scholarly journals Enhancers with cooperative Notch binding sites are more resistant to regulation by the Hairless co-repressor

PLoS Genetics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (9) ◽  
pp. e1009039
Author(s):  
Yi Kuang ◽  
Anna Pyo ◽  
Natanel Eafergan ◽  
Brittany Cain ◽  
Lisa M. Gutzwiller ◽  
...  

Notch signaling controls many developmental processes by regulating gene expression. Notch-dependent enhancers recruit activation complexes consisting of the Notch intracellular domain, the Cbf/Su(H)/Lag1 (CSL) transcription factor (TF), and the Mastermind co-factor via two types of DNA sites: monomeric CSL sites and cooperative dimer sites called Su(H) paired sites (SPS). Intriguingly, the CSL TF can also bind co-repressors to negatively regulate transcription via these same sites. Here, we tested how synthetic enhancers with monomeric CSL sites versus dimeric SPSs bind Drosophila Su(H) complexes in vitro and mediate transcriptional outcomes in vivo. Our findings reveal that while the Su(H)/Hairless co-repressor complex similarly binds SPS and CSL sites in an additive manner, the Notch activation complex binds SPSs, but not CSL sites, in a cooperative manner. Moreover, transgenic reporters with SPSs mediate stronger, more consistent transcription and are more resistant to increased Hairless co-repressor expression compared to reporters with the same number of CSL sites. These findings support a model in which SPS containing enhancers preferentially recruit cooperative Notch activation complexes over Hairless repression complexes to ensure consistent target gene activation.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Kuang ◽  
Anna Pyo ◽  
Natanel Eafergan ◽  
Brittany Cain ◽  
Lisa M. Gutzwiller ◽  
...  

AbstractNotch signaling controls many developmental processes by regulating gene expression. Notch-dependent enhancers recruit activation complexes consisting of the Notch intracellular domain, the Cbf/Su(H)/Lag1 (CSL) transcription factor (TF), and the Mastermind co-factor via two types of DNA sites: monomeric CSL sites and cooperative dimer sites called Su(H) paired sites (SPS). Intriguingly, the CSL TF can also bind co-repressors to negatively regulate transcription via these same sites. Here, we tested how enhancers with monomeric CSL sites versus dimeric SPSs bind Drosophila Su(H) complexes in vitro and mediate transcriptional outcomes in vivo. Our findings reveal that while the Su(H)/Hairless co-repressor complex similarly binds SPS and CSL sites in an additive manner, the Notch activation complex binds SPSs, but not CSL sites, in a cooperative manner. Moreover, transgenic reporters with SPSs mediate stronger, more consistent transcription and are more resistant to increased Hairless co-repressor expression compared to reporters with the same number of CSL sites. These findings support a model in which SPS containing enhancers preferentially recruit cooperative Notch activation complexes over Hairless repression complexes to ensure consistent target gene activation.


2007 ◽  
Vol 403 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benoit R. Gauthier ◽  
Yvan Gosmain ◽  
Aline Mamin ◽  
Jacques Philippe

The transcription factor Nkx6.1 is required for the establishment of functional insulin-producing β-cells in the endocrine pancreas. Overexpression of Nkx6.1 has been shown to inhibit glucagon gene expression while favouring insulin gene activation. Down-regulation resulted in the opposite effect, suggesting that absence of Nkx6.1 favours glucagon gene expression. To understand the mechanism by which Nkx6.1 suppresses glucagon gene expression, we studied its effect on the glucagon gene promoter activity in non-islet cells using transient transfections and gel-shift analyses. In glucagonoma cells transfected with an Nkx6.1-encoding vector, the glucagon promoter activity was reduced by 65%. In BHK21 cells, Nkx6.1 inhibited by 93% Pax6-mediated activation of the glucagon promoter, whereas Cdx2/3 and Maf stimulations were unaltered. Although Nkx6.1 could interact with both the G1 and G3 element, only the former displayed specificity for Nkx6.1. Mutagenesis of the three potential AT-rich motifs within the G1 revealed that only the Pax6-binding site preferentially interacted with Nkx6.1. Chromatin immunoprecipitation confirmed interaction of Nkx6.1 with the glucagon promoter and revealed a direct competition for binding between Pax6 and Nkx6.1. A weak physical interaction between Pax6 and Nkx6.1 was detected in vitro and in vivo suggesting that Nkx6.1 predominantly inhibits glucagon gene transcription through G1-binding competition. We suggest that cell-specific expression of the glucagon gene may only proceed when Nkx6.1, in combination with Pdx1 and Pax4, are silenced in early α-cell precursors.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 277-277
Author(s):  
Huacheng Luo ◽  
Ganqian Zhu ◽  
Tsz Kan Fung ◽  
Yi Qiu ◽  
Mingjiang Xu ◽  
...  

