Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-tfzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-28T12:05:52.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Thermodynamic control of gene regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2025

James W. Wells
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, https://ror.org/03dbr7087University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Tigran V. Chalikian*
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, https://ror.org/03dbr7087University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
*
Corresponding author: Tigran V. Chalikian; Email: t.chalikian@utoronto.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

G-quadruplexes and i-motifs are non-canonical secondary structures of DNA that act as conformational switches in controlling genomic events. Within the genome, G- and C-rich sequences with the potential to fold into G-quadruplexes and i-motifs are overrepresented in important regulatory domains, including, but not limited to, the promoter regions of oncogenes. We previously have shown that some promoter sequences can adopt coexisting duplex, G-quadruplex, i-motif, and coiled conformations; moreover, their distribution can be modelled as a dynamic equilibrium in which the fractional population of each conformation is determined by the sequence and local conditions. On that basis, we proposed a hypothesis in which the level of expression of a gene with G- and C-rich sequences in the promoter is regulated thermodynamically by fine-tuning the duplex-to-G-quadruplex ratio, with the G-quadruplex modulating RNA polymerase activity. Any deviation from the evolutionarily tuned, gene-specific distribution of conformers, such as might result from mutations in the promoter or a change in cellular conditions, may lead to under- or overexpression of the gene and pathological consequences. We now expand on this hypothesis in the context of supporting evidence from molecular and cellular studies and from biophysico-chemical investigations of oligomeric DNA. Thermodynamic control of transcription implies that G-quadruplex and i-motif structures in the genome form as thermodynamically stable conformers in competition with the duplex conformation. That is in addition to their recognized formation as kinetically trapped, metastable states within domains of single-stranded DNA, such as a transcription bubble or R-loop, that are opened in a prior cellular event.

Information

Type
Perspective
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

An understanding of transcriptional regulation is arguably one of the most important challenges in molecular biology (Lee and Young, Reference Lee and Young2000). The initiation of transcription is controlled by promoters, which serve as binding sites for RNA polymerases, transcription factors, and other proteins of the transcriptional machinery. Although the sequence-specificity of all DNA-binding proteins, including transcription factors, tends to be very high, some transcription factors may recognize their target sites on promoters by combining sequence selectivity with structural recognition. This possibility came to light with the discovery of non-canonical G-quadruplex and i-motif structures in the promoter regions of many genes, including—most importantly—oncogenes (Brooks et al., Reference Brooks, Kendrick and Hurley2010; Balasubramanian et al., Reference Balasubramanian, Hurley and Neidle2011; Hansel-Hertsch et al., Reference Hansel-Hertsch, Di Antonio and Balasubramanian2017).

In addition to the B-DNA duplex, genomic DNA may adopt various non-canonical conformations such as Z-DNA, triplex DNA, cruciform DNA, G-quadruplexes, and i-motifs (Duckett et al., Reference Duckett, Murchie, Giraud-Panis, Pohler and and Lilley1995; Frank-Kamenetskii and Mirkin, Reference Frank-Kamenetskii and Mirkin1995; Plum et al., Reference Plum, Pilch, Singleton and Breslauer1995; Lane et al., Reference Lane, Chaires, Gray and Trent2008; Choi and Majima, Reference Choi and Majima2011; Hansel-Hertsch et al., Reference Hansel-Hertsch, Di Antonio and Balasubramanian2017; Spiegel et al., Reference Spiegel, Adhikari and Balasubramanian2020; Sugimoto et al., Reference Sugimoto, Endoh, Takahashi and Tateishi-Karimata2021; Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto, Reference Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto2021). Guanine (G)- and cytosine (C)-rich DNA strands in particular may form G-quadruplexes and i-motifs, respectively, which are four-stranded secondary structures whose basic unit is a G-tetrad (G-quadruplex) or a hemi-protonated pair of cytosines (i-motif) (Lane et al., Reference Lane, Chaires, Gray and Trent2008; Balasubramanian et al., Reference Balasubramanian, Hurley and Neidle2011; Bochman et al., Reference Bochman, Paeschke and Zakian2012; Benabou et al., Reference Benabou, Avino, Eritja, Gonzalez and Gargallo2014; Day et al., Reference Day, Pavlou and Waller2014; Obara et al., Reference Obara, Wolski and Panczyk2024). The structure and energetics of DNA states, both canonical and non-canonical, and the enthalpic and entropic interactions that govern the stability of such states, have been the subject of many reviews (e.g., Frank-Kamenetskii and Mirkin, Reference Frank-Kamenetskii and Mirkin1995; Plum et al., Reference Plum, Pilch, Singleton and Breslauer1995; Lane et al., Reference Lane, Chaires, Gray and Trent2008; Khutsishvili et al., Reference Khutsishvili, Johnson, Lee and Marky2009; Benabou et al., Reference Benabou, Avino, Eritja, Gonzalez and Gargallo2014; Day et al., Reference Day, Pavlou and Waller2014; Nakano et al., Reference Nakano, Miyoshi and Sugimoto2014; Privalov and Crane-Robinson, Reference Privalov and Crane-Robinson2018; Vologodskii and Frank-Kamenetskii, Reference Vologodskii and Frank-Kamenetskii2018).

The human genome contains hundreds of thousands of G- and C-rich sequences with the potential to fold into a G-quadruplex or an i-motif (Spiegel et al., Reference Spiegel, Adhikari and Balasubramanian2020; Varshney et al., Reference Varshney, Spiegel, Zyner, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2020; Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto, Reference Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto2021). The distribution of those structures in the genome is not random; rather, they are overrepresented in loci of critical importance, including, but not limited to, the promoters of oncogenes (Balasubramanian et al., Reference Balasubramanian, Hurley and Neidle2011; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Dickerhoff, Sakai and Yang2022; Romano et al., Reference Romano, Di Porzio, Iaccarino, Riccardi, Di Lorenzo, Laneri, Pagano, Amato and Randazzo2023; Zanin et al., Reference Zanin, Ruggiero, Nicoletto, Lago, Maurizio, Gallina and Richter2023). Tumor-related genes, such as c-MYC, hTERT, c-kit, KRAS, Bcl-2, and VEGF, have been identified as genes in which a G-quadruplex is formed and is involved in transcriptional regulation (Waller et al., Reference Waller, Sewitz, Hsu and Balasubramanian2009; Balasubramanian et al., Reference Balasubramanian, Hurley and Neidle2011; Alessandrini et al., Reference Alessandrini, Recagni, Zaffaroni and Folini2021; Kosiol et al., Reference Kosiol, Juranek, Brossart, Heine and Paeschke2021; Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Raguseo, Nuccio, Liano and Di Antonio2021; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Dickerhoff, Sakai and Yang2022; Romano et al., Reference Romano, Di Porzio, Iaccarino, Riccardi, Di Lorenzo, Laneri, Pagano, Amato and Randazzo2023; Zanin et al., Reference Zanin, Ruggiero, Nicoletto, Lago, Maurizio, Gallina and Richter2023).

There is a widespread effort to understand the transcriptional role of G-quadruplexes and i-motifs. Accumulating evidence suggests that those four-stranded non-canonical structures act as stimulators or inhibitors of transcription, with the balance between the two effects being fine-tuned for each gene and cell cycle (Kendrick et al., Reference Kendrick, Kang, Alam, Madathil, Agrawal, Gokhale, Yang, Hecht and Hurley2014; Kim, Reference Kim2019; King et al., Reference King, Irving, Evans, Chikhale, Becker, Morris, Pena Martinez, Schofield, Christ, Hurley, Waller, Iyer and Smith2020; Lago et al., Reference Lago, Nadai, Cernilogar, Kazerani, Dominiguez Moreno, Schotta and Richter2021; Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Raguseo, Nuccio, Liano and Di Antonio2021). In one striking example, a G-quadruplex, but not its duplex counterpart, serves as the primary recognition site for key transcription factors and chromatin proteins that bind to the c-MYC promoter (Esain-Garcia et al., Reference Esain-Garcia, Kirchner, Melidis, Tavares, Dhir, Simeone, Yu, Madden, Hermann, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2024). Loss of the G-quadruplex leads to suppression of c-MYC transcription, which can be restored by replacing the endogenous G-quadruplex with a G-quadruplex from the KRAS oncogene (Esain-Garcia et al., Reference Esain-Garcia, Kirchner, Melidis, Tavares, Dhir, Simeone, Yu, Madden, Hermann, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2024). Thus, controlled formation or resolution of a G-quadruplex in a promoter is a mechanism of transcriptional control (Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Raguseo, Nuccio, Liano and Di Antonio2021). It has been suggested that G-quadruplexes and i-motifs are both involved in the regulation of transcription, albeit through different mechanisms (Zanin et al., Reference Zanin, Ruggiero, Nicoletto, Lago, Maurizio, Gallina and Richter2023).

The functioning of tetraplex DNAs in the genome relates to the nature of their formation, which remains an open question. In one scenario, a G-quadruplex or i-motif forms as a thermodynamically stable state that competes with the duplex conformation; in another, the tetraplex may occur as a kinetically stabilized metastable state within a pre-dissociated single-stranded stretch of genomic DNA. The lack of an answer to this question hampers our understanding of the conformational control of transcription and the tetraplex-dependent modulation of RNA polymerase activity.

Studies in our laboratory have suggested that the B-DNA and G-quadruplex conformations in a promoter may coexist in a site-specific dynamic equilibrium, in contrast to the prevailing view that they occur exclusively as one form or the other (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). Those results gave rise to a hypothesis in which the level of gene expression is regulated in an essentially thermodynamic manner through a fine-tuning of the ratio of duplex to G-quadruplex, with the G-quadruplex acting as a conformational on- and off-switch modulating the activity of RNA polymerase. The fine-tuning is achieved by the evolution-selected promoter sequence and the “native” intracellular conditions, including the pH and the concentrations of K+ and Na+ ions. Any deviation from the native distribution of conformations, which could result from a point mutation or a disease-induced change in cellular conditions, may be accompanied by under- or overexpression of the gene.

Such a thermodynamic hypothesis of transcriptional control explains, is consistent with, and is supported indirectly by several observations. (i) Studies on oligomeric constructs in vitro suggest that G-quadruplexes and i-motifs can coexist with the duplex in a thermodynamic equilibrium, with the fractional populations dependent upon the nucleotide sequence and local conditions (Chalikian et al., Reference Chalikian, Liu and Macgregor2020; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). Extending this observation to chromatin, G- and C-rich domains in the genome similarly may fluctuate between the duplex and tetraplex conformations in a site-specific dynamic equilibrium. (ii) G-quadruplex and i-motif structures form in promoters, both in vitro and naturally in cellular DNA (Balasubramanian et al., Reference Balasubramanian, Hurley and Neidle2011; Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto, Reference Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto2020; Lago et al., Reference Lago, Nadai, Cernilogar, Kazerani, Dominiguez Moreno, Schotta and Richter2021; Zanin et al., Reference Zanin, Ruggiero, Nicoletto, Lago, Maurizio, Gallina and Richter2023). (iii) They form even in the absence of transcriptional activity and its concomitant strand dissociation; hence, non-canonical structures may form spontaneously by competing with the duplex (Shen et al., Reference Shen, Varshney, Simeone, Zhang, Adhikari, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2021). (iv) G-quadruplexes and, possibly, i-motifs modulate transcription by acting as binding sites for transcription factors (Spiegel et al., Reference Spiegel, Cuesta, Adhikari, Hansel-Hertsch, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2021; Zanin et al., Reference Zanin, Ruggiero, Nicoletto, Lago, Maurizio, Gallina and Richter2023; Esain-Garcia et al., Reference Esain-Garcia, Kirchner, Melidis, Tavares, Dhir, Simeone, Yu, Madden, Hermann, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2024). It follows that non-canonical four-stranded structures may form in the promoter, overcoming the constraints of Watson–Crick base pairing prior to the recruitment of RNA polymerase. (v) Transcription increases as the thermodynamic stability of a G-quadruplex in the promoter region increases, consistent with a shift in the duplex–tetraplex equilibrium toward the G-quadruplex conformation (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Simeone, Melidis, Cuesta, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2024).

