scholarly journals Genome reading by the NF-κB transcription factors

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (19) ◽  
pp. 9967-9989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Carmen Mulero ◽  
Vivien Ya-Fan Wang ◽  
Tom Huxford ◽  
Gourisankar Ghosh

Abstract The NF-κB family of dimeric transcription factors regulates transcription by selectively binding to DNA response elements present within promoters or enhancers of target genes. The DNA response elements, collectively known as κB sites or κB DNA, share the consensus 5′-GGGRNNNYCC-3′ (where R, Y and N are purine, pyrimidine and any nucleotide base, respectively). In addition, several DNA sequences that deviate significantly from the consensus have been shown to accommodate binding by NF-κB dimers. X-ray crystal structures of NF-κB in complex with diverse κB DNA have helped elucidate the chemical principles that underlie target selection in vitro. However, NF-κB dimers encounter additional impediments to selective DNA binding in vivo. Work carried out during the past decades has identified some of the barriers to sequence selective DNA target binding within the context of chromatin and suggests possible mechanisms by which NF-κB might overcome these obstacles. In this review, we first highlight structural features of NF-κB:DNA complexes and how distinctive features of NF-κB proteins and DNA sequences contribute to specific complex formation. We then discuss how native NF-κB dimers identify DNA binding targets in the nucleus with support from additional factors and how post-translational modifications enable NF-κB to selectively bind κB sites in vivo.

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (24) ◽  
pp. 9401
Author(s):  
Antonio Bouthelier ◽  
Florinda Meléndez-Rodríguez ◽  
Andrés A. Urrutia ◽  
Julián Aragonés

Cellular response to hypoxia is controlled by the hypoxia-inducible transcription factors HIF1α and HIF2α. Some genes are preferentially induced by HIF1α or HIF2α, as has been explored in some cell models and for particular sets of genes. Here we have extended this analysis to other HIF-dependent genes using in vitro WT8 renal carcinoma cells and in vivo conditional Vhl-deficient mice models. Moreover, we generated chimeric HIF1/2 transcription factors to study the contribution of the HIF1α and HIF2α DNA binding/heterodimerization and transactivation domains to HIF target specificity. We show that the induction of HIF1α-dependent genes in WT8 cells, such as CAIX (CAR9) and BNIP3, requires both halves of HIF, whereas the HIF2α transactivation domain is more relevant for the induction of HIF2 target genes like the amino acid carrier SLC7A5. The HIF selectivity for some genes in WT8 cells is conserved in Vhl-deficient lung and liver tissue, whereas other genes like Glut1 (Slc2a1) behave distinctly in these tissues. Therefore the relative contribution of the DNA binding/heterodimerization and transactivation domains for HIF target selectivity can be different when comparing HIF1α or HIF2α isoforms, and that HIF target gene specificity is conserved in human and mouse cells for some of the genes analyzed.


2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (15) ◽  
pp. 5540-5553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue Liu ◽  
April L. Colosimo ◽  
Xiang-Jiao Yang ◽  
Daiqing Liao

ABSTRACT The adenovirus E1B 55-kDa protein binds to cellular tumor suppressor p53 and inactivates its transcriptional transactivation function. p53 transactivation activity is dependent upon its ability to bind to specific DNA sequences near the promoters of its target genes. It was shown recently that p53 is acetylated by transcriptional coactivators p300, CREB bidning protein (CBP), and PCAF and that acetylation of p53 by these proteins enhances p53 sequence-specific DNA binding. Here we show that the E1B 55-kDa protein specifically inhibits p53 acetylation by PCAF in vivo and in vitro, while acetylation of histones and PCAF autoacetylation is not affected. Furthermore, the DNA-binding activity of p53 is diminished in cells expressing the E1B 55-kDa protein. PCAF binds to the E1B 55-kDa protein and to a region near the C terminus of p53 encompassing Lys-320, the specific PCAF acetylation site. We further show that the E1B 55-kDa protein interferes with the physical interaction between PCAF and p53, suggesting that the E1B 55-kDa protein inhibits PCAF acetylase function on p53 by preventing enzyme-substrate interaction. These results underscore the importance of p53 acetylation for its function and suggest that inhibition of p53 acetylation by viral oncoproteins prevent its activation, thereby contributing to viral transformation.


