Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 5Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsNuclear Structure and FunctionDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Functional divergence of TBP homologs through distinct DNA-binding dynamics

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The TATA box-binding protein (TBP) is an evolutionarily conserved basal transcription factor common in the pre-initiation complex of all three eukaryotic RNA polymerases (RNA Pols). Despite their high conservation, homologous TBPs exhibit species- and tissue-specific functions that may contribute to the increasingly complex gene expression regulation across evolutionary time. To determine the molecular mechanisms of species- and tissue-specificity for homologous TBPs, we examined the ability of yeast TBP and murine TBP paralogs to replace the endogenous TBP in mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). We show that, despite the high conservation in the DNA-binding domain among the homologs, they cannot fully rescue the lethality of TBP depletion in mESCs, which correlates with their inability to support RNA Pol III transcription. Furthermore, we show that the homologs differentially support stress-induced transcription reprogramming, with the divergent N-terminal domain playing a role in modulating changes in transcriptional response. Lastly, we show that the homologs have vastly different DNA binding dynamics, suggesting a potential mechanism for the distinct functional behavior observed among the homologs. Taken together, these data show a remarkable balance between flexibility and essentiality for the different functions of homologous TBP in eukaryotic transcription.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/nar/gkaf436

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 1. Conservation among the TBP homologs does not predict the ability to rescue lethality from TBP depletion. (A) Amino acid sequence percent similarity in the core domain of TBP homologs depicted as a heatmap matrix. (B) Evolutionary distance between TBP homologs based on conservation of the core domains. Branch lengths are indicated. (C) The structure of the homologs was modeled using iCn3D, utilizing AlphaFold2-predicted protein structures. Protein structure conservation was analyzed by performing pairwise comparisons against mTBP using iCn3D; RMSD, root mean square deviation; TM-score, template modeling score. (D) Alphafold3 was used to predict DNA binding of the core domains of the homologs to three types of promoters: TATA-box, TATA-like, and TATA-less. The ipTM scores, indicating the confidence in the predicted model, are represented as a matrix heatmap. (E) CCK8 growth curves (left) of parental mESCs (C94, B8) and mESCs expressing TRF2-HA, TRF3-HA, and TRF3c-HA for 48 h after IAA treatment to deplete endogenous TBP (right). The growth values at 48 h for IAA treated mESCs are normalized to untreated control to calculate the percent rescue, and plotted as a bar graph with error bars representing standard error of the mean (SEM). (F) Same as E but for HA-mTBP, HA-yTBP, HA-yNTD-mTBP, and HA-mTBPc. Statistics calculated using one-way ANOVA: ns, nonsignificant; *P-value ≤ 0.05, **P-value ≤ 0.01, ****P-value ≤ 0.0001.
Figure 1. Conservation among the TBP homologs does not predict the ability to rescue lethality from TBP depletion. (A) Amino acid sequence percent similarity in the core domain of TBP homologs depicted as a heatmap matrix. (B) Evolutionary distance between TBP homologs based on conservation of the core domains. Branch lengths are indicated. (C) The structure of the homologs was modeled using iCn3D, utilizing AlphaFold2-predicted protein structures. Protein structure conservation was analyzed by performing pairwise comparisons against mTBP using iCn3D; RMSD, root mean square deviation; TM-score, template modeling score. (D) Alphafold3 was used to predict DNA binding of the core domains of the homologs to three types of promoters: TATA-box, TATA-like, and TATA-less. The ipTM scores, indicating the confidence in the predicted model, are represented as a matrix heatmap. (E) CCK8 growth curves (left) of parental mESCs (C94, B8) and mESCs expressing TRF2-HA, TRF3-HA, and TRF3c-HA for 48 h after IAA treatment to deplete endogenous TBP (right). The growth values at 48 h for IAA treated mESCs are normalized to untreated control to calculate the percent rescue, and plotted as a bar graph with error bars representing standard error of the mean (SEM). (F) Same as E but for HA-mTBP, HA-yTBP, HA-yNTD-mTBP, and HA-mTBPc. Statistics calculated using one-way ANOVA: ns, nonsignificant; *P-value ≤ 0.05, **P-value ≤ 0.01, ****P-value ≤ 0.0001.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. DNA binding of TBP homologs is independent of core domain conservation. (A) Gene browser tracks at Gapdh for α-HA CUT&Tag of TRF2-HA, TRF3-HA, HA-mTBP, and HA-yTBP in control (Ctrl, DMSO) or indole-3-acetic acid (500 μM, IAA)-treated mESCs. Alternative promoters are indicated. (B) Genome-wide average plots (top) and heatmaps (bottom) arranged by decreasing Pol II occupancy of HA CUT&Tag for TRF2-HA (Ctrl versus IAA), TRF3-HA (Ctrl versus IAA), HA-mTBP (IAA), and HA-yTBP (IAA) in a 2 kb window surrounding the TSS of all RNA Pol II genes. (C) Gene browser tracks at tRNA109-TyrGTA and tRNA110-AlaAGC for HA CUT&Tag of TRF2-HA, TRF3-HA, HA-mTBP, and HA-yTBP in control or IAA-treated mESCs. (D) Genome-wide average plots (top) and heatmaps (bottom) arranged by decreasing Pol III occupancy of HA CUT&Tag for TRF2-HA (Ctrl versus IAA), TRF3-HA (Ctrl versus IAA), HA-mTBP (IAA), and HA-yTBP (IAA) in a 2 kb window surrounding the TSS of all tRNA genes. (E) Normalized read counts of IAA-treated HA-yTBP CUT&Tag signal versus IAA-treated HA-mTBP in the promoter (–250 to TSS) region of each Pol II (top) gene and in the gene body of each Pol III (bottom) gene are displayed as scatter plots. (F) Co-IP using α-HA or IgG for cells expressing HA-mTBP (left) or HA-yTBP (right) and blotted with α-HA, α-TAF4, and α-BRF1.