Below, we expand on this line of reasoning and discuss each of the foregoing considerations in more detail. We first summarize our own biophysico-chemical results on duplex-tetraplex equilibria and then present an overview of a broader picture that emerges from molecular and cellular studies in other laboratories. Our focus is on the thermodynamics and, to a lesser extent, the kinetics of duplex-tetraplex interconversions within promoter DNA. Of particular interest is the transcriptional response to specific distributions of canonical and non-canonical DNA conformations in promoter regions of genes. While it is recognized that those effects are but one part of a multilayered regulatory process and operate in concert with other components of the transcriptional machinery, they are discussed here without explicit reference to the crucial role of intervening steps, which include other DNA regulatory elements, epigenetic modifications, chromatin accessibility, RNA polymerase, transcription factors, mediator proteins, and much else. An understanding of all steps is required if we eventually are to understand the relative place and importance of conformational heterogeneity of promoter sequences in the chain of events leading to transcription.

Canonical and non-canonical conformations coexist in dynamic equilibrium, with fractional populations depending upon DNA sequence and environmental conditions

In the genome, the folding of a G-quadruplex or i-motif occurs in the presence of the complementary DNA strand. This proximity establishes a competition between the double-stranded and four-stranded states, resulting in a distribution of conformational states that may range from overwhelmingly duplex to overwhelmingly tetraplex. In other words, being rich in guanine and cytosine does not necessarily endow a particular genomic domain with the ability to break spontaneously from the constraints of Watson-Crick base pairing and form four-stranded structures.

Biophysical studies on duplex-tetraplex competition in G- and C-rich DNA molecules in vitro have shown that, when mixed together, complementary DNA strands bearing the human telomeric sequence adopt exclusively the duplex conformation; G-quadruplex or i-motif conformations are virtually nonexistent (Chalikian et al., Reference Chalikian, Liu and Macgregor2020). In contrast, G- and C-rich promoter sequences may adopt tetrahelical conformations that coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium with the duplex conformation (Chalikian et al., Reference Chalikian, Liu and Macgregor2020). The main challenge in such studies is to quantify the distribution of conformational states.

To address this problem, we have developed a CD spectroscopy-based procedure to determine the fractional populations of the duplex, G-quadruplex, i-motif, and coiled conformations in mixtures comprising equimolar amounts of G- and C-rich strands of DNA (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022). The procedure presupposes that the observed CD spectrum of such a mixture is the weighted sum of the “pure” spectra of the constituent conformations (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020). Each of the latter is generated and recorded independently, which allows each observed spectrum to be unmixed in terms of the predetermined spectra of the constituent conformational states; that in turn allows one to obtain the corresponding weighting factors for the fractional contributions of those states to the total population of DNA (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020). The fractional values then can be analyzed in terms of the five-state models depicted in Scheme 1 to extract the thermodynamic parameters for the transition from each of the four fully or partially folded states to the unfolded, coiled state (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020).

Scheme 1. (a) Equilibria linking the various conformational states adopted by an equimolar mixture of G-rich and C-rich strands of DNA (C, G-coil plus C-coil; D, duplex; GQCC, G-quadruplex plus C-coil; iMGC, i-motif plus G-coil; GQiM, G-quadruplex plus i-motif); (b) Equilibria linking the various conformational states adopted by the hairpin DNA (C, G-coil-plus-C-coil; HP, hairpin duplex; GQCC, G-quadruplex-plus-C-coil; iMGC, i-motif-plus-G-coil; GQiM, G-quadruplex-plus-i-motif).

We have investigated two structural arrangements: a bimolecular system in which the G- and C-rich strands are mixed in equimolar amounts (Scheme 1a), and a monomolecular system in which the two strands are joined by a covalent link (Scheme 1b) (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Liu Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). In both systems, the conformational propensities of DNA have been studied as a function of temperature and the concentration of KCl at neutral and slightly acidic pH (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). Weak acidity is conducive to the formation of an i-motif (Benabou et al., Reference Benabou, Avino, Eritja, Gonzalez and Gargallo2014; Day et al., Reference Day, Pavlou and Waller2014; Alba et al., Reference Alba, Sadurni and Gargallo2016; Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto, Reference Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto2020).

In a bimolecular system, the formation of a tetraplex requires the dissociation and spatial separation of two complementary strands that otherwise would form a duplex. This contrasts with changes in the genome, where duplex-tetraplex transitions are pseudo-monomolecular in nature and are not accompanied by strand separation. From this perspective, monomolecular DNA constructs are better mimics of genomic DNA than are their bimolecular counterparts. Association of the two strands in a bimolecular system incurs a concentration-dependent translational entropic penalty. There is no such cost in monomolecular DNA, where the duplex-tetraplex equilibrium is shifted towards the duplex conformation relative to its iso-sequence bimolecular counterpart (Marky and Breslauer, Reference Marky and Breslauer1987). This nuance is important in comparisons of conformational results obtained on mono- and bimolecular DNA constructs.

The bimolecular systems studied in our laboratory consist of complementary pairs of G- and C-rich DNA strands with sequences taken from the promoter regions of the c-MYC, VEGF, and Bcl-2 oncogenes (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022). Misregulated expression of those oncogenes is linked to the progression of a variety of cancers, including colon, ovarian, breast, prostate, pancreatic, and small-cell lung cancers, as well as osteosarcomas, leukemias, and lymphomas (Baretton et al., Reference Baretton, Diebold, Christoforis, Vogt, Muller, Dopfer, Schneiderbanger, Schmidt and Lohrs1996; Wierstra and Alves, Reference Wierstra and Alves2008; Gonzalez and Hurley, Reference Gonzalez and Hurley2010; Goel and Mercurio, Reference Goel and Mercurio2013). The monomolecular system in our studies is a hairpin in which the complementary G- and C-rich strands of the stem are linked via a dT11 loop and feature a sequence from the promoter region of the c-MYC oncogene (Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025).

In each system, the populations of the duplex, G-quadruplex, i-motif, and coil conformations engage in a complex exchange that is modulated by temperature, pH, and the concentration of potassium ions via changes in the differential free energies of the conformers (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). Metal ions of an appropriate size, such as potassium, are an integral part of G-quadruplex structures; accordingly, an increase in the concentration of potassium ions causes an increase in the stability of a G-quadruplex (Lane et al., Reference Lane, Chaires, Gray and Trent2008). It is noteworthy that the hairpin DNA adopts G-quadruplex-containing states only when K+ and tetrabutylammonium (TBA+) ions are present together in the buffer, both at pH 5.0 and at pH 7.0 (Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). This observation is consistent with the selective binding of tetraalkylammonium ions to the parallel c-MYC G-quadruplex (Li et al., Reference Li, Dubins, Volker and Chalikian2024).

Temperature dependences of the fractional populations of the duplex, G-quadruplex, i-motif, and coiled states adopted by the double-stranded and hairpin constructs described above are shown at pH 5.0 and 7.0 in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The curve for each state was computed according to the five-state model depicted in Scheme 1a (c-MYC-, VEGF-, and Bcl-2-based double-stranded DNA) or in Scheme 1b (c-MYC-based hairpin DNA). The required parametric values were those estimated as described above by deconvolution of the temperature-dependent CD spectra and subsequent analyses of the resulting fractional populations (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025).

Figure 1. Fractional populations of the conformational states adopted at pH 5.0 by bimolecular constructs based on the promoters of three oncogenes (c-MYC, panel A; VEGF, panel B; and Bcl-2, panel C) and a monomolecular construct (hairpin) based on the c-MYC promoter (panel D). Values plotted on the ordinate were calculated according to Scheme 1a (bimolecular constructs) or Scheme 1b (hairpin) using thermodynamic parameters reported previously, as follows: panel A, Tables 1 and 2 in (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020); panels B and C, Tables 1–4 in (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022); panel D, Tables 1 and 2 in (Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). Data were acquired in 50 mM KCl over the range of temperature shown on the abscissa.

Figure 2. Fractional populations of the conformational states adopted at pH 7.0 by bimolecular constructs based on the promoters of three oncogenes (c-MYC, panel A; VEGF, panel B; and Bcl-2, panel C) and a monomolecular construct based on the c-MYC promoter (panel D). Values plotted on the ordinate were calculated according to Scheme 1a (bimolecular constructs) or Scheme 1b (hairpin) using thermodynamic parameters reported previously, as follows: panel A, Tables 1 and 2 in (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020); panels B and C, Tables 1–4 in (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022); panel D, Tables 1 and 3 in (Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). Data were acquired in 50 mM KCl over the range of temperature shown on the abscissa. No line is shown for either of the i-motif-containing states (i.e., iMGC and GQiM), which are not populated at pH 7.0.

At pH 5.0, which is the optimum pH for i-motif stability (Benabou et al., Reference Benabou, Avino, Eritja, Gonzalez and Gargallo2014; Day et al., Reference Day, Pavlou and Waller2014; Alba et al., Reference Alba, Sadurni and Gargallo2016; Kim and Chalikian, Reference Kim and Chalikian2016), all four constructs were found to sample the full range of interconverting duplex, G-quadruplex, i-motif, and coiled conformations in proportions that depended upon the sequence and the effect of temperature and the concentration of potassium ions on each equilibrium (Figure 1) (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). At physiological pH, the constructs adopted only the duplex and G-quadruplex conformations in proportions that similarly depended upon the sequence, the temperature, and the concentration of potassium (Figure 2) (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). These observations are consistent with some reports that G- and C-rich DNA molecules can be distributed among different conformational states, in contrast to the notion that they exist overwhelmingly in a single conformation (Phan and Mergny, Reference Phan and Mergny2002; Chalikian et al., Reference Chalikian, Liu and Macgregor2020; Pandey et al., Reference Pandey, Roy and Srivatsan2023). Although we have not observed any significant presence of the i-motif conformation at pH 7.0, the situation may be different in the crowded environment of the cell. This possibility is supported by the stabilizing effect of molecular crowders on the i-motif, by reports that some DNA sequences can fold into an i-motif at neutral pH even in dilute (crowder-free) solutions, and by the visualization of stable i-motif structures in the cell (Nakano et al., Reference Nakano, Miyoshi and Sugimoto2014; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Huppert and Waller2017; Dzatko et al., Reference Dzatko, Krafcikova, Hansel-Hertsch, Fessl, Fiala, Loja, Krafcik, Mergny, Foldynova-Trantirkova and Trantirek2018; Zeraati et al., Reference Zeraati, Langley, Schofield, Moye, Rouet, Hughes, Bryan, Dinger and Christ2018; King et al., Reference King, Irving, Evans, Chikhale, Becker, Morris, Pena Martinez, Schofield, Christ, Hurley, Waller, Iyer and Smith2020; Takahashi and Sugimoto, Reference Takahashi and Sugimoto2020; Zanin et al., Reference Zanin, Ruggiero, Nicoletto, Lago, Maurizio, Gallina and Richter2023).