Development ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 122 (9) ◽  
pp. 2639-2650 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Jun ◽  
C. Desplan

The Pax proteins are a family of transcriptional regulators involved in many developmental processes in all higher eukaryotes. They are characterized by the presence of a paired domain (PD), a bipartite DNA binding domain composed of two helix-turn-helix (HTH) motifs, the PAI and RED domains. The PD is also often associated with a homeodomain (HD) which is itself able to form homo- and hetero-dimers on DNA. Many of these proteins therefore contain three HTH motifs each able to recognize DNA. However, all PDs recognize highly related DNA sequences, and most HDs also recognize almost identical sites. We show here that different Pax proteins use multiple combinations of their HTHs to recognize several types of target sites. For instance, the Drosophila Paired protein can bind, in vitro, exclusively through its PAI domain, or through a dimer of its HD, or through cooperative interaction between PAI domain and HD. However, prd function in vivo requires the synergistic action of both the PAI domain and the HD. Pax proteins with only a PD appear to require both PAI and RED domains, while a Pax-6 isoform and a new Pax protein, Lune, may rely on the RED domain and HD. We propose a model by which Pax proteins recognize different target genes in vivo through various combinations of their DNA binding domains, thus expanding their recognition repertoire.


2011 ◽  
Vol 210 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinke Wang ◽  
Jie Lu ◽  
Guangming Gu ◽  
Yingxun Liu

The DNA-binding specificity of transcription factors (TFs) has broad impacts on cell physiology, cell development and in evolution. However, the DNA-binding specificity of most known TFs still remains unknown. The specificity of a TF protein is determined by its relative affinity to all possible binding sites. In recent years, the development of several in vitro techniques permits high-throughput determination of relative binding affinity of a TF to all possible k bp-long DNA sequences, thus greatly promoting the characterization of DNA-binding specificity of many known TFs. All DNA sequences that can be bound by a TF with various binding affinities form their DNA-binding profile (DBP). The DBP is important to generate an accurate DNA-binding model, identify all DNA-binding sites and target genes of TFs in the whole genome, and build transcription regulatory network. This study reviewed these techniques, especially two master techniques: double-stranded DNA microarray and systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment in combination with parallel DNA sequencing techniques (SELEX-seq).


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arya Zandvakili ◽  
Juli Uhl ◽  
Ian Campbell ◽  
Yuntao Charlie Song ◽  
Brian Gebelein

AbstractHox genes encode a family of transcription factors that, despite having similar in vitro DNA binding preferences, regulate distinct genetic programs along the metazoan anterior-posterior axis. To better define mechanisms of Hox specificity, we compared and contrasted the ability of abdominal Hox factors to regulate two cis-regulatory elements within the Drosophila embryo. Both the Ultrabithorax (Ubx) and Abdominal-A (Abd-A) Hox factors form cooperative complexes with the Extradenticle (Exd) and Homothorax (Hth) transcription factors to repress the distal-less leg selector gene via the DCRE, whereas only Abd-A interacts with Exd and Hth on the RhoA element to activate a rhomboid serine protease gene that stimulates Epidermal Growth Factor secretion. By swapping binding sites between these elements, we found that the RhoA Exd/Hth/Hox site configuration that mediates Abd-A specific activation can also convey transcriptional repression by both Ubx and Abd-A when placed into the DCRE, but only in one orientation. We further show that the orientation and spacing of Hox sites relative to additional transcription factor binding sites within the RhoA and DCRE elements is critical to mediate appropriate cell- and segment-specific output. These results indicate that the interaction between Hox, Exd, and Hth neither determines activation vs repression specificity nor defines Ubx vs Abd-A specificity. Instead the precise integration of Hox sites with additional TF inputs is required for accurate transcriptional output. Taken together, these studies provide new insight into the mechanisms of Hox target and regulatory specificity as well as the constraints placed on regulatory elements to convey appropriate outputs.Author SummaryThe Hox genes encode a family of transcription factors that give cells within each region along the developing body plan a unique identity in animals from worms to mammals. Surprisingly, however, most of the Hox factors bind the same or highly similar DNA sequences. These findings raise a paradox: How can proteins that have highly similar DNA binding properties perform different functions in the animal by regulating different sets of target genes? In this study, we address this question by studying how two Hox factors regulate the expression of target genes that specify leg development and the making of liver-like cells in the developing fly. By comparing and contrasting how Hox target genes are activated and/or repressed, we found that the same Hox binding sites can mediate either activation or repression in a manner that depends upon context. In addition, we found that a Hox binding site that is normally regulated by only one Hox factor, can also be used by more than one Hox factor swapped into another target gene. These findings indicate that the specificity of a Hox factor to regulate target genes does not rely solely upon DNA binding specificity but also requires regulatory specificity.