We reported recently that HOXA locus associated lncRNA, HOTTIP, is highly expressed in AML patients carrying MLL rearrangement and NPM1c+ mutations. The expression of HOTTIP positively correlates with posterior HOXA gene expression and poor patient survival. We further demonstrated that HOTTIP acts as an epigenetic regulator to define oncogenic HOXA topologically associated domain (TAD) and drive HOXA associated leukemic transcription program. However, it remains unclear whether and how HOTTIP lncRNA is involved in remodeling leukemic genome to facilitate AML leukemogenesis. Here, we showed that HOTTIP regulates a fraction of CTCF binding sites (CBSs) in the AML genome by directly interacting with CTCF and its binding motifs. We carried out CTCF ChIP-seq and HOTTIP ChIRP (chromatin isolation by RNA purification)-seq comparing WT and HOTTIP knockout (KO) MOLM13 cells. KO of HOTTIP in MLL-rearranged MOLM13 AML cells specifically impaired CTCF binding sites that were co-occupied by HOTTIP lncRNA, whereas loss of HOTTIP did not affect global CTCF binding. These target genes include posterior HOXA genes and Wnt target genes such as C-MYC, EVI1, AXIN, and TWIST1. Furthermore, we found that HOTTIP interacts with its putative target sites by formation of DNA: RNA hybridization structure triple helix and R-loop in vivo and in vitro. We then carried out DRIP (DNA-RNA immunoprecipitation)-seq and DRIPc(DNA-RNA immunoprecipitation followed by cDNA conversion)-Seq, which utilize a sequence independent but structure-specific S9.6 antibody for DRIP to capture global R-loops, by comparing WT and HOTTIP KO MOLM13 cells. The obtained DRIP-seq and DRIPc-seq data were then incorporated and integrated with the HOTTIP ChIRP-seq and CTCF ChIP-seq data to explore global collaboration between R-loop and HOTTIP associated CTCF binding sites. We found that HOTTIP interacts with CTCF binding motif that defines the TADs and the promoters of the HOTTIP target genes by formation of R-loop or triple helix structure. Loss of HOTTIP disrupted the R-loop formation at promoters and enhancers of the HOTTIP target genes to inhibit their expression. In MLL-rearranged AML genome, in addition to the HOXA locus, CTCF forms leukemic specific TADs that protect aberrant Wnt target genes. Depletion of HOTTIP lncRNA impaired CTCF defined TADs in the Wnt target gene loci and reduced Wnt target gene expression. In contrast, overexpression of Hottip lncRNA (Hottip-Tg) in the mice bone marrow hematopoietic compartment perturbs hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) self-renewal and differentiation leading to AML like disease by reinforcing CTCF defined TADs, enhancing chromatin accessibility within TADs, and upregulating gene transcription in the Wnt target loci. Finally, when we treated HOTTIP expressed primary patient AML cells carrying MLL-rearrangement and their derived PDX mouse model with a canonical Wnt inhibitor, ICG-001, ICG-001 inhibited AML LSC self-renewal in in vitro by LTC-IC assays and in vivo leukemogenesis in the PDX mouse models with an aberrant HOTTIP lncRNA expression, but not in HOTTIP negative/low non-MLL AML samples. Thus, HOTTIP lncRNA and CTCF cooperate to specifically reinforce CTCF defined WNT target locus TADs and drive Wnt target gene expression in the HOTTIP expressed AML. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2005 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gareth N Corry ◽  
D Alan Underhill

