We have been unable to "force" double-stranded RNA to fold into nucleosome-like structures using several different histone-RNA "reconstitution" procedures. Even if the histones are first stabilized in octameric form by dimethylsuberimidate cross-linking they are still unable to form specific complexes with the RNA. Moreover double-stranded RNA is unable to induce histones to assemble into octamers although we confirm that the non-nucleic acid homopolymer, polyglutamic acid, has this ability. We have also determined, using pyrimidine tract analysis, that nucleosomes will not form over a sufficiently long segment of poly(dA).poly(dT) in a recombinant DNA molecule. Thus nucleosomes cannot fold DNA containing an 80 base pair poly(dA).poly(dT) segment but a 20 base pair segment can be accommodated in nucleosomes fairly well. Segments of intermediate length can be accommodated but are clearly selected against. Poly(dA).poly(dT) differs only slightly from natural DNA in helix structure. Therefore either this homopolymer resists folding, or nucleosomes are very exacting in the nucleic acid steroid parameters they will tolerate. Such constraints may be relevant to nucleosome positioning in chromatin.

Genes encoding polyadenylated mRNAs depend on their poly(A) signals for termination of transcription. Typically, transcription downstream of the poly(A) signal gradually declines to zero, but often there is a transient increase in polymerase density immediately preceding the decline. Special elements called pause sites are traditionally invoked to account for this increase. Using run-on transcription from the nuclei of transfected cells, we show that both the pause and the gradual decline that follow a poly(A) site are generated entirely by the poly(A) signal itself in a series of model constructs. We found no other elements to be involved and argue that the elements called pause sites do not function through pausing. Both the poly(A)-dependent pause and the subsequent decline occurred earlier for a stronger poly(A) signal than for a weaker one. Because the gradual decline resembles the abortive elongation that occurs downstream of many promoters, one model has proposed that the poly(A) signal flips the polymerase from the elongation mode to the abortive mode like a binary switch. We compared abortive elongators with poly(A) terminators and found a 4-fold difference in processivity. We conclude that poly(A) terminating polymerases do not merely revert to their prior state of low processivity but rather convert to a new terminationprone condition.

We have developed an in vitro transcription system, using HeLa nuclear extract, that supports not only efficient splicing of a multiexon transcript but also efficient cleavage and polyadenylation. In this system, both last-intron splicing and cleavage/polyadenylation are functionally coupled to transcription via the tether of nascent RNA that extends from the terminal exon to the transcribing polymerase downstream. Communication between the 3 splice site and the poly(A) site across the terminal exon is established within minutes of their transcription, and multiple steps leading up to 3-end processing of this exon can be distinguished. First, the 3 splice site establishes connections to enhance 3-end processing, while the nascent 3-end processing apparatus makes reciprocal functional connections to enhance splicing. Then, commitment to poly(A) site cleavage itself occurs and the connections of the 3-end processing apparatus to the transcribing polymerase are strengthened. Finally, the chemical steps in the processing of the terminal exon take place, beginning with poly(A) site cleavage, continuing with polyadenylation of the 3 end, and then finishing with splicing of the last intron.Most vertebrate messenger RNAs are capped, spliced, and polyadenylated, and the molecular machineries responsible for these posttranscriptional modifications are intimately coupled both with each other and with the transcriptional apparatus (3,4,10,34,44,58). Striking examples of the collaboration between these machineries are the splicing and the cleavage and polyadenylation proteins that can be recruited to the polymerase in vitro prior to transcription and then transferred to the RNA (14, 69). In vivo, nuclear receptor coregulators and other transcription factors can also act at the promoter to establish splicing patterns for RNA molecules whose transcription has not yet even begun (3,28,34,62).For all mRNAs, upon initiation of transcription, capping factors are recruited to the elongation complex and the transcript is capped (12, 51). For the majority of vertebrate genes which contain introns, completion of capping is communicated to the splicing machinery via the cap-binding complex, and together, these protein assemblies, with the help of serinearginine-rich (SR) proteins, define the first exon (16, 40). Then, as transcription proceeds, exons are successively defined along the transcript by communication between the 3Ј and 5Ј splice sites (5), probably in collaboration with the polymerase large subunit C-terminal domain (CTD) (19,31,50,74), until the end of the message is reached. There, the splicing and the cleavage/polyadenylation machineries cooperate to define the terminal exon (36,48,70). The coupling between splicing and cleavage/polyadenylation that defines the terminal exon also results in the mutual stimulation of both of these reactions (2, 41, 56, 57), and recognition of the 3Ј splice site is coupled to transcription as well (20). Indeed, as stated at the outset, the machinery for every step of processing from cappin...

