Zinc binding domains and the conserved Thr-Gly-Glu-Lys (TGEK) tetrapeptide in the N-terminal half of transcription factor IIIA (TFIIIA) were subjected to in vitro mutagenesis to biochemically assess their role in factor interaction with the 5S gene internal control region (ICR). TFIIIA containing a Leu in place of His33 in the Cys2His2 zinc binding site of finger I lost the ability to protect the entire 5S RNA gene ICR (nucleotides +96 to +43) from DNase I digestion. Thus, mutation of one potential zinc ligand in the N-terminal finger inhibited specific DNA binding by the N-terminal as well as downstream fingers. Cooperativity apparently exists among TFIIIA zinc fingers in metal binding/finger folding and DNA binding. Substituting a Ser for Gly69 or a Glu for Lys 71 in the conserved TGEK tetrapeptide in finger II of TFIIIA resulted in the loss of DNA binding. A Gly-dependent bend structure and a terminal positive charge in this tetrapeptide are important for TFIIIA interaction with DNA. Whereas TFIIIA with a Ser substituted for Cys20 in finger I (proposed zinc ligand) did not protect the ICR from DNase I digestion, TFIIIA containing a Ser substituted for Cys35 (not a proposed zinc ligand) retained the ability to bind the ICR. When Cys112 or Cys 164 (proposed zinc ligands in fingers IV and VI) were replaced by Ser, the DNase I footprint patterns afforded by the respective mutant proteins were similar, protection on the ICR from about nucleotides +96 up to +78. A similar pattern was obtained with a TFIIIA mutant in which fingers V, VI, VII, and a portion of VIII were deleted. Maintenance of zinc coordination spheres in necessary for DNA binding by downstream fingers. The six fingers comprising the N-terminal half of TFIIIA appear to act in two groups of three with binding of the second group dependent upon initial binding of the N-terminal group to the +90 to +80 region of the 5S gene ICR.

SUMMARYL cells grown for 18 to 22 months in the presence of interferon (IEN) retained their sensitivity to the antiviral effect of IFN but were less sensitive to cell growth inhibition b'y IFN. Moreover, the parental and variant lines became hyporesponsive (i.e. less responsive to virus induction of IFN) with different kinetics after IFN treatment.