Figure 2. DNA binding of TBP homologs is independent of core domain conservation. (A) Gene browser tracks at Gapdh for α-HA CUT&Tag of TRF2-HA, TRF3-HA, HA-mTBP, and HA-yTBP in control (Ctrl, DMSO) or indole-3-acetic acid (500 μM, IAA)-treated mESCs. Alternative promoters are indicated. (B) Genome-wide average plots (top) and heatmaps (bottom) arranged by decreasing Pol II occupancy of HA CUT&Tag for TRF2-HA (Ctrl versus IAA), TRF3-HA (Ctrl versus IAA), HA-mTBP (IAA), and HA-yTBP (IAA) in a 2 kb window surrounding the TSS of all RNA Pol II genes. (C) Gene browser tracks at tRNA109-TyrGTA and tRNA110-AlaAGC for HA CUT&Tag of TRF2-HA, TRF3-HA, HA-mTBP, and HA-yTBP in control or IAA-treated mESCs. (D) Genome-wide average plots (top) and heatmaps (bottom) arranged by decreasing Pol III occupancy of HA CUT&Tag for TRF2-HA (Ctrl versus IAA), TRF3-HA (Ctrl versus IAA), HA-mTBP (IAA), and HA-yTBP (IAA) in a 2 kb window surrounding the TSS of all tRNA genes. (E) Normalized read counts of IAA-treated HA-yTBP CUT&Tag signal versus IAA-treated HA-mTBP in the promoter (–250 to TSS) region of each Pol II (top) gene and in the gene body of each Pol III (bottom) gene are displayed as scatter plots. (F) Co-IP using α-HA or IgG for cells expressing HA-mTBP (left) or HA-yTBP (right) and blotted with α-HA, α-TAF4, and α-BRF1.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. TBP homologs differentially affect RNA Pol III transcription of tRNA genes. (A) Gene browser tracks at tRNA109-TyrGTA and tRNA110-AlaAGC for Pol III CUT&Tag of mESCs expressing TRF2-HA, TRF3-HA, HA-mTBP, and HA-yTBP in control or IAA-treated conditions. (B) Genome-wide average plots (top) and heatmaps (bottom) of Pol III CUT&Tag for mESCs expressing TRF2-HA (Ctl versus IAA), TRF3-HA (Ctl versus IAA), HA-mTBP (IAA), and HA-yTBP (IAA) in a 2 kb window surrounding the TSS of all tRNA genes arranged by decreasing Pol III occupancy in control conditions. (C–E) Normalized read counts of Pol III CUT&Tag signal in TRF2-HA IAA versus Ctrl (C), TRF3-HA IAA versus Ctrl (D), and in IAA-treated HA-yTBP versus IAA-treated HA-mTBP (E) in the gene body of each Pol III gene are displayed as scatter plots. (F) The change in the normalized read counts of Pol III CUT&Tag signal (IAA/Ctrl, TRF2-HA) versus the change in IAA treated Pol III CUT&Tag signal (HA-yTBP/HA-mTBP) are displayed as a scatter plot for each tRNA genes. The heatmap color represents the normalized read counts of Pol III CUT&Tag signal in IAA-treated HA-mTBP mESCs.