To date, the majority of the research regarding eukaryotic transcription factors has focused on characterizing their function primarily through in vitro methods. These studies have revealed that transcription factors are essentially modular structures, containing separate regions that participate in such activities as DNA binding, protein–protein interaction, and transcriptional activation or repression. To fully comprehend the behavior of a given transcription factor, however, these domains must be analyzed in the context of the entire protein, and in certain cases the context of a multiprotein complex. Furthermore, it must be appreciated that transcription factors function in the nucleus, where they must contend with a variety of factors, including the nuclear architecture, chromatin domains, chromosome territories, and cell-cycle-associated processes. Recent examinations of transcription factors in the nucleus have clarified the behavior of these proteins in vivo and have increased our understanding of how gene expression is regulated in eukaryotes. Here, we review the current knowledge regarding sequence-specific transcription factor compartmentalization within the nucleus and discuss its impact on the regulation of such processes as activation or repression of gene expression and interaction with coregulatory factors.Key words: transcription, subnuclear localization, chromatin, gene expression, nuclear architecture.


2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 800-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoru Kobayashi ◽  
Troy Lackey ◽  
Yuan Huang ◽  
Egbert Bisping ◽  
William T. Pu ◽  
...  

Development ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 126 (16) ◽  
pp. 3607-3616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Chen ◽  
J.R. Cardinaux ◽  
R.H. Goodman ◽  
S.M. Smolik

Hedgehog (HH) is an important morphogen involved in pattern formation during Drosophila embryogenesis and disc development. cubitus interruptus (ci) encodes a transcription factor responsible for transducing the hh signal in the nucleus and activating hh target gene expression. Previous studies have shown that CI exists in two forms: a 75 kDa proteolytic repressor form and a 155 kDa activator form. The ratio of these forms, which is regulated positively by hh signaling and negatively by PKA activity, determines the on/off status of hh target gene expression. In this paper, we demonstrate that the exogenous expression of CI that is mutant for four consensus PKA sites [CI(m1-4)], causes ectopic expression of wingless (wg) in vivo and a phenotype consistent with wg overexpression. Expression of CI(m1-4), but not CI(wt), can rescue the hh mutant phenotype and restore wg expression in hh mutant embryos. When PKA activity is suppressed by expressing a dominant negative PKA mutant, the exogenous expression of CI(wt) results in overexpression of wg and lethality in embryogenesis, defects that are similar to those caused by the exogenous expression of CI(m1-4). In addition, we demonstrate that, in cell culture, the mutation of any one of the three serine-containing PKA sites abolishes the proteolytic processing of CI. We also show that PKA directly phosphorylates the four consensus phosphorylation sites in vitro. Taken together, our results suggest that positive hh and negative PKA regulation of wg gene expression converge on the regulation of CI phosphorylation.


2012 ◽  
Vol 303 (9) ◽  
pp. E1166-E1176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfred Ip ◽  
Weijuan Shao ◽  
Yu-ting Alex Chiang ◽  
Tianru Jin