2001 ◽  
Vol 353 (3) ◽  
pp. 611-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemie HAELENS ◽  
Guy VERRIJDT ◽  
Leen CALLEWAERT ◽  
Ben PEETERS ◽  
Wilfried ROMBAUTS ◽  
...  

Androgens and glucocorticoids are steroid hormones, which exert their effects in vivo by binding and activating their cognate receptors. These intracellular receptors are transcription factors that can bind specific DNA sequences, called hormone response elements, located near the target genes. Although the androgen receptor (AR) and the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) bind the same consensus DNA sequence, androgen-specific responses can be achieved by non-conventional androgen response elements (AREs). Here we determine the specificity mechanism of such a selective element recently identified in the first exon of the human gene for secretory component (sc ARE). This sc ARE consists of two receptor-binding hexamers separated by three nucleotides. The DNA-binding domains of the AR and GR both bind the sc ARE, but, although the AR fragment dimerizes on the element, the GR fragment does not. Comparing the affinities of the DNA-binding domains for mutant forms of the sc ARE revealed that dimeric GR binding is actively excluded by the left hexamer and more precisely by the presence of a G residue at position -3, relative to the central spacer nucleotide. Inserting a G at this position changed a non-selective element into an androgen-selective one. We postulate that the AR recognizes the sc ARE as a direct repeat of two 5′-TGTTCT-3′-like core sequences instead of the classical inverted repeat. Direct repeat binding is not possible for the GR, thus explaining the selectivity of the sc ARE. This alternative dimerization by the AR on the sc ARE is also indicated by the DNA-binding characteristics of receptor fragments in which the dimerization interfaces were swapped. In addition, the flanking and spacer sequences seem to affect the functionality of the sc ARE.


Development ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 124 (22) ◽  
pp. 4425-4433 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.D. Biggin ◽  
W. McGinnis

Recent advances have shed new light on how the Q50 homeoproteins act in Drosophila. These transcription factors have remarkably similar and promiscuous DNA-binding specificities in vitro; yet they each specify distinct developmental fates in vivo. One current model suggests that, because the Q50 homeoproteins have distinct biological functions, they must each regulate different target genes. According to this ‘co-selective binding’ model, significant binding of Q50 homeoproteins to functional DNA elements in vivo would be dependent upon cooperative interactions with other transcription factors (cofactors). If the Q50 homeoproteins each interact differently with cofactors, they could be selectively targeted to unique, limited subsets of their in vitro recognition sites and thus control different genes. However, a variety of experiments question this model. Molecular and genetic experiments suggest that the Q50 homeoproteins do not regulate very distinct sets of genes. Instead, they mostly control the expression of a large number of shared targets. The distinct morphogenic properties of the various Q50 homeoproteins may principally result from the different manners in which they either activate or repress these common targets. Further, in vivo binding studies indicate that at least two Q50 homeoproteins have very broad and similar DNA-binding specificities in embryos, a result that is inconsistent with the ‘co-selective binding’ model. Based on these and other data, we suggest that Q50 homeoproteins bind many of their recognition sites without the aid of cofactors. In this ‘widespread binding’ model, cofactors act mainly by helping to distinguish the way in which homeoproteins regulate targets to which they are already bound.