Figure 3. TBP homologs differentially affect RNA Pol III transcription of tRNA genes. (A) Gene browser tracks at tRNA109-TyrGTA and tRNA110-AlaAGC for Pol III CUT&Tag of mESCs expressing TRF2-HA, TRF3-HA, HA-mTBP, and HA-yTBP in control or IAA-treated conditions. (B) Genome-wide average plots (top) and heatmaps (bottom) of Pol III CUT&Tag for mESCs expressing TRF2-HA (Ctl versus IAA), TRF3-HA (Ctl versus IAA), HA-mTBP (IAA), and HA-yTBP (IAA) in a 2 kb window surrounding the TSS of all tRNA genes arranged by decreasing Pol III occupancy in control conditions. (C–E) Normalized read counts of Pol III CUT&Tag signal in TRF2-HA IAA versus Ctrl (C), TRF3-HA IAA versus Ctrl (D), and in IAA-treated HA-yTBP versus IAA-treated HA-mTBP (E) in the gene body of each Pol III gene are displayed as scatter plots. (F) The change in the normalized read counts of Pol III CUT&Tag signal (IAA/Ctrl, TRF2-HA) versus the change in IAA treated Pol III CUT&Tag signal (HA-yTBP/HA-mTBP) are displayed as a scatter plot for each tRNA genes. The heatmap color represents the normalized read counts of Pol III CUT&Tag signal in IAA-treated HA-mTBP mESCs.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4. The variable NTD does not affect DNA binding and function of TBP under homeostasis. (A) Gene browser tracks at Gapdh for HA CUT&Tag of mESCs expressing TRF3c-HA, HA-mTBPc, HA-yNTD-mTBPc, and HA-mTBP in control or IAA-treated conditions. Alternative promoters are indicated. Gene browser tracks at tRNA109-TyrGTA and tRNA110-AlaAGC for HA CUT&Tag of mESCs expressing TRF3c-HA, HA-mTBPc, HA-yNTD-mTBPc, and HA-mTBP in control or IAA-treated conditions. (B) α-HA CUT&Tag normalized read counts in the promoter region of each RNA Pol II gene for HA-mTBPc versus HA-mTBP (left) and HA-yNTD-mTBPc versus HA-mTBP (right) are displayed as scatter plots. (C) tRNA gene body normalized read counts for HA CUT&TAg of HA-mTBPc versus HA-mTBP (left) and HA-yNTD-mTBPc versus HA-mTBP (right) are displayed as scatter plots. (D) Genome-wide average plots (top) and heatmaps (bottom) of CUT&TAg for RNA Pol II (left) and III (right) in mESCs expressing for HA-mTBPc and HA-yNTD-mTBPc in a 2 kb window surrounding the TSS of all RNA Pol II or tRNA genes.
Figure 4. The variable NTD does not affect DNA binding and function of TBP under homeostasis. (A) Gene browser tracks at Gapdh for HA CUT&Tag of mESCs expressing TRF3c-HA, HA-mTBPc, HA-yNTD-mTBPc, and HA-mTBP in control or IAA-treated conditions. Alternative promoters are indicated. Gene browser tracks at tRNA109-TyrGTA and tRNA110-AlaAGC for HA CUT&Tag of mESCs expressing TRF3c-HA, HA-mTBPc, HA-yNTD-mTBPc, and HA-mTBP in control or IAA-treated conditions. (B) α-HA CUT&Tag normalized read counts in the promoter region of each RNA Pol II gene for HA-mTBPc versus HA-mTBP (left) and HA-yNTD-mTBPc versus HA-mTBP (right) are displayed as scatter plots. (C) tRNA gene body normalized read counts for HA CUT&TAg of HA-mTBPc versus HA-mTBP (left) and HA-yNTD-mTBPc versus HA-mTBP (right) are displayed as scatter plots. (D) Genome-wide average plots (top) and heatmaps (bottom) of CUT&TAg for RNA Pol II (left) and III (right) in mESCs expressing for HA-mTBPc and HA-yNTD-mTBPc in a 2 kb window surrounding the TSS of all RNA Pol II or tRNA genes.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5. The variable NTD modulates transcriptional responses to stress. (A and B) Gene browser tracks at Hspa1a for HA (A) and Pol II (B) CUT&Tag of mESCs expressing HA-mTBP, HA-mTBPc, HA-yNTD-mTBPc, and HA-yTBP in IAA-treated nonheat-shocked (non-HS) or heat-shocked (HS) conditions. (C and D) The change in normalized read counts of HA (C) and Pol II (D) CUT&Tag signal in IAA-treated HA-mTBP, HA-mTBPc, HA-yNTD-mTBPc, and HA-yTBP mESCs was quantified as log2 (HS/non-HS) in the promoter and gene body of each HS-induced Pol II gene, and visualized as a violin plot. Statistics calculated using one-way ANOVA: ns, nonsignificant; ***P-value ≤ 0.001, ****P-value ≤ 0.0001.