Certain single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in transcription factor 7-like 2 (TCF7L2) are strongly associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes. TCF7L2 and β-catenin (β-cat) form the bipartite transcription factor cat/TCF in stimulating Wnt target gene expression. cat/TCF may also mediate the effect of other signaling cascades, including that of cAMP and insulin in cell-type specific manners. As carriers of TCF7L2 type 2 diabetes risk SNPs demonstrated increased hepatic glucose production, we aimed to determine whether TCF7L2 expression is regulated by nutrient availability and whether TCF7L2 and Wnt regulate hepatic gluconeogenesis. We examined hepatic Wnt activity in the TOPGAL transgenic mouse, assessed hepatic TCF7L2 expression in mice upon feeding, determined the effect of insulin on TCF7L2 expression and β-cat Ser675 phosphorylation, and investigated the effect of Wnt activation and TCF7L2 knockdown on gluconeogenic gene expression and glucose production in hepatocytes. Wnt activity was observed in pericentral hepatocytes in the TOPGAL mouse, whereas TCF7L2 expression was detected in human and mouse hepatocytes. Insulin and feeding stimulated hepatic TCF7L2 expression in vitro and in vivo, respectively. In addition, insulin activated β-cat Ser675 phosphorylation. Wnt activation by intraperitoneal lithium injection repressed hepatic gluconeogenic gene expression in vivo, whereas lithium or Wnt-3a reduced gluconeogenic gene expression and glucose production in hepatic cells in vitro. Small interfering RNA-mediated TCF7L2 knockdown increased glucose production and gluconeogenic gene expression in cultured hepatocytes. These observations suggest that Wnt signaling and TCF7L2 are negative regulators of hepatic gluconeogenesis, and TCF7L2 is among the downstream effectors of insulin in hepatocytes.


2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 688-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Yarrington ◽  
Jared S. Rudd ◽  
David J. Stillman

Promoters often contain multiple binding sites for a single factor. The yeastHOgene contains nine highly conserved binding sites for the SCB (Swi4/6-dependent cell cycle box) binding factor (SBF) complex (composed of Swi4 and Swi6) in the 700-bp upstream regulatory sequence 2 (URS2) promoter region. Here, we show that the distal and proximal SBF sites in URS2 function differently. Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) experiments show that SBF binds preferentially to the left side of URS2 (URS2-L), despite equivalent binding to the left-half and right-half SBF sitesin vitro. SBF binding at URS2-L sites depends on prior chromatin remodeling events at the upstream URS1 region. These signals from URS1 influence chromatin changes at URS2 but only at sites within a defined distance. SBF bound at URS2-L, however, is unable to activate transcription but instead facilitates SBF binding to sites in the right half (URS2-R), which are required for transcriptional activation. Factor binding atHO, therefore, follows a temporal cascade, with SBF bound at URS2-L serving to relay a signal from URS1 to the SBF sites in URS2-R that ultimately activate gene expression. Taken together, we describe a novel property of a transcription factor that can have two distinct roles in gene activation, depending on its location within a promoter.


2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 514-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Heise ◽  
Julia van der Felden ◽  
Sandra Kern ◽  
Mario Malcher ◽  
Stefan Brückner ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the TEA transcription factor Tec1 is known to regulate target genes together with a second transcription factor, Ste12. Tec1-Ste12 complexes can activate transcription through Tec1 binding sites (TCSs), which can be further combined with Ste12 binding sites (PREs) for cooperative DNA binding. However, previous studies have hinted that Tec1 might regulate transcription also without Ste12. Here, we show that in vivo, physiological amounts of Tec1 are sufficient to stimulate TCS-mediated gene expression and transcription of the FLO11 gene in the absence of Ste12. In vitro, Tec1 is able to bind TCS elements with high affinity and specificity without Ste12. Furthermore, Tec1 contains a C-terminal transcriptional activation domain that confers Ste12-independent activation of TCS-regulated gene expression. On a genome-wide scale, we identified 302 Tec1 target genes that constitute two distinct classes. A first class of 254 genes is regulated by Tec1 in a Ste12-dependent manner and is enriched for genes that are bound by Tec1 and Ste12 in vivo. In contrast, a second class of 48 genes can be regulated by Tec1 independently of Ste12 and is enriched for genes that are bound by the stress transcription factors Yap6, Nrg1, Cin5, Skn7, Hsf1, and Msn4. Finally, we find that combinatorial control by Tec1-Ste12 complexes stabilizes Tec1 against degradation. Our study suggests that Tec1 is able to regulate TCS-mediated gene expression by Ste12-dependent and Ste12-independent mechanisms that enable promoter-specific transcriptional control.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document