Our data and similar results from other laboratories offer persuasive evidence that, under appropriate conditions, complementary G- and C-rich DNA strands in bimolecular and monomolecular constructs form four-stranded G-quadruplex and i-motif structures that coexist in equilibrium with the duplex conformation (Chalikian et al., Reference Chalikian, Liu and Macgregor2020). The specific fractional ratios of duplex to tetraplex depend upon the DNA sequence and environmental conditions. Extrapolation of these in vitro facts to the cell suggests that four-stranded conformations may form spontaneously in the genome within the constraints of Watson-Crick base pairing and exist in thermodynamic equilibrium with the duplex conformation. This idea forms the basis for our hypothesis, articulated below, that transcriptional regulation includes an important element of thermodynamic control.

Statistical thermodynamic models describe observed conformational equilibria

Our data on the temperature-dependent conformational status of bimolecular and monomolecular DNA have been analyzed according to a statistical thermodynamic representation of the equilibria depicted in Schemes 1a and 1b (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). Best fits of the model show consistent agreement with data obtained with different constructs under various conditions; that in turn is consistent with the underlying supposition that the exchange between double-helical and tetra-helical conformations adopted by complementary DNA strands originates in their differential thermodynamic stabilities (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). The successful application of a model based on thermodynamic principles precludes the need for recourse to kinetics-based explanations; rather, the temperature-, pH-, and KCl-induced interconversions of the constructs in our studies can be described as thermodynamic in nature, involving thermodynamically stable states and not kinetically trapped, metastable intermediates. The importance of kinetic effects in the formation of tetraplex structures and the regulatory role of such effects in the genome is discussed below.

The observed equilibria between the double-helical and tetra-helical conformations of G- and C-rich DNA molecules in vitro (Chalikian et al., Reference Chalikian, Liu and Macgregor2020; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025) argue that, in the genome, non-canonical four-stranded conformations fold and unfold spontaneously in competition with the duplex. They are not restricted to preformed single-stranded DNA domains such as might originate in a prior genomic process (e.g., within a transcription or replication bubble or an R-loop) (Crossley et al., Reference Crossley, Bocek and Cimprich2019; Chakraborty, Reference Chakraborty2020; Miglietta et al., Reference Miglietta, Russo and Capranico2020; Petermann et al., Reference Petermann, Lan and Zou2022; Wulfridge and Sarma, Reference Wulfridge and Sarma2024). Narrowing this argument to a single DNA molecule in chromatin suggests that a G- and C-rich domain in the genome may fluctuate between a duplex on the one hand and a G-quadruplex or possibly an i-motif on the other in an equilibrium that depends upon the nucleotide sequence and intracellular conditions. Note that, in chromatin, the nucleosome protects Watson–Crick base pairing from disruption, which renders nucleosome-depleted G- and C-rich regions of DNA likely sites for the formation of G-quadruplex structures (Hansel-Hertsch et al., Reference Hansel-Hertsch, Beraldi, Lensing, Marsico, Zyner, Parry, Di Antonio, Pike, Kimura, Narita, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2016; Hansel-Hertsch et al., Reference Hansel-Hertsch, Spiegel, Marsico, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2018; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Qian, Wei and Chen2023).

The notion of thermodynamically controlled duplex–tetraplex fluctuations within a single molecule in vivo is supported by an observed increase in the G-quadruplex population induced by G-quadruplex-binding drugs (Balasubramanian et al., Reference Balasubramanian, Hurley and Neidle2011; Husby et al., Reference Husby, Todd, Platts and Neidle2013; Di Antonio et al., Reference Di Antonio, Ponjavic, Radzevicius, Ranasinghe, Catalano, Zhang, Shen, Needham, Lee, Klenerman and Balasubramanian2020; Varshney et al., Reference Varshney, Spiegel, Zyner, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2020). According to the principle of conformational selection, the binding of a G-quadruplex-selective ligand to a G-rich DNA domain implies the existence of some G-quadruplex in that domain in the absence of the ligand, although the tetraplex-to-duplex fractional ratio may be small (Vogt and Di Cera Reference Vogt and Di Cera2012, Reference Vogt and Di Cera2013; Vogt et al., Reference Vogt, Pozzi, Chen and Di Cera2014; Chakraborty and Di Cera, Reference Chakraborty and Di Cera2017). In general, the dynamics of duplex–tetraplex transformations in DNA are expected to be affected by replication, transcription, and damage repair, all of which involve disruption of the duplex and are influenced by G-quadruplex-binding proteins such as helicases and transcription factors (Brazda et al., Reference Brazda, Haronikova, Liao and Fojta2014; Petermann et al., Reference Petermann, Lan and Zou2022; Shu et al., Reference Shu, Zhang, Xiao, Yang and Sun2022; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Qian, Wei and Chen2023).

The biological relevance of conformational fluctuations is well established in the case of proteins, with a high-energy and therefore sparingly populated conformation often being the functionally active one (Akasaka, Reference Akasaka2006; Mittermaier and Kay, Reference Mittermaier and Kay2006; Sekhar and Kay, Reference Sekhar and Kay2019). In a similar vein, hybridization–dehybridization dynamics have been reported for DNA duplexes (Ashwood and Tokmakoff, Reference Ashwood and Tokmakoff2025), and the concept can be extended to duplex–tetraplex conformational dynamics in G- and C-rich domains of genomic DNA. That in turn has implications for the conformational control of genomic events, with transcription being just one example.

A word of caution is in order when thermodynamic insights gleaned from studies conducted on relatively short DNA constructs, either bimolecular or monomolecular, are applied to the conformational dynamics of G- and C-rich sequences embedded in much longer, genomic DNA. The formation of a G-quadruplex or an i-motif in a long stretch of DNA may require separation of the strands in a region that is significantly longer than the sequence constituting the newly formed tetraplex. At one extreme, the number of base pairs that must be disrupted to enable a G-quadruplex to form may be on the order of the cooperative melting unit: that is, on the order of ~100 base pairs (Blake, Reference Blake1987). The disparity between a large unfavorable change in free energy accompanying disruption of such a long duplex and a favorable change in free energy accompanying the formation of a much shorter G-quadruplex or i-motif may skew the duplex–tetraplex equilibrium in favor of the duplex.

Conformational control of transcription

Under appropriate conditions, each promoter DNA in our investigation was found to establish an equilibrium in which the interconverting duplex and G-quadruplex conformations are both present in appreciable amounts (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). This suggests that at least some G- and C-rich promoter sequences sample canonical and non-canonical conformations spontaneously, with their fractional populations determined by the sequence. Based on these observations, we have put forward a hypothesis in which the transcription of a gene with a G- and C-rich promoter is regulated via the equilibrium between the duplex and G-quadruplex conformations, which is fine-tuned in a gene-specific manner to adjust the ratio of the two populations (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). Transcription of a gene thereby is placed under thermodynamic control, with the G-quadruplex serving as an on- or off-switch for RNA polymerase activity. The hypothesis implies that a native ratio of conformations is unique to each gene. It follows that any deviation from that ratio, such as might arise from a mutation or a change in pH, potassium level, hydration, or other property of the system, may result in up- or down-regulation of the gene, potentially with pathological consequences.

G-quadruplexes may inhibit or enhance gene expression by sterically hindering the progression of RNA polymerase or by serving as recognition sites for G-quadruplex-binding proteins, such as transcription factors, that participate in transcription (Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto, Reference Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto2020; Varshney et al., Reference Varshney, Spiegel, Zyner, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2020; Lago et al., Reference Lago, Nadai, Cernilogar, Kazerani, Dominiguez Moreno, Schotta and Richter2021; Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Raguseo, Nuccio, Liano and Di Antonio2021; Shen et al., Reference Shen, Varshney, Simeone, Zhang, Adhikari, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2021; Esain-Garcia et al., Reference Esain-Garcia, Kirchner, Melidis, Tavares, Dhir, Simeone, Yu, Madden, Hermann, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2024). The link between the formation of four-stranded DNA structures in G- and C-rich genomic domains and their involvement as enhancers or inhibitors of transcription is tightly controlled for each gene and cell cycle (King et al., Reference King, Irving, Evans, Chikhale, Becker, Morris, Pena Martinez, Schofield, Christ, Hurley, Waller, Iyer and Smith2020). Fine-tuning of the G-quadruplex-to-duplex ratio in a promoter site is achieved by the combined effect of the natural conformational propensities of the site (the primary factor) and the timely intervention of G-quadruplex-binding proteins (secondary factors) (Mendoza et al., Reference Mendoza, Bourdoncle, Boule, Brosh and Mergny2016; Shu et al., Reference Shu, Zhang, Xiao, Yang and Sun2022). Hence, the physico-chemical exploration of the natural conformational propensities of genomic sequences is fundamental to an understanding of the conformational control of transcription and other genomic events.

The hypothesis articulated here provides a tool with which to explore the conformational control of genomic events such as transcription, and thereby to understand the mechanisms underlying a pathological under- or overexpression of a gene. For example, one or more mutations in a promoter sequence accompanied by disease-induced changes in cellular conditions, such as a decrease in pH or misregulation of the concentration of potassium ions (Tateishi-Karimata et al., Reference Tateishi-Karimata, Kawauchi and Sugimoto2018; Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto, Reference Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto2021), may perturb the distribution of that sequence between its duplex and tetraplex conformations. Such a deviation from the norm may lead in turn to a change in oncogene expression.

Results of cellular studies are consistent with the spontaneous formation of tetraplexes and thermodynamic control

Hundreds of thousands genomic sequences potentially can fold into a G-quadruplex (Chambers et al., Reference Chambers, Marsico, Boutell, Di Antonio, Smith and Balasubramanian2015). In contrast, much smaller numbers of folded G-quadruplexes—on the order of ~10,000—emerge from genome-wide mapping carried out by probe-based (Chip-Seq, CUT&Tag, Chem-map) and probe-independent (G4access) procedures (Galli et al., Reference Galli, Flint, Ruzickova and Di Antonio2024). One explanation for the vast difference between the number of G-quadruplex-forming motifs and the number of folded G-quadruplexes in the genome is that the G-quadruplex conformation is not accessible to a G-quadruplex motif within a nucleosome: G-quadruplexes form overwhelmingly in nucleosome-free regions of chromatin (Shen et al., Reference Shen, Varshney, Simeone, Zhang, Adhikari, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2021). Another possibility emerges from our physico-chemical studies on oligomeric DNA (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025). In many G- and C-rich genomic domains, the equilibrium between the duplex and G-quadruplex conformations may be shifted markedly towards the duplex, with fractional populations of ~1% or less for the G-quadruplex.

