorylated in vitro (143, 366). Although Hxk2 is more highly phosphorylated when the glucose concentration in the medium is low (366), this phosphorylation does not seem connected with catabolite repression: while the main residue phosphorylated in vivo is Ser-15 (174), a deletion of the N-terminal 15 amino acids of hexokinase II does not affect glucose repression (204).

Kinetic studies, monitoring SUC2 mRNA levels after the addition of glucose to derepressed yeast cells, have shown that glucose has short-term and long-term effects on SUC2 expression (80, 303). Although it is difficult to compare the results of the two groups, since there are wide differences in the experimental conditions, the sugar kinase requirements appear to be different for the two processes. When glucose is added to fully derepressed cells, the early repression response occurs when any of the hexose kinases is present whereas the late response requires Hxk2 (303). On the other hand, while SUC2 expression is not repressed in an hxk2 mutant grown on glucose, growth on fructose has still a strong repressing effect in such a mutant (80).

At this stage, we can conclude that for a sugar to exert catabolite repression, it should be phosphorylated. The extent to which the structure of the phosphorylating protein plays a role in the repression process is still uncertain. However, the recent observation that Hxk2 can be found in the yeast nucleus suggests that this protein plays a regulatory role distinct from its capacity to phosphorylate sugars (279a).

The situation in other yeasts is not uniform. While it has been reported that mutants of Schwanniomyces occidentalis or Pachysolen tannophilus lacking a hexokinase isoenzyme have a defect in catabolite repression (226, 371), in Candida utilis a strong decrease in hexokinase activity does not suppress glucose repression of alpha -glucosidase (103), and in Aspergillus nidulans, too, hexokinase is not involved in glucose repression (295).

The next question is how extensively glucose should be metabolized to be able to repress transcription. By using strains with a range of reduced amounts of phosphoglucose isomerase, it has been observed that even when the level of phosphoglucose isomerase is less than 2% of that found in a wild-type yeast, both glucose and fructose strongly repress maltase and invertase (290). It has then been concluded that for catabolite repression, glucose signaling does not require any metabolic step in the glycolytic pathway beyond phosphorylation.

Glucose is known to trigger an immediate, transient increase in the intracellular concentration of cAMP in derepressed cells of S. cerevisiae (225, 357, 373); it is less widely appreciated that glucose also has a long-term effect on cAMP levels. The fact that in different yeasts the intracellular levels of cAMP are higher in the presence of glucose and other sugars than under derepressed conditions (100) could suggest a role for cAMP in catabolite repression.

In S. pombe, where adenylate cyclase is dispensable for growth (207), the gluconeogenic enzyme FbPase is no longer repressed by glucose in strains lacking this enzyme or other elements of the glucose-induced adenylate cyclase activating pathway (28, 147). It is not yet established, however, how general this effect of cAMP is in S. pombe. A very recent report indicates that in a strain where the cyr