scholarly journals CTCF As an Example of DNA-Binding Transcription Factors Containing Clusters of C2H2-Type Zinc Fingers

Acta Naturae ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-46
Author(s):  
Oksana G. Maksimenko ◽  
Dariya V. Fursenko ◽  
Elena V. Belova ◽  
Pavel G. Georgiev
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Dna Binding ◽  
Characteristic Feature ◽  
Dna Sequence ◽  
Binding Sites ◽  
Zinc Fingers ◽  
Topologically Associating Domains ◽  
Key Factor

In mammals, most of the boundaries of topologically associating domains and all well-studied insulators are rich in binding sites for the CTCF protein. According to existing experimental data, CTCF is a key factor in the organization of the architecture of mammalian chromosomes. A characteristic feature of the CTCF is that the central part of the protein contains a cluster consisting of eleven domains of C2H2-type zinc fingers, five of which specifically bind to a long DNA sequence conserved in most animals. The class of transcription factors that carry a cluster of C2H2-type zinc fingers consisting of five or more domains (C2H2 proteins) is widely represented in all groups of animals. The functions of most C2H2 proteins still remain unknown. This review presents data on the structure and possible functions of these proteins, using the example of the vertebrate CTCF protein and several well- characterized C2H2 proteins in Drosophila and mammals.

scholarly journals Comparative structure analysis of the ETSi domain of ERG3 and its complex with the E74 promoter DNA sequence

2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (10) ◽  
pp. 656-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruby Sharma ◽  
Shanti P. Gangwar ◽  
Ajay K. Saxena
Keyword(s):  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Dna Binding ◽  
Dna Sequence ◽  
Structure Analysis ◽  
Dna Sequences ◽  
Space Group ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Comparative Structure ◽  
Ets Domain ◽  
Promoter Dna

ERG3 (ETS-related gene) is a member of the ETS (erythroblast transformation-specific) family of transcription factors, which contain a highly conserved DNA-binding domain. The ETS family of transcription factors differ in their binding to promoter DNA sequences, and the mechanism of their DNA-sequence discrimination is little known. In the current study, crystals of the ETSi domain (the ETS domain of ERG3 containing a CID motif) in space group P41212 and of its complex with the E74 DNA sequence (DNA9) in space group C2221 were obtained and their structures were determined. Comparative structure analysis of the ETSi domain and its complex with DNA9 with previously determined structures of the ERGi domain (the ETS domain of ERG containing inhibitory motifs) in space group P65212 and of the ERGi–DNA12 complex in space group P41212 were performed. The ETSi domain is observed as a homodimer in solution as well as in the crystallographic asymmetric unit. Superposition of the structure of the ETSi domain on that of the ERGi domain showed a major conformational change at the C-terminal DNA-binding autoinhibitory (CID) motif, while minor changes are observed in the loop regions of the ETSi-domain structure. The ETSi–DNA9 complex in space group C2221 forms a structure that is quite similar to that of the ERG–DNA12 complex in space group P41212. Upon superposition of the complexes, major conformational changes are observed at the 5′ and 3′ ends of DNA9, while the conformation of the core GGA nucleotides was quite conserved. Comparison of the ETSi–DNA9 structure with known structures of ETS class 1 protein–DNA complexes shows the similarities and differences in the promoter DNA binding and specificity of the class 1 ETS proteins.

scholarly journals Binding of disparate transcriptional activators to nucleosomal DNA is inherently cooperative.

1995 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 1405-1421 ◽  
Author(s):  
C C Adams ◽  
J L Workman
Keyword(s):  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Dna Binding ◽  
Binding Sites ◽  
Specific Binding ◽  
General Mechanism ◽  
Nf Kappa B ◽  
Nucleosomal Dna ◽  
Nucleosome Binding

To investigate mechanisms by which multiple transcription factors access complex promoters and enhancers within cellular chromatin, we have analyzed the binding of disparate factors to nucleosome cores. We used a purified in vitro system to analyze binding of four activator proteins, two GAL4 derivatives, USF, and NF-kappa B (KBF1), to reconstituted nucleosome cores containing different combinations of binding sites. Here we show that binding of any two or all three of these factors to nucleosomal DNA is inherently cooperative. Thus, the binuclear Zn clusters of GAL4, the helix-loop-helix/basic domains of USF, and the rel domain of NF-kappa B all participated in cooperative nucleosome binding, illustrating that this effect is not restricted to a particular DNA-binding domain. Simultaneous binding by two factors increased the affinity of individual factors for nucleosomal DNA by up to 2 orders of magnitude. Importantly, cooperative binding resulted in efficient nucleosome binding by factors (USF and NF-kappa B) which independently possess little nucleosome-binding ability. The participation of GAL4 derivatives in cooperative nucleosome binding required only DNA-binding and dimerization domains, indicating that disruption of histone-DNA contacts by factor binding was responsible for the increased affinity of additional factors. Cooperative nucleosome binding required sequence-specific binding of all transcription factors, appeared to have spatial constraints, and was independent of the orientation of the binding sites on the nucleosome. These results indicate that cooperative nucleosome binding is a general mechanism that may play a significant role in loading complex enhancer and promoter elements with multiple diverse factors in chromatin and contribute to the generation of threshold responses and transcriptional synergy by multiple activator sites in vivo.