Folded G-quadruplexes have been found predominantly in the regulatory domains of transcriptionally active genes, particularly in open chromatin regions (Hansel-Hertsch et al., Reference Hansel-Hertsch, Beraldi, Lensing, Marsico, Zyner, Parry, Di Antonio, Pike, Kimura, Narita, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2016; Hansel-Hertsch et al., Reference Hansel-Hertsch, Spiegel, Marsico, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2018; Lago et al., Reference Lago, Nadai, Cernilogar, Kazerani, Dominiguez Moreno, Schotta and Richter2021; Zanin et al., Reference Zanin, Ruggiero, Nicoletto, Lago, Maurizio, Gallina and Richter2023; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Qian, Wei and Chen2023). Although less abundant than G-quadruplexes, folded i-motifs also tend to occur in those genomic regions and can overlap with R-loops, which underscores the interplay between the two tetraplex structures. This latter tendency turned up in a genome-wide mapping of i-motifs, where it was shown by means of the CUT&Tag procedure that G-quadruplexes and i-motifs may fold independently in different genomic loci or in the same sequence domain (Zanin et al., Reference Zanin, Ruggiero, Nicoletto, Lago, Maurizio, Gallina and Richter2023). Owing to the sensitivity limit of the CUT&Tag method, it is not possible to know if the G-quadruplex and i-motif form in parallel on complementary strands of the same genomic site in the same cell or in a mutually exclusive manner in different cells.

The formation of a G-quadruplex or an i-motif in a G-and C-rich genomic domain requires displacement of the complementary strand. That raises the question of whether a G-quadruplex in the genome forms spontaneously, in competition with the duplex (Scheme 2a), or consequentially, following separation of the duplex in a prior event such as the progression of RNA polymerase (Scheme 2b). In the latter case, the G-quadruplex would constitute a kinetically trapped, metastable state. Significantly, the importance of metastable states of DNA and the attendant interplay between long- and short-term kinetic intermediates in determining the global conformational distribution has been demonstrated recently by Breslauer and colleagues (Völker et al., Reference Völker, Gindikin and Breslauer2024).

Scheme 2. (a) Spontaneous formation of a G-quadruplex in equilibrium with the duplex conformation; (b) Formation of a G-quadruplex within a single strand of DNA separated from its complementary strand in an R-loop.

Watson–Crick base pairing is a major obstacle to the formation of a G-quadruplex in the genome (Kim, Reference Kim2019). Hence, the formation of a G-quadruplex in the genome typically has been thought to occur within the transcription bubble or R-loop that is formed transiently during strand separation and is coincident with RNA synthesis (Scheme 2b) (Kouzine et al., Reference Kouzine, Liu, Sanford, Chung and Levens2004; Kim, Reference Kim2019). In support of this mechanism, R-loop mapping along the genome has revealed that an R-loop at a single locus can extend over several hundreds base pairs (Chakraborty, Reference Chakraborty2020; Chedin and Benham, Reference Chedin and Benham2020). This greatly exceeds the 21–36 base pairs that is the mean length of a G-quadruplex in the genome, as identified by Chip-Seq, and the length of the most stable G-quadruplexes characterized in vitro (Lago et al., Reference Lago, Nadai, Cernilogar, Kazerani, Dominiguez Moreno, Schotta and Richter2021). In addition, R-loops and G-quadruplexes frequently are found together in genome-wide mapping of those structures (Lyu et al., Reference Lyu, Shao, Kwong Yung and Elsasser2022). Further information on the structural interplay between G-quadruplexes and R-loops, in vitro and in vivo, and its functional consequences can be found in recent reviews (Miglietta et al., Reference Miglietta, Russo and Capranico2020; Wulfridge and Sarma, Reference Wulfridge and Sarma2024).

Kinetic effects notwithstanding, thermodynamic control of genetic processes implies that four-stranded secondary structures form not only consequentially within displaced single-stranded DNA but also spontaneously in competition with the duplex (Scheme 2a). Indirect evidence for duplex–tetraplex competition without prior separation of the duplex includes a recent observation that the inhibition of transcription does not result in the elimination of promoter G-quadruplexes in chromatin (Shen et al., Reference Shen, Varshney, Simeone, Zhang, Adhikari, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2021). This finding suggests that strand separation within a transcription bubble or an R-loop is not a requirement for G-quadruplex folding. It similarly implies that the negative superhelicity that accompanies the progression of RNA polymerase also is not a requirement. The latter point is supported by results from one biophysical study in which supercoiling was found to have only a moderate effect on the formation of G-quadruplexes in a plasmid (Sekibo and Fox, Reference Sekibo and Fox2017).

G-quadruplexes are not merely steric obstacles blocking the activity of RNA polymerase, a comparatively simple role that could be inferred from their exclusive localization in preformed, single-stranded stretches of DNA (Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Raguseo, Nuccio, Liano and Di Antonio2021). In fact, they stimulate and enhance transcription by acting as sites for the recruitment of transcription factors to the promoter regions of actively transcribed genes (Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Raguseo, Nuccio, Liano and Di Antonio2021; Spiegel et al., Reference Spiegel, Cuesta, Adhikari, Hansel-Hertsch, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2021; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Simeone, Melidis, Cuesta, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2024; Esain-Garcia et al., Reference Esain-Garcia, Kirchner, Melidis, Tavares, Dhir, Simeone, Yu, Madden, Hermann, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2024). This is an important consideration, inasmuch as transcription factors typically associate with the promoter DNA prior to the recruitment of RNA polymerase and subsequent initiation of transcription and attendant strand separation (Alberts et al., Reference Alberts, Heald, Johnson, Morgan, Raff, Roberts and Walter2022). As alluded to above, the principle of conformational selection predicts that some G-quadruplexes always are present to some degree in the promoter region and act as sites for the binding of transcription factors (Vogt and Di Cera, Reference Vogt and Di Cera2013; Vogt et al., Reference Vogt, Pozzi, Chen and Di Cera2014; Chakraborty and Di Cera, Reference Chakraborty and Di Cera2017). Formation of a G-quadruplex, therefore, must be a spontaneous process that involves competing with the duplex, at least within some sequences, and it may or may not be linked thermodynamically to the binding of a transcription factor.

Further evidence that G-quadruplexes in promoters form by outcompeting the duplex is the observation that levels of transcription increase with an increase in the thermodynamic stability of the G-quadruplex in the promoter region (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Simeone, Melidis, Cuesta, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2024). Such an increase in stability implies an attendant shift in the duplex–tetraplex equilibrium towards the G-quadruplex conformation, in accord with the notion of thermodynamic control.

Evidence from a G4-Chip-seq/RNA-seq analysis of liposarcoma cells and keratinocytes suggests that a folded G-quadruplex, and not just a GC-rich sequence alone, is the binding site for transcription factors such as AP-1 and SP1 (Lago et al., Reference Lago, Nadai, Cernilogar, Kazerani, Dominiguez Moreno, Schotta and Richter2021). In that study, a comparison of data obtained from both types of cells revealed that the G-quadruplexes in the promoter of a gene are folded when the gene is actively expressed and mainly unfolded when it is downregulated (Lago et al., Reference Lago, Nadai, Cernilogar, Kazerani, Dominiguez Moreno, Schotta and Richter2021). The authors proposed that the transcription factors bind only to a folded G-quadruplex and that the folding or unfolding of a G-quadruplex within a promoter is a mechanism for controlling transcription in active genes (Lago et al., Reference Lago, Nadai, Cernilogar, Kazerani, Dominiguez Moreno, Schotta and Richter2021). Given that transcription factors associate with the promoter DNA prior to the recruitment of RNA polymerase, their suggested mechanism is consistent with the spontaneous formation of a G-quadruplex in competition with the duplex. This suggestion agrees with and complements the observation in human chronic myelogenous leukemia cells that the loss of promoter G-quadruplexes due to hypoxia-induced chromatin compaction is accompanied by the loss of RNA polymerase II binding to those same promoters (Shen et al., Reference Shen, Varshney, Simeone, Zhang, Adhikari, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2021).

Kinetic considerations and future developments

The folding of a G-quadruplex from its single-stranded conformer can be notoriously slow, which denotes folding intermediates separated by high-energy barriers (Gray and Chaires, Reference Gray and Chaires2008; Lane et al., Reference Lane, Chaires, Gray and Trent2008; Gray et al., Reference Gray, Trent and Chaires2014; Nicholson and Nesbitt, Reference Nicholson and Nesbitt2023; Lacen et al., Reference Lacen, Symasek, Gunter and Lee2024). In vitro studies on model oligonucleotides suggest that G-quadruplex–duplex transitions also may be slow (Shirude and Balasubramanian, Reference Shirude and Balasubramanian2008; Mendoza et al., Reference Mendoza, Elezgaray and Mergny2015). These considerations draw attention to an important question concerning the interdependence of the thermodynamic contribution to transcriptional control and the kinetics of duplex–tetraplex interconversions in the genome. That question is centered on differences in the mechanisms and activation energies between the canonical and non-canonical states of DNA. Indeed, it has been suggested that, given the sluggish kinetics of interconversions between the thermodynamically stable and metastable conformers, metastable i-motif species may be more biologically relevant than their thermodynamically stable counterparts (Skolakova et al., Reference Skolakova, Gajarsky, Palacky, Subert, Renciuk, Trantirek, Mergny and Vorlickova2023).

Although duplex–tetraplex interconversions may be slow on the timescale of biological events, the equilibrium nevertheless can be treated as dynamic. Ratios of tetraplex to duplex in vivo can be increased by small ligands, G-quadruplex-binding proteins, and G-quadruplex-selective antibodies, as noted above, and that alone argues in favor of a dynamic equilibrium between the states. In one example, the stabilization of G-quadruplexes in a promoter by pyridostatin led either to up-regulation or to down-regulation of gene expression in a pattern that is consistent with a causal link between the amount of G-quadruplex and G-quadruplex-mediated activation or inhibition of transcription (Lam et al., Reference Lam, Beraldi, Tannahill and Balasubramanian2013).

While much evidence points to equilibrium-based control, one cannot exclude the possibility that kinetically stabilized G-quadruplexes occur in vivo and have biological significance. They may form within single-stranded stretches of DNA, such as those within a transcription bubble, and they may persist for a long time after the complementary strand becomes available for hybridization. The biological significance of kinetically stabilized states is widely acknowledged for proteins (Sanchez-Ruiz, Reference Sanchez-Ruiz2010), and such states for G-quadruplex and i-motif structures may have a yet-unrecognized biological purpose.

A more complete understanding of the role played by thermodynamics in transcriptional regulation will require further thermodynamic and kinetic studies involving different DNA sequences, G-quadruplex topologies, molecular crowders, pH, and concentrations of potassium, all conducted in vitro and in vivo whenever possible.

Biophysical studies on many G- and C-rich promoter sequences are needed to provide information on their conformational propensities and the changes in those propensities caused by strategically introduced mutations or different environmental conditions. Currently, the most direct and quantitative way to explore the conformational preferences of specific genomic sequences is to study G- and C-rich oligonucleotide duplexes. Among such studies are those of the sort carried out in our laboratory, where the aim has been twofold: to quantify the conformational propensities of genomic sequences in terms of the fractional populations of the duplex, tetraplex, and coil states under different conditions, and to elucidate the balance of thermodynamic forces governing transitions from one state to another (Fan et al., Reference Fan, Shek, Amiri, Dubins, Heerklotz, Macgregor and Chalikian2011; Kim and Chalikian, Reference Kim and Chalikian2016; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Kim, Feroze, Macgregor and Chalikian2018; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ma, Wells and Chalikian2020; Chalikian and Macgregor, Reference Chalikian and Macgregor2021; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Scott, Tariq, Kume, Dubins, Macgregor and Chalikian2021, Reference Liu, Zhu, Tong, Su, Wells and Chalikian2022; Garabet et al., Reference Garabet, Prislan, Poklar Ulrih, Wells and Chalikian2025).