2004 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 460-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Li ◽  
Shihua He ◽  
Jian-Min Sun ◽  
James R Davie

The Sp family of transcription factors is united by a particular combination of three conserved Cys2His2 zinc fingers that form the sequence-specific DNA-binding domain. Within the Sp family of transcription factors, Sp1 and Sp3 are ubiquitously expressed in mammalian cells. They can bind and act through GC boxes to regulate gene expression of multiple target genes. Although Sp1 and Sp3 have similar structures and high homology in their DNA binding domains, in vitro and in vivo studies reveal that these transcription factors have strikingly different functions. Sp1 and Sp3 are able to enhance or repress promoter activity. Regulation of the transcriptional activity of Sp1 and Sp3 occurs largely at the post-translational level. In this review, we focus on the roles of Sp1 and Sp3 in the regulation of gene expression.Key words: Sp1, Sp3, gene regulation, sub-cellular localization.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Narendra Pratap Singh ◽  
Bony De Kumar ◽  
Ariel Paulson ◽  
Mark E. Parrish ◽  
Carrie Scott ◽  
...  

Knowledge of the diverse DNA binding specificities of transcription factors is important for understanding their specific regulatory functions in animal development and evolution. We have examined the genome-wide binding properties of the mouse HOXB1 protein in embryonic stem cells differentiated into neural fates. Unexpectedly, only a small number of HOXB1 bound regions (7%) correlate with binding of the known HOX cofactors PBX and MEIS. In contrast, 22% of the HOXB1 binding peaks display co-occupancy with the transcriptional repressor REST. Analyses revealed that co-binding of HOXB1 with PBX correlates with active histone marks and high levels of expression, while co-occupancy with REST correlates with repressive histone marks and repression of the target genes. Analysis of HOXB1 bound regions uncovered enrichment of a novel 15 base pair HOXB1 binding motif HB1RE (HOXB1 response element). In vitro template binding assays showed that HOXB1, PBX1, and MEIS can bind to this motif. In vivo, this motif is sufficient for direct expression of a reporter gene and over-expression of HOXB1 selectively represses this activity. Our analyses suggest that HOXB1 has evolved an association with REST in gene regulation and the novel HB1RE motif contributes to HOXB1 function in part through a repressive role in gene expression.


2020 ◽  
Vol 295 (39) ◽  
pp. 13617-13629
Author(s):  
Clément Immarigeon ◽  
Sandra Bernat-Fabre ◽  
Emmanuelle Guillou ◽  
Alexis Verger ◽  
Elodie Prince ◽  
...  

The evolutionarily conserved multiprotein Mediator complex (MED) serves as an interface between DNA-bound transcription factors (TFs) and the RNA Pol II machinery. It has been proposed that each TF interacts with a dedicated MED subunit to induce specific transcriptional responses. But are these binary partnerships sufficient to mediate TF functions? We have previously established that the Med1 Mediator subunit serves as a cofactor of GATA TFs in Drosophila, as shown in mammals. Here, we observe mutant phenotype similarities between another subunit, Med19, and the Drosophila GATA TF Pannier (Pnr), suggesting functional interaction. We further show that Med19 physically interacts with the Drosophila GATA TFs, Pnr and Serpent (Srp), in vivo and in vitro through their conserved C-zinc finger domains. Moreover, Med19 loss of function experiments in vivo or in cellulo indicate that it is required for Pnr- and Srp-dependent gene expression, suggesting general GATA cofactor functions. Interestingly, Med19 but not Med1 is critical for the regulation of all tested GATA target genes, implying shared or differential use of MED subunits by GATAs depending on the target gene. Lastly, we show a direct interaction between Med19 and Med1 by GST pulldown experiments indicating privileged contacts between these two subunits of the MED middle module. Together, these findings identify Med19/Med1 as a composite GATA TF interface and suggest that binary MED subunit–TF partnerships are probably oversimplified models. We propose several mechanisms to account for the transcriptional regulation of GATA-targeted genes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document