In yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), transcriptional activators, such as Gal4 and Gal4-VP16, work ordinarily from sites located in the upstream activating sequence (UAS) positioned about 250 base pairs upstream of the transcription start site. In contrast to their behaviour in mammalian cells, however, such activators fail to work when positioned at distances greater than approximately 600-700 base pairs upstream, or anywhere downstream of the gene. Here we show that, in yeast, a gene bearing an enhancer positioned 1-2 kilobases downstream of the gene is activated if the reporter is linked to a telomere, but not if it is positioned at an internal chromosomal locus. These observations are explained by the finding that yeast telomeres form back-folding, or looped, structures. Because yeast telomeric regions resemble the heterochromatin found in higher eukaryotes, these findings might also explain why transcription of some higher eukaryotic genes depends on their location in heterochromatin.

The yeast transcriptional repressor Tup1, tethered to DNA, represses to strikingly different degrees transcription elicited by members of two classes of activators. Repression in both cases is virtually eliminated by mutation of either member of the cyclinkinase pair Srb10͞11. In contrast, telomeric chromatin affects both classes of activators equally, and in neither case is that repression affected by mutation of Srb10͞11. In vitro, Tup1 interacts with RNA polymerase II holoenzyme bearing Srb10 as well as with the separated Srb10. These and other findings indicate that at least one aspect of Tup1's action involves interaction with the RNA polymerase II holoenzyme.

The idea that recruitment of the transcriptional machinery to a promoter suffices for gene activation is based partly on the results of "artificial recruitment" experiments performed in vivo. Artificial recruitment can be effected by a "nonclassical" activator comprising a DNAbinding domain fused to a component of the transcriptional machinery. Here we show that activation by artificial recruitment in yeast can be sensitive to any of three factors: position of the activator-binding elements, sequence of the promoter, and coding sequences downstream of the promoter. In contrast, classical activators worked efficiently at all promoters tested. In all cases the "artificial recruitment" fusions synergized well with classical activators. A classical activator evidently differs from a nonclassical activator in that the former can touch multiple sites on the transcriptional machinery, and we propose that that difference accounts for the broader spectrum of activity of the typical classical activator. A similar conclusion is reached from studies in mammalian cells in the accompanying paper [Nevado, J., Gaudreau, L