Functional Differences in GATA-1 Affinity for Double Versus Single GATA-1 Binding Sites Dictate Synergistic Versus Antagonistic Interactions of PU.1 and GATA-1 in Myeloid Gene Transcription.

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1608-1608
Author(s):  
Jian Du ◽  
Dharmesh Vyas ◽  
Qing Xi ◽  
Steven J. Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
Dna Binding ◽  
Binding Site ◽  
Gene Transcription ◽  
Binding Sites ◽  
Zinc Fingers ◽  
Specific Expression ◽  
High Affinity ◽  
Dual Versus ◽  
P2 Promoter ◽  
Dual Site

Abstract Instructive roles for both GATA-1 and PU.1 have been demonstrated in hematopoiesis, and recent studies have identified both antagonistic and synergistic interactions between them in myeloid gene transcription and lineage development. In prior studies, we reported that PU.1 synergizes with rather than antagonizes GATA-1 for transactivation of a hallmark eosinophil gene, the major basic protein P2 promoter (MBP-P2), which possesses a novel dual (double) GATA-binding site, similar to the palindromic double site in the murine GATA-1 control locus that may specify eosinophil lineage-specific expression of GATA-1 and eosinophil development. To address the transcriptional mechanism for PU.1-GATA-1 synergy through the MBP-P2 dual GATA site, we investigated GATA-1 and PU.1 physical and functonal interactions via their binding sites in the MBP-P2 promoter. DNA binding affinities of GATA-1 and its C- versus N-terminal zinc fingers were assessed for single versus double GATA sites in the presence or absence of PU.1. Our results show that the dual GATA site strongly binds full length GATA-1 with higher affinity than either of the single sites, using both zinc fingers, but that mutant GATA-1 proteins with C-finger or N-finger deletions retain their ability to bind, albeit at lower affinity, to the dual site. DNA binding activities of the two zinc fingers with the dual GATA site were confirmed using peptides containing only the C-finger or N-finger region. Of note, formation of GATA-1 complexes with the dual GATA site was not inhibited by the addition of PU.1, whereas formation of binding complexes for mutants of GATA-1 containing only the C- or N-finger region could be completely inhibited in a dose-response fashion by PU.1. These unique features of PU.1/GATA-1 interactions on a dual versus single GATA-1 site were confirmed using peptides containing only the C- or N-finger regions of GATA-1. Our findings indicate that both zinc fingers of GATA-1 are involved in formation of the high-affinity GATA-1 complex with the dual site. Importantly, we show that the higher affinity dual GATA-1 site complex is not affected by the addition of PU.1, whereas formation of the binding complex with a single GATA-1 site is eliminated by PU.1, emphasizing the different mechanisms of GATA-1/PU.1 interactions on dual versus single GATA binding sites. Functional analyses by transactivation confirmed that synergistic activation of the MBP-P2 promoter by GATA-1 and PU.1 is mediated by their protein-protein interactions through this unique high affinity dual GATA-1 binding site. We suggest two possible mechanisms for PU.1/GATA-1 synergy on dual GATA sites: (1) PU.1 may change GATA-1 conformation and its high affinity for the dual site, enhancing its availability for interaction with the basal transcriptional machinery. Alternatively, (2) PU.1 could impede interactions of GATA-1 with a co-repressor, e.g. FOG-1, which we and others have shown represses GATA-1 function in the eosinophil lineage.

scholarly journals The Proneural Proteins Atonal and Scute Regulate Neural Target Genes through Different E-Box Binding Sites

2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (21) ◽  
pp. 9517-9526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn M. Powell ◽  
Petra I. zur Lage ◽  
David R. A. Prentice ◽  
Biruntha Senthinathan ◽  
Andrew P. Jarman
Keyword(s):  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Dna Binding ◽  
Binding Sites ◽  
Tandem Repeats ◽  
Target Genes ◽  
Expression Patterns ◽  
Sense Organ ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
E Box ◽  
Bhlh Transcription Factors