Biophysical studies need to be complemented by cellular studies that explore the relationships between subtle modifications of a promoter sequence, its conformational response, and the level of transcription of a reporter gene. Linking biophysical results obtained on oligonucleotides in vitro to conformational equilibria and associated transcriptional effects in the cell also requires studies into the role of chromatin proteins, G-quadruplex-selective proteins, supercoiling, the crowded intra-cellular environment, and much else. Such factors exert a modifying influence on the natural conformational preferences of tetraplex-forming sequences, which can be viewed as a fundamental property of genomic DNA. Exploration of those preferences is therefore a necessary step in the quest to understand the conformational control of transcription and other genomic events. Without knowing the propensities inherent in regions of genomic DNA, the role of other factors cannot be understood.

Outlook: a thermodynamic hypothesis

Insights from biophysical and cellular studies have been used in this report to advance a hypothesis in which transcription is subject to thermodynamic control. G- and C-rich domains in many promoters fold into G-quadruplexes and, in some cases, into i-motifs. In some sequences, four-stranded structures compete successfully with the duplex conformation, leading to the coexistence of both conformations in a thermodynamic equilibrium. In other sequences, four-stranded structures form only within regions of single-stranded DNA, such as a transcription or replication bubble, that come into existence when the duplex is disrupted by a prior genomic event. The location, mode of formation, and conformational distribution of specific tetraplexes is controlled by thermodynamic and kinetic factors that are tailored to an individual gene. Any deviation from the “normal” distribution of conformations owing to a point mutation or a change in cellular conditions may lead to under- or overexpression of the gene, with potentially pathological consequences. Thus, an understanding of the conformational propensities of G- and C-rich domains within the genome is a precondition to understanding the functional role of specific conformations as sites of biological action. This can lead in turn to means whereby the conformational preferences of tetraplex-forming sequences are modulated for therapeutic benefit.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/qrd.2025.10013.

Acknowledgements

We thank Professors Robert B. Macgregor, Jr., Jens Völker, Arno Siraki, and Jeffrey Henderson for many fruitful discussions.

Author contribution

J.W.W. and T.V.C. conceived and wrote the paper.

Financial support

This work was supported by Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy of the University of Toronto.