Figure 5. The variable NTD modulates transcriptional responses to stress. (A and B) Gene browser tracks at Hspa1a for HA (A) and Pol II (B) CUT&Tag of mESCs expressing HA-mTBP, HA-mTBPc, HA-yNTD-mTBPc, and HA-yTBP in IAA-treated nonheat-shocked (non-HS) or heat-shocked (HS) conditions. (C and D) The change in normalized read counts of HA (C) and Pol II (D) CUT&Tag signal in IAA-treated HA-mTBP, HA-mTBPc, HA-yNTD-mTBPc, and HA-yTBP mESCs was quantified as log2 (HS/non-HS) in the promoter and gene body of each HS-induced Pol II gene, and visualized as a violin plot. Statistics calculated using one-way ANOVA: ns, nonsignificant; ***P-value ≤ 0.001, ****P-value ≤ 0.0001.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 6. TBP homologs display distinct DNA binding dynamics.(A) Still images from SPT imaging of Halo-mTBP, Halo-yTBP, Halo-TRF2, Halo-TRF3, Halo-mTBPc, Halo-yNTD-mTBPc, and Halo-TRF3c in IAA-treated mESCs indicating DNA-bound diffraction limited spots. (B) Epifluorescence and still images from SPT imaging of Halo-TRF3 and Halo-TRF3c using 20 Hz. (C and D) Dwell time histogram (left two panels) of the fraction of Halo-mTBP (C and D), Halo-yTBP (C), Halo-TRF2 (C), Halo-mTBPc (D), and Halo-yNTD-mTBPc (D) molecules remaining bound for IAA-treated mESCs. Quantification of the residence time (right) of each cell line. n = 3 biological replicates with 8–10 cells per replicate. Error bars represent SEM. (E) Jump length histogram measured in displacements (μm) after four consecutive frames (Δτ = 16 ms) during spaSPT for mESCs expressing Halotagged homologs or Halo-NLS as control (left). Fraction of bound molecules for each protein extracted from fitting the jump length histogram with a two-state kinetic model. (C-E) Error bar represents SEM. Statistics calculated using one-way ANOVA: *P-value ≤ 0.05; ****P-value ≤ 0.0001.
Figure 6. TBP homologs display distinct DNA binding dynamics.(A) Still images from SPT imaging of Halo-mTBP, Halo-yTBP, Halo-TRF2, Halo-TRF3, Halo-mTBPc, Halo-yNTD-mTBPc, and Halo-TRF3c in IAA-treated mESCs indicating DNA-bound diffraction limited spots. (B) Epifluorescence and still images from SPT imaging of Halo-TRF3 and Halo-TRF3c using 20 Hz. (C and D) Dwell time histogram (left two panels) of the fraction of Halo-mTBP (C and D), Halo-yTBP (C), Halo-TRF2 (C), Halo-mTBPc (D), and Halo-yNTD-mTBPc (D) molecules remaining bound for IAA-treated mESCs. Quantification of the residence time (right) of each cell line. n = 3 biological replicates with 8–10 cells per replicate. Error bars represent SEM. (E) Jump length histogram measured in displacements (μm) after four consecutive frames (Δτ = 16 ms) during spaSPT for mESCs expressing Halotagged homologs or Halo-NLS as control (left). Fraction of bound molecules for each protein extracted from fitting the jump length histogram with a two-state kinetic model. (C-E) Error bar represents SEM. Statistics calculated using one-way ANOVA: *P-value ≤ 0.05; ****P-value ≤ 0.0001.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Metadata

Authors
Cui, J. H., Kwan, J. Z. J., Faghihi, A., Nguyen, T. F., & Teves, S. S.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Teves, Sheila S
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
2025-05-10
Volume
53
Issue
9
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
OpenAlex
W4410588979
Cited by
5
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes for Health Research (PJT-162289, PJT-191938)
  • National Sciences and Engineering Research Counci (GPIN-2020-06106)
  • The Stem Cell Network Early Career Researcher Jump Start Awards Program (ECR-C4R1-11)
  • University of British Columbia
  • Canada Research Chair Tier II (CRC-RS 2021-00294)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nuclear Structure and Function
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Keywords
TATA-binding protein, functional divergence, RNA polymerase III transcription, preinitiation complex, N-terminal domain, mouse embryonic stem cells, transcriptional regulation
MeSH terms
Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells, Animals, DNA, Protein Binding, RNA Polymerase III, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Transcription, Genetic, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins, TATA-Box Binding Protein, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Functional divergence of TBP homologs through distinct DNA-binding dynamics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/nar/gkaf436
The paper
Cui, J. H., Kwan, J. Z. J., Faghihi, A., Nguyen, T. F., & Teves, S. S. (2025). Functional divergence of TBP homologs through distinct DNA-binding dynamics. Nucleic Acids Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaf436

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.