The eukaryotic genome is organized into different domains by cis‐acting elements, such as boundaries/insulators and matrix attachment regions, and is packaged with different degrees of condensation. In the M phase, the chromatin becomes further highly condensed into chromosomes. The first step for transcriptional activation of a given gene, at a particular time during development, in any locus, is the opening of its chromatin domain. This locus needs to be kept in this state in each early G1 phase during every cell (...) cycle. Certain distal enhance elements, including locus control regions (LCRs) and enhancers, are believed to perform this target chromatin domain opening process and several models have been proposed to explain distal enhance action. But they did not explain precisely how a given chromatin domain is opened. Based on various studies, we propose a hypothesis for the mechanism of opening chromatin on a large scale. One important mechanism may involved breaking one or two DNA strands and reducing the linking numbers within chromatin domain. The topological changes can overpass some complexes formed on DNA strands and can be transmitted from specific localized points over a broad region, until boundary elements or insulators are reached. These may initiate downstream events such as propagation of histone acetylation and the binding of transcription factors to proximal promoters and may further augment the action mediated by distal enhancer elements. BioEssays 25:507–514, 2003. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

The term functional domain is often used to describe the region containing the cis acting sequences that regulate a gene locus. “Strong” domain models propose that the domain is a spatially isolated entity consisting of a region of extended accessible chromatin bordered by insulators that have evolved to act as functional boundaries. However, the observation that independently regulated loci can overlap partially or completely raises questions about functional requirements for physically isolated domain structures. An alternative model, the “weak” domain model, (...) proposes that domain structure is determined by the distribution of binding sites for positively acting factors, without a requirement for functional boundaries. The domain would effectively be the region that contains these factor-binding sites. Specificity of promoter-enhancer interactions would play a major role in maintaining the functional autonomy of adjacent genes. Sequences that interfere with these interactions (frequently characterised as insulators) would be selected against if they occurred within the domain but not at the edges, or in the interdomain regions. As a result, insulators would often be found near the borders of domains without necessarily being selected to act as boundaries. BioEssays 22:657–665, 2000. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (shrink)

Many loci in Drosophila exhibit dosage effects on single phenotypes. In the case of modifiers of position‐effect variegation, increases and decreases in dosage can have opposite effects on variegating phenotypes. This is seemingly paradoxical: if each locus encodes a limiting gene product sensitive to dosage decreases, then increasing the dosage of any one should have no effect, because the others should remain limiting. An earlier model put forward to resolve this paradox suggested that dosage‐dependent modifiers encode protein subunits of a (...) macromolecular complex that is sensitive to mass action equilibrium conditions. Because chemical equilibria are dynamic, however, such hypothetical complexes will be unstable to an extent that is inconsistent with the known properties of molecules that make up chromatin. An alternative model accounts for the dosage effects in terms of interactions between structural proteins that bind at multiple linked sites. These might include indirect interactions occurring between regulatory proteins and genes for structural proteins or their protein products. The large number of direct and inverse regulatory genes which are known to exist in Drosophila could account for the apparent genetic complexity that is seen for modifiers of position‐effect variegation and for other systems of phenotypic modification. (shrink)

DNA repetitions may provoke heterochromatinization. We explore here a model in which multiple cis‐acting sequences that display no silencing activity on their own (protosilencers) may cooperate to establish and maintain a heterochromatin domain efficiently. Protosilencers, first defined in budding yeast, have now been found in a wide range of genomes where they appear to stabilize and to extend the propagation of heterochromatin domains. Strikingly, isolated or moderately repeated protosilencers can also be found in promoters where they participate in transcriptional activation (...) and have insulation functions. This suggests that the proper juxtaposition of a threshold number of protosilencers converts them from neutral or transactivating elements into ones that nucleate heterochromatin. Interactions might be transient or permanent, and are likely to occur over distances by looping. This model provides a conceptual framework for as varied phenomena as telomere‐driven silencing in Drosophila, X inactivation in mammals, and rDNA silencing in S. cerevisiae. It may also account for the silencing that occurs when multiple copies of a transgene are inserted in tandem. BioEssays 24:828–835, 2002. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)