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

References

Akasaka, K (2006) Probing conformational fluctuation of proteins by pressure perturbation. Chemical Reviews 106(5), 18141835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alba, JJ, Sadurni, A and Gargallo, R (2016) Nucleic acid i-motif structures in analytical chemistry. Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry 46(5), 443454.10.1080/10408347.2016.1143347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alberts, B, Heald, R, Johnson, A, Morgan, D, Raff, M, Roberts, K and Walter, P (2022) Molecular Biology of the Cell, Seventh Edn. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Alessandrini, I, Recagni, M, Zaffaroni, N and Folini, M (2021) On the road to fight cancer: The potential of G-quadruplex ligands as novel therapeuticagents. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22(11), 5947.10.3390/ijms22115947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashwood, B and Tokmakoff, A (2025) Kinetics and dynamics of oligonucleotide hybridization. Nature Reviews Chemistry 9(5), 305327.Google ScholarPubMed
Balasubramanian, S, Hurley, LH and Neidle, S (2011) Targeting G-quadruplexes in gene promoters: A novel anticancer strategy? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10(4), 261275.10.1038/nrd3428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baretton, GB, Diebold, J, Christoforis, G, Vogt, M, Muller, C, Dopfer, K, Schneiderbanger, K, Schmidt, M and Lohrs, U (1996) Apoptosis and immunohistochemical bcl-2 expression in colorectal adenomas and carcinomas. Aspects of carcinogenesis and prognostic significance. Cancer 77(2), 255264.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960115)77:2<255::AID-CNCR6>3.0.CO;2-L3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benabou, S, Avino, A, Eritja, R, Gonzalez, C and Gargallo, R (2014) Fundamental aspects of the nucleic acid i-motif structures. RSC Advances 4(51), 2695626980.10.1039/C4RA02129KCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, RD (1987) Cooperative lengths of DNA during melting. Biopolymers 26(7), 10631074.10.1002/bip.360260706CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bochman, ML, Paeschke, K and Zakian, VA (2012) DNA secondary structures: Stability and function of G-quadruplex structures. Nature Reviews Genetics 13(11), 770780.10.1038/nrg3296CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazda, V, Haronikova, L, Liao, JC and Fojta, M (2014) DNA and RNA quadruplex-binding proteins. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 15(10), 1749317517.10.3390/ijms151017493CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, TA, Kendrick, S and Hurley, L (2010) Making sense of G-quadruplex and i-motif functions in oncogene promoters. FEBS Journal 277(17), 34593469.10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07759.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chakraborty, P (2020) New insight into the biology of R-loops. Mutation Research 821, 111711.10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2020.111711CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chakraborty, P and Di Cera, E (2017) Induced fit is a special case of conformational selection. Biochemistry 56(22), 28532859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalikian, TV, Liu, L and Macgregor, RB (2020) Duplex-tetraplex equilibria in guanine- and cytosine-rich DNA. Biophysical Chemistry 267, 106473.10.1016/j.bpc.2020.106473CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalikian, TV and Macgregor, RB (2021) Volumetric properties of four-stranded DNA structures. Biology 10(8), 813.10.3390/biology10080813CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, VS, Marsico, G, Boutell, JM, Di Antonio, M, Smith, GP and Balasubramanian, S (2015) High-throughput sequencing of DNA G-quadruplex structures in the human genome. Nature Biotechnology 33(8), 877881.10.1038/nbt.3295CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chedin, F and Benham, CJ (2020) Emerging roles for R-loop structures in the management of topological stress. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 295(14), 46844695.10.1074/jbc.REV119.006364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L, Dickerhoff, J, Sakai, S and Yang, D (2022) DNA G-quadruplex in human telomeres and oncogene promoters: Structures, functions, and small molecule targeting. Accounts of Chemical Research 55(18), 26282646.10.1021/acs.accounts.2c00337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y, Simeone, A, Melidis, L, Cuesta, SM, Tannahill, D and Balasubramanian, S (2024) An upstream G-quadruplex DNA structure can stimulate gene transcription. ACS Chemical Biololgy 19(3), 736742.10.1021/acschembio.3c00775CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, J and Majima, T (2011) Conformational changes of non-B DNA. Chemical Society Reviews 40(12), 58935909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crossley, MP, Bocek, M and Cimprich, KA (2019) R-loops as cellular regulators and genomic threats. Molecular Cell 73(3), 398411.10.1016/j.molcel.2019.01.024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Day, HA, Pavlou, P and Waller, ZA (2014) I-motif DNA: Structure, stability and targeting with ligands. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry 22(16), 44074418.10.1016/j.bmc.2014.05.047CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Antonio, M, Ponjavic, A, Radzevicius, A, Ranasinghe, RT, Catalano, M, Zhang, X, Shen, J, Needham, LM, Lee, SF, Klenerman, D and Balasubramanian, S (2020) Single-molecule visualization of DNA G-quadruplex formation in live cells. Nature Chemistry 12(9), 832837.10.1038/s41557-020-0506-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duckett, DR, Murchie, AI, Giraud-Panis, MJ, Pohler, JR and and Lilley, DM (1995) Structure of the four-way DNA junction and its interaction with proteins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 347(1319), 2736.Google ScholarPubMed
Dzatko, S, Krafcikova, M, Hansel-Hertsch, R, Fessl, T, Fiala, R, Loja, T, Krafcik, D, Mergny, JL, Foldynova-Trantirkova, S and Trantirek, L (2018) Evaluation of the stability of DNA i-motifs in the nuclei of living mammalian cells. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 57(8), 21652169.10.1002/anie.201712284CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esain-Garcia, I, Kirchner, A, Melidis, L, Tavares, RCA, Dhir, S, Simeone, A, Yu, Z, Madden, SK, Hermann, R, Tannahill, D and Balasubramanian, S (2024) G-quadruplex DNA structure is a positive regulator of MYC transcription. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121(7), e2320240121.10.1073/pnas.2320240121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fan, HY, Shek, YL, Amiri, A, Dubins, DN, Heerklotz, H, Macgregor, RB and Chalikian, TV (2011) Volumetric characterization of sodium-induced G-quadruplex formation. Journal of the American Chemical Society 133(12), 45184526.10.1021/ja110495cCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank-Kamenetskii, MD and Mirkin, SM (1995) Triplex DNA structures. Annual Review of Biochemistry 64, 6595.10.1146/annurev.bi.64.070195.000433CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galli, S, Flint, G, Ruzickova, L and Di Antonio, M (2024) Genome-wide mapping of G-quadruplex DNA: A step-by-step guide to select the most effective method. RSC Chemical Biology 5(5), 426438.10.1039/D4CB00023DCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garabet, A, Prislan, I, Poklar Ulrih, N, Wells, JW and Chalikian, TV (2025) Conformational propensities of a DNA hairpin with a stem sequence from the c-MYC promoter. Biomolecules 15(4), 483.10.3390/biom15040483CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goel, HL and Mercurio, AM (2013) VEGF targets the tumour cell. Nature Revies of Cancer 13(12), 871882.10.1038/nrc3627CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez, V and Hurley, LH (2010) The c-MYC NHE III1: Function and regulation. Annuual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 50, 111129.10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.48.113006.094649CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, RD and Chaires, JB (2008) Kinetics and mechanism of K+- and Na+-induced folding of models of human telomeric DNA into G-quadruplex structures. Nucleic Acids Research 36(12), 41914203.10.1093/nar/gkn379CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, RD, Trent, JO and Chaires, JB (2014) Folding and unfolding pathways of the human telomeric G-quadruplex. Journal of Molecular Biology 426(8), 16291650.10.1016/j.jmb.2014.01.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansel-Hertsch, R, Beraldi, D, Lensing, SV, Marsico, G, Zyner, K, Parry, A, Di Antonio, M, Pike, J, Kimura, H, Narita, M, Tannahill, D and Balasubramanian, S (2016) G-quadruplex structures mark human regulatory chromatin. Nature Genetics 48(10), 12671272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansel-Hertsch, R, Di Antonio, M and Balasubramanian, S (2017) DNA G-quadruplexes in the human genome: Detection, functions and therapeutic potential. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 18(5), 279284.Google ScholarPubMed
Hansel-Hertsch, R, Spiegel, J, Marsico, G, Tannahill, D and Balasubramanian, S (2018) Genome-wide mapping of endogenous G-quadruplex DNA structures by chromatin immunoprecipitation and high-throughput sequencing. Nature Protocols 13(3), 551564.10.1038/nprot.2017.150CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husby, J, Todd, AK, Platts, JA and Neidle, S (2013) Small-molecule G-quadruplex interactions: Systematic exploration of conformational space using multiple molecular dynamics. Biopolymers 99(12), 9891005.10.1002/bip.22340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendrick, S, Kang, HJ, Alam, MP, Madathil, MM, Agrawal, P, Gokhale, V, Yang, D, Hecht, SM and Hurley, LH (2014) The dynamic character of the BCL2 promoter i-motif provides a mechanism for modulation of gene expression by compounds that bind selectively to the alternative DNA hairpin structure. The Journal of the American Chemical Society 136(11), 41614171.Google Scholar
Khutsishvili, I, Johnson, S, Lee, HT and Marky, LA (2009) Unfolding thermodynamics of DNA intramolecular complexes involving joined triple- and double-helical motifs. Methods of Enzymology 466, 477502.10.1016/S0076-6879(09)66020-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, N (2019) The interplay between G-quadruplex and transcription. Current Medicinal Chemistry 26(16), 28982917.10.2174/0929867325666171229132619CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, BG and Chalikian, TV (2016) Thermodynamic linkage analysis of pH-induced folding and unfolding transitions of i-motifs. Biophysical Chemistry 216, 1922.10.1016/j.bpc.2016.06.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, JJ, Irving, KL, Evans, CW, Chikhale, RV, Becker, R, Morris, CJ, Pena Martinez, CD, Schofield, P, Christ, D, Hurley, LH, Waller, ZAE, Iyer, KS and Smith, NM (2020) DNA G-quadruplex and i-motif structure formation is interdependent in human cells. The Journal of the American Chemical Society 142(49), 2060020604.10.1021/jacs.0c11708CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosiol, N, Juranek, S, Brossart, P, Heine, A and Paeschke, K (2021) G-quadruplexes: A promising target for cancer therapy. Molecular Cancer 20(1), 40.10.1186/s12943-021-01328-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kouzine, F, Liu, J, Sanford, S, Chung, HJ and Levens, D (2004) The dynamic response of upstream DNA to transcription-generated torsional stress. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology 11(11), 10921100.10.1038/nsmb848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacen, AN, Symasek, A, Gunter, A and Lee, HT (2024) Slow G-quadruplex conformation rearrangement and accessibility change induced by potassium in human telomeric single-stranded DNA. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 128(25), 59505965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lago, S, Nadai, M, Cernilogar, FM, Kazerani, M, Dominiguez Moreno, H, Schotta, G and Richter, SN (2021) Promoter G-quadruplexes and transcription factors cooperate to shape the cell type-specific transcriptome. Nature Communications 12(1), 3885.10.1038/s41467-021-24198-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lam, EY, Beraldi, D, Tannahill, D and Balasubramanian, S (2013) G-quadruplex structures are stable and detectable in human genomic DNA. Nature Communications 4, 1796.10.1038/ncomms2792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, AN, Chaires, JB, Gray, RD and Trent, JO (2008) Stability and kinetics of G-quadruplex structures. Nucleic Acids Research 36(17), 54825515.10.1093/nar/gkn517CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, TI and Young, RA (2000) Transcription of eukaryotic protein-coding genes. Annual Review of Genetics 34, 77137.10.1146/annurev.genet.34.1.77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, X, Dubins, DN, Volker, J and Chalikian, TV (2024) G-quadruplex recognition by tetraalkylammonium ions: A new paradigm for discrimination between parallel and antiparallel G-quadruplexes. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 128(45), 1114411150.10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c06355CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L, Kim, BG, Feroze, U, Macgregor, RB and Chalikian, TV (2018) Probing the ionic atmosphere and hydration of the c-MYC i-motif. The Journal of the American Chemical Society 140(6), 22292238.10.1021/jacs.7b11537CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L, Ma, C, Wells, JW and Chalikian, TV (2020) Conformational preferences of DNA strands from the promoter region of the c-MYC oncogene. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 124(5), 751762.10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b10518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L, Scott, L, Tariq, N, Kume, T, Dubins, DN, Macgregor, RB and Chalikian, TV (2021) Volumetric interplay between the conformational states adopted by guanine-rich DNA from the c-MYC promoter. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 125(27), 74067416.10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c04075CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L, Zhu, L, Tong, H, Su, C, Wells, JW and Chalikian, TV (2022) Distribution of conformational states adopted by DNA from the promoter regions of the VEGF and Bcl-2 oncogenes. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 126(35), 66546670.10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c04304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyu, J, Shao, R, Kwong Yung, PY and Elsasser, SJ (2022) Genome-wide mapping of G-quadruplex structures with CUT&Tag. Nucleic Acids Research 50(3), e13.10.1093/nar/gkab1073CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marky, LA and Breslauer, KJ (1987) Calculating thermodynamic data for transitions of any molecularity from equilibrium melting curves. Biopolymers 26(9), 16011620.10.1002/bip.360260911CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendoza, O, Bourdoncle, A, Boule, JB, Brosh, RM and Mergny, JL (2016) G-quadruplexes and helicases. Nucleic Acids Research 44(5), 19892006.10.1093/nar/gkw079CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendoza, O, Elezgaray, J and Mergny, JL (2015) Kinetics of quadruplex to duplex conversion. Biochimie 118, 225233.10.1016/j.biochi.2015.09.031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miglietta, G, Russo, M and Capranico, G (2020) G-quadruplex-R-loop interactions and the mechanism of anticancer G-quadruplex binders. Nucleic Acids Research 48(21), 1194211957.10.1093/nar/gkaa944CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittermaier, A and Kay, LE (2006) New tools provide new insights in NMR studies of protein dynamics. Science 312(5771), 224228.10.1126/science.1124964CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakano, S, Miyoshi, D and Sugimoto, N (2014) Effects of molecular crowding on the structures, interactions, and functions of nucleic acids. Chemical Reviews 114(5), 27332758.10.1021/cr400113mCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholson, DA and Nesbitt, DJ (2023) Kinetic and thermodynamic control of G-quadruplex polymorphism by Na+ and K+ cations. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 127(31), 68426855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obara, P, Wolski, P and Panczyk, T (2024) Insights into the molecular structure, stability, and biological significance of non-canonical DNA forms, with a focus on G-quadruplexes and i-motifs. Molecules 29(19), 4683.10.3390/molecules29194683CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandey, A, Roy, S and Srivatsan, SG (2023) Probing the competition between duplex, G-quadruplex and i-motif structures of the oncogenic c-MYC DNA promoter region. Chemistry – An Asian Journal 18(17), e202300510.10.1002/asia.202300510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petermann, E, Lan, L and Zou, L (2022) Sources, resolution and physiological relevance of R-loops and RNA-DNA hybrids. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 23(8), 521540.10.1038/s41580-022-00474-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phan, AT and Mergny, JL (2002) Human telomeric DNA: G-quadruplex, i-motif and Watson-Crick double helix. Nucleic Acids Research 30(21), 46184625.10.1093/nar/gkf597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plum, GE, Pilch, DS, Singleton, SF and Breslauer, KJ (1995) Nucleic acid hybridization: Triplex stability and energetics. Annual Review Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure 24, 319350.Google ScholarPubMed
Privalov, PL and Crane-Robinson, C (2018) Forces maintaining the DNA double helix and its complexes with transcription factors. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 135, 3048.10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.01.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J, Raguseo, F, Nuccio, SP, Liano, D and Di Antonio, M (2021) DNA G-quadruplex structures: More than simple roadblocks to transcription? Nucleic Acids Research 49(15), 84198431.10.1093/nar/gkab609CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romano, F, Di Porzio, A, Iaccarino, N, Riccardi, G, Di Lorenzo, R, Laneri, S, Pagano, B, Amato, J and Randazzo, A (2023) G-quadruplexes in cancer-related gene promoters: From identification to therapeutic targeting. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents 33(11), 745773.10.1080/13543776.2023.2271168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanchez-Ruiz, JM (2010) Protein kinetic stability. Biophysical Chemistry 148(1–3), 115.10.1016/j.bpc.2010.02.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sekhar, A and Kay, LE (2019) An NMR view of protein dynamics in health and disease. Annual Review of Biophysics 48, 297319.10.1146/annurev-biophys-052118-115647CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sekibo, DAT and Fox, KR (2017) The effects of DNA supercoiling on G-quadruplex formation. Nucleic Acids Research 45(21), 1206912079.10.1093/nar/gkx856CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shen, J, Varshney, D, Simeone, A, Zhang, X, Adhikari, S, Tannahill, D and Balasubramanian, S (2021) Promoter G-quadruplex folding precedes transcription and is controlled by chromatin. Genome Biology 22(1), 143.10.1186/s13059-021-02346-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirude, PS and Balasubramanian, S (2008) Single molecule conformational analysis of DNA G-quadruplexes. Biochimie 90(8), 11971206.10.1016/j.biochi.2008.01.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shu, H, Zhang, R, Xiao, K, Yang, J and Sun, X (2022) G-quadruplex-binding proteins: Promising targets for drug design. Biomolecules 12(5), 648.Google ScholarPubMed
Skolakova, P, Gajarsky, M, Palacky, J, Subert, D, Renciuk, D, Trantirek, L, Mergny, JL and Vorlickova, M (2023) DNA i-motif formation at neutral pH is driven by kinetic partitioning. Nucleic Acids Research 51(6), 29502962.10.1093/nar/gkad119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spiegel, J, Adhikari, S and Balasubramanian, S (2020) The structure and function of DNA G-quadruplexes. Trends in Chemistry 2(2), 123136.10.1016/j.trechm.2019.07.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spiegel, J, Cuesta, SM, Adhikari, S, Hansel-Hertsch, R, Tannahill, D and Balasubramanian, S (2021) G-quadruplexes are transcription factor binding hubs in human chromatin. Genome Biology 22(1), 117.10.1186/s13059-021-02324-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugimoto, N, Endoh, T, Takahashi, S and Tateishi-Karimata, H (2021) Chemical biology of double helical and non-double helical nucleic acids: To B or not to B, that is the question. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan 94(7), 19701998.10.1246/bcsj.20210131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, S and Sugimoto, N (2020) Stability prediction of canonical and non-canonical structures of nucleic acids in various molecular environments and cells. Chemical Society Reviews 49(23), 84398468.10.1039/D0CS00594KCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tateishi-Karimata, H, Kawauchi, K and Sugimoto, N (2018) Destabilization of DNA G-quadruplexes by chemical environment changes during tumor progression facilitates transcription. The Journal of the American Chemical Society 140(2), 642651.10.1021/jacs.7b09449CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tateishi-Karimata, H and Sugimoto, N (2020) Chemical biology of non-canonical structures of nucleic acids for therapeutic applications. Chemical Communications 56(16), 23792390.10.1039/C9CC09771FCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tateishi-Karimata, H and Sugimoto, N (2021) Roles of non-canonical structures of nucleic acids in cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Nucleic Acids Research 49, 78397855.10.1093/nar/gkab580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varshney, D, Spiegel, J, Zyner, K, Tannahill, D and Balasubramanian, S (2020) The regulation and functions of DNA and RNA G-quadruplexes. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 21(8), 459474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogt, AD and Di Cera, E (2012) Conformational selection or induced fit? A critical appraisal of the kinetic mechanism. Biochemistry 51(30), 58945902.10.1021/bi3006913CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogt, AD and Di Cera, E (2013) Conformational selection is a dominant mechanism of ligand binding. Biochemistry 52(34), 57235729.10.1021/bi400929bCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogt, AD, Pozzi, N, Chen, Z and Di Cera, E (2014) Essential role of conformational selection in ligand binding. Biophysical Chemistry 186, 1321.Google ScholarPubMed
Völker, J, Gindikin, V and Breslauer, KJ (2024) Higher-order DNA secondary structures and their transformations: The hidden complexities of tetrad and quadruplex DNA structures, complexes, and modulatory interactions induced by strand invasion events. Biomolecules 14(12), 1532.10.3390/biom14121532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vologodskii, A and Frank-Kamenetskii, MD (2018) DNA melting and energetics of the double helix. Physics of Life Reviews 25, 121.10.1016/j.plrev.2017.11.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waller, ZA, Sewitz, SA, Hsu, ST and Balasubramanian, S (2009) A small molecule that disrupts G-quadruplex DNA structure and enhances gene expression. The Journal of the American Chemical Society 131(35), 1262812633.10.1021/ja901892uCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wierstra, I and Alves, J (2008) The c-myc promoter: Still MysterY and challenge. Advances in Cancer Research 99, 113333.Google ScholarPubMed
Wright, EP, Huppert, JL and Waller, ZAE (2017) Identification of multiple genomic DNA sequences which form i-motif structures at neutral pH. Nucleic Acids Research 45(6), 29512959.10.1093/nar/gkx090CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wulfridge, P and Sarma, K (2024) Intertwining roles of R-loops and G-quadruplexes in DNA repair, transcription and genome organization. Nature Cell Biology 26(7), 10251036.10.1038/s41556-024-01437-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zanin, I, Ruggiero, E, Nicoletto, G, Lago, S, Maurizio, I, Gallina, I and Richter, SN (2023) Genome-wide mapping of i-motifs reveals their association with transcription regulation in live human cells. Nucleic Acids Research 51(16), 83098321.10.1093/nar/gkad626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeraati, M, Langley, DB, Schofield, P, Moye, AL, Rouet, R, Hughes, WE, Bryan, TM, Dinger, ME and Christ, D (2018) I-motif DNA structures are formed in the nuclei of human cells. Nature Chemistry 10(6), 631637.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhang, ZH, Qian, SH, Wei, D and Chen, ZX (2023) In vivo dynamics and regulation of DNA G-quadruplex structures in mammals. Cell & Bioscience 13(1), 117.10.1186/s13578-023-01074-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Scheme 1. (a) Equilibria linking the various conformational states adopted by an equimolar mixture of G-rich and C-rich strands of DNA (C, G-coil plus C-coil; D, duplex; GQCC, G-quadruplex plus C-coil; iMGC, i-motif plus G-coil; GQiM, G-quadruplex plus i-motif); (b) Equilibria linking the various conformational states adopted by the hairpin DNA (C, G-coil-plus-C-coil; HP, hairpin duplex; GQCC, G-quadruplex-plus-C-coil; iMGC, i-motif-plus-G-coil; GQiM, G-quadruplex-plus-i-motif).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Fractional populations of the conformational states adopted at pH 5.0 by bimolecular constructs based on the promoters of three oncogenes (c-MYC, panel A; VEGF, panel B; and Bcl-2, panel C) and a monomolecular construct (hairpin) based on the c-MYC promoter (panel D). Values plotted on the ordinate were calculated according to Scheme 1a (bimolecular constructs) or Scheme 1b (hairpin) using thermodynamic parameters reported previously, as follows: panel A, Tables 1 and 2 in (Liu et al., 2020); panels B and C, Tables 1–4 in (Liu et al., 2022); panel D, Tables 1 and 2 in (Garabet et al., 2025). Data were acquired in 50 mM KCl over the range of temperature shown on the abscissa.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Fractional populations of the conformational states adopted at pH 7.0 by bimolecular constructs based on the promoters of three oncogenes (c-MYC, panel A; VEGF, panel B; and Bcl-2, panel C) and a monomolecular construct based on the c-MYC promoter (panel D). Values plotted on the ordinate were calculated according to Scheme 1a (bimolecular constructs) or Scheme 1b (hairpin) using thermodynamic parameters reported previously, as follows: panel A, Tables 1 and 2 in (Liu et al., 2020); panels B and C, Tables 1–4 in (Liu et al., 2022); panel D, Tables 1 and 3 in (Garabet et al., 2025). Data were acquired in 50 mM KCl over the range of temperature shown on the abscissa. No line is shown for either of the i-motif-containing states (i.e., iMGC and GQiM), which are not populated at pH 7.0.