Eukaryotic poly(A) signals direct mRNA 3'-end processing and also pausing and termination of transcription. We show that pausing and termination require the processing factor CPSF, which binds the AAUAAA hexamer of the mammalian poly(A) signal. Pausing does not require the RNA polymerase II C-terminal domain (CTD) or the cleavage stimulation factor, CstF, that binds the CTD. Pull-down experiments show that CPSF binds, principally through its 30-kDa subunit, to the body of the polymerase. CPSF can also bind CstF, but this seems to be mutually exclusive with polymerase binding. We suggest that CPSF, while binding the body of the polymerase, scans for hexamers in the extruding RNA. Any encounter with a hexamer triggers pausing. If the hexamer is part of a functional poly(A) signal, CstF is recruited and binds CPSF, causing it to release the polymerase body and move (with CstF) to the CTD.

We have investigated the mechanism by which transcription accelerates cleavage and polyadenylation in vitro. By using a coupled transcription-processing system, we show that rapid and efficient 3' end processing occurs in the absence of crowding agents like polyvinyl alcohol. The continuity of the RNA from the poly(A) signal down to the polymerase is critical to this processing. If this tether is cut with DNA oligonucleotides and RNaseH during transcription, the efficiency of processing is drastically reduced. The polymerase is known to be an integral part of the cleavage and polyadenylation apparatus. RNA polymerase II pull-down and immobilized template experiments suggest that the role of the tether is to hold the poly(A) signal close to the polymerase during the early stages of processing complex assembly until the complex is sufficiently mature to remain stably associated with the polymerase on its own.

We have devised a cis-antisense rescue assay of cleavage and polyadenylation to determine how long it takes the simian virus 40 (SV40) early poly(A) signal to commit itself to processing in vivo. An inverted copy of the poly(A) signal placed immediately downstream of the authentic one inhibited processing by means of senseantisense duplex formation in the RNA. The antisense inhibition was gradually relieved when the inverted signal was moved increasing distances downstream, presumably because cleavage and polyadenylation occur before the polymerase reaches the antisense sequence. Antisense inhibition was unaffected when the inverted signal was moved upstream. Based on the known rate of transcription, we estimate that the cleavagepolyadenylation process takes between 10 and 20 s for the SV40 early poly(A) site to complete in vivo. Relief from inhibition occurred earlier for shorter antisense sequences than for longer ones. This indicates that a brief period of assembly is sufficient for the poly(A) signal to shield itself from a short (50-to 70-nucleotide) antisense sequence but that more assembly time is required for the signal to become immune to the longer ones (ϳ200 nucleotides). The simplest explanation for this target size effect is that the assembly process progressively sequesters more and more of the RNA surrounding the poly(A) signal up to a maximum of about 200 nucleotides, which we infer to be the domain of the mature apparatus. We compared strong and weak poly(A) sites. The SV40 late poly(A) site, one of the strongest, assembles several times faster than the weaker SV40 early or synthetic poly(A) site.

The contact-site cross-linkers tetranitromethane, UV light, formaldehyde, and a monofunctional imido ester have been used to generate a collection of histone-histone dimers and trimers from nuclei and chromatin. Four different H2B-H4 dimers have been isolated. Preliminary CNBr peptide mapping has shown that all are cross-linked at different positions that are apparently clustered within the C-terminal regions of these histones. Similarily, two different H2A-H2B dimers and two different H2A-H2B-H4 trimers have been partially characterized. The data suggest a functional map for H2B in which the N-terminal third interacts with DNA, the middle third interacts with H2A, and the C-terminal third interacts with H4. We hope, by pursuing this type of analysis, to develop a detailed understanding of each histone-histone binding interaction through saturation cross-linking of the binding sites.

No abstract