Figure 3

Scheme 2. (a) Spontaneous formation of a G-quadruplex in equilibrium with the duplex conformation; (b) Formation of a G-quadruplex within a single strand of DNA separated from its complementary strand in an R-loop.

Author comment: Thermodynamic control of gene regulation — R0/PR1

Comments

Professor Bengt Nordén

Chair of the Board of Editors

Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics Discovery

Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering

Physical Chemistry

Chalmers University of Technology

Kemivägen 10, SE-412 96 Göteborg

Sweden

Re: “Thermodynamic Control of Gene Regulation” by James W. Wells and Tigran V. Chalikian

Dear Prof. Nordén,

It was pleasure to meet you at the Biophysical Society Meeting in Los Angeles, and I thank you for your subsequent e-mail and your kind invitation to submit a paper to QRB Discovery. I would like to take you up on your offer and ask that you consider the above-referenced manuscript for publication in QRB Discovery as a Perspective. This work is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, nor has it been published in any medium including but not limited to electronic journals or computer databases of a public nature.

In recent years, my coauthor Professor Wells and I have been engaged in a study of G-quadruplexes and i-motifs, which are four-stranded noncanonical secondary structures of DNA that act as conformational switches in controlling genomic events. We previously have proposed a hypothesis in which the level of expression of a gene with G- and C-rich sequences in the promoter is regulated thermodynamically by fine-tuning the G-quadruplex-to-duplex ratio, with the G-quadruplex acting as a steric on- and off-switch modulating RNA polymerase activity. Any deviation from the tuned distribution of conformers, such as might result from a mutation in the promoter or a change in cellular conditions, may lead to under- or overexpression of the gene and pathological consequences.

In the present submission, we expand on this hypothesis within the context of supporting evidence from molecular and cellular studies and from biophysico-chemical investigations of oligomeric DNA. Thermodynamic control of transcription implies that G-quadruplex and i-motif structures in the genome form as thermodynamically stable conformers in competition with the duplex conformation. That is in addition to their accepted formation as kinetically trapped, metastable states within domains of single-stranded DNA, such as a transcription bubble or an R-loop, that are opened in a prior cellular event.

Listed below are potential referees who are knowledgeable in the subject matter covered in this manuscript and who I believe could provide you with expert assessments of our work.

Dr. Gregory Man Kai Poon

Department of Chemistry

Georgia State University

P.O. Box 3965

Atlanta, Georgia 30302-3965

USA

e-mail: gpoon@gsu.edu

Dr. Kenneth J. Breslauer

Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Wright-Rieman Laboratories

610 Taylor Road

Piscataway, NJ 08854-8087

USA

email: kjbdna@dls.rutgers.edu

Dr. George Makhatadze

Biological Sciences

1W14 Jonsson-Rowland Science Center

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

110 Eighth Street

Troy, NY 12180-3590

USA

email: makhag@rpi.edu

Dr. Nataša Poklar Ulrih

Biotechnical Faculty

University of Ljubljana

Jamnikarjeva 101

1000 Ljubljana

Slovenia

email: natasa.poklar@bf.uni-lj.si

Dr. Naoki Sugimoto

Faculty of Innovative Research in Science and Technology

Konan University

7-1-2- Minatojima-minamimachi, Chuo-ku

Kobe 650-0047

Japan

email: sugimoto@konan-u.ac.jp

Dr. Roland Winter

Department of Chemistry

Physical Chemistry I

Technical University of Dortmund

D-44227 Dortmund

Germany

email: roland.winter@tu-dortmund.de

Thank you for considering our manuscript for publication in QRB Discovery.

Sincerely,

Tigran V. Chalikian, Ph. D.

Professor

Review: Thermodynamic control of gene regulation — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The subject of this review is interesting and much of the content is fine. However, the authors need to ask “Who is my audience?” and “What is my storyline?” At the moment the manuscript cannot be read without either detailed knowledge of the relevant literature especially the authors' own work or a lot of parallel reading - which rather defeats the purpose of this Discovery Review type of paper. I have a few specific issues but basically the authors need to think about the reader. They need some good figures to illustrate what they are talking about and some more introductory material.

1. References for "The canonical B-DNA duplex is not the only conformation available to genomic DNA” are all 2017 ff – I remember reading about this long before that, though I can’t remember where.

2. c-MYC – perhaps include what its role is and why this is important. It rathe jumps out of nowhere.

3. I am really struggling to understand what the authors mean by Thermodynamic – to me it is obvious that DNA is a dynamic CONTINUUM of structures (not just 2-state) that are remarkably close in energy and that the environment can therefor effect the equilibrium. I assume this is what also underpins their thinking. I think the review would benefit from a short discussion of relevant DNA structures and their energy differences say in vacuo, in solvent, with and without ions, in presence and absence of proteins. Much more consideration needs to be given to environment when the review discusses adoption of structures - how much on an energetic edge is the system. What is the role of entropy? If the paper is about thermodynamic control what they mean by it needs to be clear and DATA need to presented to address the hypothesis.

4. The assumptions of 2-state for the spectroscopy analysis should be explored further.

5. Where are the data???

TO EDITOR: I really object to my review being published. It inhibits me helping the authors to improve their work.

Review: Thermodynamic control of gene regulation — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

DNA structure is not static; it’s a dynamic, responsive scaffold that allows genetic information to be read. Ultimately, the structural dynamics determine which genes are turned on or off, when, and how strongly. This structural dynamic is intricately regulated by the physical and chemical structure of DNA, especially how it’s packaged and modified within the cell. It involves several levels of regulation. There is a chromatin architecture that is controlled by interactions with the histone proteins. It can be either loosely packed, forming euchromatin, where genes are accessible and can be transcribed. Or it can be tightly packed, forming heterochromatin, where genes are silenced because transcription machinery can’t reach them. Epigenetic modifications, such as DNA methylation and post-translational histone modifications, can further modulate the transition between euchromatin and heterochromatin. DNA regulatory elements, including promoters, enhancers, silencers, and insulators, interact with transcription factors through specific DNA sequences. The location of these sequences and accessibility depend on DNA folding and looping, which in turn is influenced by chromatin structure.

The mechanism discussed in this paper differs from these well-known ways of regulating gene expression. It suggests that the actual structure of DNA changes in response to external cues such as temperature, pH, or concentration of specific ions. The authors propose a regulatory role for conformational switches between canonical duplex DNA and non-canonical structures (G-quadruplexes and i-motifs) that can be formed by G- and C-rich genomic regions. Experimental data indicate that pH, ion concentration, and temperature alter the populations of different local structural motifs, and a strict thermodynamic formalism can rationalize these populations. They show that even point mutations can significantly change the distribution of states. Furthermore, they provide evidence from genome-wide mapping that nucleosome-free regions of actively transcribed genes contain sequences that form G-quadruplexes.

Overall, the hypothesis is well substantiated and well-received. The authors emphasize the need for further studies to understand the thermodynamic and kinetic factors governing DNA conformational dynamics and their implications for transcriptional control and therapeutic applications. Within these lines, my only minor quibble is a request for the author to provide a more unambiguous indication of what type of information, in their opinion, is missing to further substantiate and/or refute the hypothesis they put forward.

Recommendation: Thermodynamic control of gene regulation — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Thermodynamic control of gene regulation — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Thermodynamic control of gene regulation — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear Prof. Nordén,

Prof. Wells and I are grateful to the three reviewers for their careful and insightful reading of our manuscript. We are pleased that they found the work to be of interest. It was gratifying to learn from Reviewer 1 that “the subject of this review is interesting and much of the content is fine". Referring to our thermodynamic hypothesis of gene regulation, Reviewer 2 wrote that “overall, the hypothesis is well substantiated and well-received”. Reviewer 3 concluded that “this manuscript represents a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate over the role of four stranded DNA structures in regulating gene transcription”.

I believe that we addressed most if not all of the reviewers’ comments in the revised manuscript, which in our view is much improved as a result. Changes made in response to the reviewers are identified and described below, where the numbering corresponds to that of the reviews. There also have been various minor changes of an editorial, grammatical, or stylistic nature, where the text was modified solely to improve clarity or readability.

A word is in order here regarding the comments of Reviewer 1, who suggested that we ought to focus more on an identified audience, clarify the storyline, and include more primary data. Such comments are very broad in nature, and it sometimes has been difficult to discern what is expected. We nevertheless have given the reviewer’s comments careful attention and addressed them in this letter or the accompanying revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1

Comment 1. References for "The canonical B-DNA duplex is not the only conformation available to genomic DNA” are all 2017 ff – I remember reading about this long before that, though I can’t remember where.

In response to this comment, we have modified the sentence on p. 4 of the revised manuscript and added five references between 1995 and 2008. It now reads, “In addition to the B-DNA duplex, genomic DNA may adopt various non-canonical conformations such as Z-DNA, triplex DNA, cruciform DNA, G-quadruplexes, and i-motifs (Choi and Majima 2011; Duckett et al. 1995; Frank-Kamenetskii and Mirkin 1995; Hansel-Hertsch et al. 2017; Lane et al 2008; Plum et al. 1995; Spiegel et al. 2020; Sugimoto et al. 2021; Tateishi-Karimata and Sugimoto 2020, 2021).

Comment 2. c-MYC – perhaps include what its role is and why this is important. It rather jumps out of nowhere.

Several tumor-related genes are mentioned at various places in the manuscript, and we are not sure which appearance of c-MYC caught the reviewer’s attention. The first appearance in the context of our own work was on p. 10, where we noted that it was one of three oncogenes studied previously (i.e., c-MYC, VEGF, and Bcl-2) but said nothing about their biological importnace. To clarify this point, we have added a follow-up sentence on p. 10 of the revised manuscript. The additional sentence reads, “Misregulated expression of those oncogenes is linked to the progression of a variety of cancers including colon, ovarian, breast, prostate, pancreatic, and small-cell lung cancers, as well as osteosarcomas, leukemias, and lymphomas (Baretton et al. 1996; Goel and Mercurio 2013; Gonzalez and Hurley 2010; Wierstra and Alves 2008).”

Comment 3. I am really struggling to understand what the authors mean by Thermodynamic – to me it is obvious that DNA is a dynamic CONTINUUM of structures (not just 2-state) that are remarkably close in energy and that the environment can therefore affect the equilibrium. I assume this is what also underpins their thinking. I think the review would benefit from a short discussion of relevant DNA structures and their energy differences say in vacuo, in solvent, with and without ions, in presence and absence of proteins. Much more consideration needs to be given to environment when the review discusses adoption of structures - how much on an energetic edge is the system. What is the role of entropy? If the paper is about thermodynamic control what they mean by it needs to be clear and DATA need to be presented to address the hypothesis.

This comment consists of five sub-comments which are addressed as follows.

(i) We are hard-pressed to understand what the reviewer means by “a dynamic continuum of structures (not just 2-state) that are remarkably close in energy”. DNA is a polymorphic macromolecule that may adopt not only the B-DNA and coiled conformations but also non-canonical conformations, such as G-quadruplex, i-motif, Z-DNA, triplex, and cruciform DNA. Our own model comprises five states (duplex, G-quadruplex, i-motif, G-coil, and C-coil), and the reviewer’s reference to two states is therefore unclear. Also, it seems to us that the notion of a dynamic continuum is misleading. DNA generally is thought to have a discrete set of thermodynamically stable structures that differ significantly in free energy and are separated by high energy barriers.

To avoid any possible misunderstanding, we have placed additional references to the fact that our models have five states at appropriate spots in the revised manuscript. In fact, our approach has been developed in large part to handle situations with more than two states.

(ii) Further to the matter of states and equilibria, the reviewer asked that we include a short discussion of “relevant DNA structures and their energy differences say in vacuo, in solvent, with and without ions, in presence and absence of proteins”. DNA structures, their energetics, and environmental factors certainly are important, but it is a vast topic that has been studied intensively for many decades. We doubt that any meaningful discussion could be short, nor do we believe that it would fall within the context of our Perspective; indeed, it very likely would distract the reader from the main topic.

That having been said, we do agree that such issues deserve mention and have acknowledged them in a new sentence on pp. 4-5 of the revised manuscript, which reads as follows, “The structure and energetics of DNA states, both canonical and non-canonical, and the enthalpic and entropic interactions that govern the stability of such states, have been the subject of many reviews (Benabou et al. 2014; Day et al. 2014; Frank-Kamenetskii and Mirkin 1995; Khutsishvili et al. 2009; Nakano et al. 2014; Plum et al. 1995; Privalov and Crane-Robinson 2018; Vologodskii and Fran-Kameneyskii 2018)”.

(iii) As noted above, we agree with the reviewer that environment plays a very important role in modulating the distribution of conformational states adopted by DNA. We therefore have made a point of raising this issue throughout our Perspective. At several places in the text, we carefully identify and discuss the conformational impact of solution conditions including temperature, pH, the type and concentration and the type of cations, and the presence of crowders.

(iv) The reviewer asked about the role of entropy. The energetics of DNA, including the enthalpic and entropic forces stabilizing DNA structures, have been under intensive scrutiny for more than five decades. Many entropic contributions to DNA stability are well understood, including the translational entropy of associating DNA strands, the conformational entropy, the entropic cost of the spine of hydration and hydration in general, counterion condensation around DNA, etc. Despite the fundamental importance of these effects, we believe that their discussion would be outside the scope of our Perspective. We do not seek to disregard them, however, and they therefore are mentioned in the new sentence, noted above, on pp. 4-5 of the revised manuscript. We also cite several excellent reviews in which an interested reader also can much information on the subject and citations to original works.

(v) The reviewer asked about the data to “address the hypothesis”. Please, see our response to Comment 5 below.

Comment 4. The assumptions of 2-state for the spectroscopy analysis should be explored further.

I am afraid that we were not sufficiently clear in the original manuscript. The reviewer seems to be under the impression that the temperature-dependences of the fractional populations of the different conformations presented in Figures 1 and 2 were obtained from two-state analyses of melting profiles. In fact, we used a five-state analysis based on the five conformations and related equilibria depicted in Scheme 1 of the manuscript. The steps involved in the analysis have been described in detail in our earlier papers.

To avoid confusion, we have been more forthcoming in the revised manuscript. In addition to the original description of our protocol on p. 8, we now include some further details on p. 11 when referring to the curves in Figures 1 and 2. The revised text is a follows, “Temperature dependences of the fractional populations of the duplex, G-quadruplex, i-motif, and coiled states adopted by the double-stranded and hairpin constructs described above are shown at pH 5.0 and 7.0 in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The curve for each state was computed according to the five-state model depicted in Scheme 1a (c-MYC-, VEGF-, and Bcl-2-based double-stranded DNA) or in Scheme 1b (c-MYC-based hairpin DNA). The required parametric values were those estimated as described above by deconvolution of the temperature-dependent CD spectra and subsequent analyses of the resulting fractional populations (Garabet et al 2025; Liu et al 2020; Liu et al 2022”.

Comment 5. Where are the data???

This comment is unexpected, since we consider a great deal of data from our own and other laboratories throughout the text. In Sections 2 and 3, we present and discuss biophysical results from our own studies. In Section 4, we describe the hypothesis. In Section 5, we review results from cellular studies and relate them to our biophysical results in support of the hypothesis. Finally, in Section 6, we present and discuss results from relevant kinetic studies.

In the case of our own work, it may be that the reviewer is seeking the primary experimental data. As explained above, they can be found in the cited original works. In our view, to present even a small portion of that material would be disproportionate in a document such as this Perspective. Interested readers of course can find the details in the original works.

Reviewer 2

Comment 1. My only minor quibble is a request for the author to provide a more unambiguous indication of what type of information, in their opinion, is missing to further substantiate and/or refute the hypothesis they put forward.

In response to this comment, we have modified two paragraphs on pp. 23-24. In particular, we have added two sentences in the revised text as follows, “Biophysical studies on many G- and C-rich promoter sequences are needed to provide information on their conformational propensities and the changes in those propensities caused by strategically introduced mutations or different environmental conditions“, and “Biophysical studies need to be complemented by cellular studies that explore the relationships between subtle modifications of a promoter sequence, its conformational response, and the level of transcription of a reporter gene”.

Reviewer 3

Comment 1. One very minor thought that the authors may wish to consider concerning the breadth of the title of their excellent paper. As the Chalikian lab is well aware, gene regulation involves many additional moving parts, each with their own thermodynamic contributions, beyond the duplex/G quadruplex/i-motif dynamic equilibrium. They may wish to slightly modify the title to reflect this focus, or, alternatively, note this reality by adding a sentence or two at the appropriate locus within the text.

In response to this comment, we have added the following sentences to p. 8 of the revised manuscript, “Our focus is primarily on the thermodynamics and, to a lesser extent, the kinetics of duplex-tetraplex interconversions within promoter DNA. Of particular interest is the transcriptional response to specific distributions of canonical and non-canonical DNA conformations in promoter regions of genes. While it is recognized that those effects are but one part of a multilayered regulatory process and operate in concert with other components of the transcriptional machinery, they are discussed here without explicit reference to the crucial role of intervening steps, which include other DNA regulatory elements, epigenetic modifications, chromatin accessibility, RNA polymerase, transcription factors, mediator proteins, and much else. An understanding of all steps is required if we eventually are to understand the relative place and importance of conformational heterogeneity of promoter sequences in the chain of events leading to transcription”.

In closing, I should like once again to thank the reviewers for the time and effort which they evidently spent in their evaluation of our manuscript and for their valuable comments. With the incorporation of the revisions described above, I hope that the work is now acceptable for publication in the QRB Discovery.

Sincerely,

Tigran V. Chalikian, Ph. D.

Professor

Review: Thermodynamic control of gene regulation — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The manuscript is much easier to read now and I have recommended acceptance. However, the manuscript subject is a very visual and structural topic and I am surprised that there are 10 pages of text before any figure to illustrate the text is included. What is G and C and why are the special? What is an I-Motif? What is a quadruplex? The authors are experts and don’t need visual help. If their aim is to teach people who do not work with DNA structures, a figure or two early on would really help the kind of reader who turns to a review.

Recommendation: Thermodynamic control of gene regulation — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Thermodynamic control of gene regulation — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.