ABSTRACT For a particular functional family of basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factors, there is ample evidence that different factors regulate different target genes but little idea of how these different target genes are distinguished. We investigated the contribution of DNA binding site differences to the specificities of two functionally related proneural bHLH transcription factors required for the genesis of Drosophila sense organ precursors (Atonal and Scute). We show that the proneural target gene, Bearded, is regulated by both Scute and Atonal via distinct E-box consensus binding sites. By comparing with other Ato-dependent enhancer sequences, we define an Ato-specific binding consensus that differs from the previously defined Scute-specific E-box consensus, thereby defining distinct EAto and ESc sites. These E-box variants are crucial for function. First, tandem repeats of 20-bp sequences containing EAto and ESc sites are sufficient to confer Atonal- and Scute-specific expression patterns, respectively, on a reporter gene in vivo. Second, interchanging EAto and ESc sites within enhancers almost abolishes enhancer activity. While the latter finding shows that enhancer context is also important in defining how proneural proteins interact with these sites, it is clear that differential utilization of DNA binding sites underlies proneural protein specificity.

scholarly journals Analysis of Activator and Repressor Functions Reveals the Requirements for Transcriptional Control by LuxR, the Master Regulator of Quorum Sensing in Vibrio harveyi

mBio ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia C. van Kessel ◽  
Luke E. Ulrich ◽  
Igor B. Zhulin ◽  
Bonnie L. Bassler
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Dna Binding ◽  
Quorum Sensing ◽  
Binding Site ◽  
Binding Sites ◽  
Vibrio Harveyi ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Nucleotide Sequencing ◽  
Collective Behaviors

ABSTRACT LuxR-type transcription factors are the master regulators of quorum sensing in vibrios. LuxR proteins are unique members of the TetR superfamily of transcription factors because they activate and repress large regulons of genes. Here, we used chromatin immunoprecipitation and nucleotide sequencing (ChIP-seq) to identify LuxR binding sites in the Vibrio harveyi genome. Bioinformatics analyses showed that the LuxR consensus binding site at repressed promoters is a symmetric palindrome, whereas at activated promoters it is asymmetric and contains only half of the palindrome. Using a genetic screen, we isolated LuxR mutants that separated activation and repression functions at representative promoters. These LuxR mutants exhibit sequence-specific DNA binding defects that restrict activation or repression activity to subsets of target promoters. Altering the LuxR DNA binding site sequence to one more closely resembling the ideal LuxR consensus motif can restore in vivo function to a LuxR mutant. This study provides a mechanistic understanding of how a single protein can recognize a variety of binding sites to differentially regulate gene expression. IMPORTANCE Bacteria use the cell-cell communication process called quorum sensing to regulate collective behaviors. In vibrios, LuxR-type transcription factors control the quorum-sensing gene expression cascade. LuxR-type proteins are structural homologs of TetR-type transcription factors. LuxR proteins were assumed to function analogously to TetR proteins, which typically bind to a single conserved binding site to repress transcription of one or two genes. We find here that unlike TetR proteins, LuxR acts a global regulator, directly binding upstream of and controlling more than 100 genes. Again unlike TetR, LuxR functions as both an activator and a repressor, and these two activities can be separated by mutagenesis. Finally, the consensus binding motifs driving LuxR-activated and -repressed genes are distinct. This work shows that LuxR, although structurally similar to TetR, has evolved unique features enabling it to differentially control a large regulon of genes in response to quorum-sensing cues.

scholarly journals Electrostatic repulsion causes anticooperative DNA binding between tumor suppressor ETS transcription factors and JUN-FOS at composite DNA sites

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bethany J. Madison ◽  
Kathleen A. Clark ◽  
Niraja Bhachech ◽  
Peter C. Hollenhorst ◽  
Barbara J. Graves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Dna Binding ◽  
Dna Sequences ◽  
Binding Sites ◽  
Epithelial Cell Line ◽  
Electrostatic Repulsion ◽  
Ets Transcription Factors ◽  
Positively Charged

AbstractMany transcription factors regulate gene expression in a combinatorial fashion often by binding in close proximity on composite cis-regulatory DNA elements. Here we investigate the molecular basis by which ETS transcription factors bind with AP1 transcription factors JUN-FOS at composite DNA-binding sites. The ability to bind to DNA with JUN-FOS correlates with the phenotype of these proteins in prostate cancer: the oncogenic ERG and ETV1/4/5 subfamilies co-occupy ETS-AP1 sites with JUN-FOS in vitro, whereas JUN-FOS robustly inhibits DNA binding by the tumor suppressors EHF and SPDEF. EHF binds to ETS-AP1 DNA with tighter affinity than ERG in the absence of JUN-FOS, which may enable EHF to compete with ERG and JUN-FOS for binding to ETS-AP1 sites. Genome-wide mapping of EHF and ERG binding sites in a prostate epithelial cell line reveal that EHF is preferentially excluded from closely spaced ETS-AP1 DNA sequences. Structural modeling and mutational analyses indicate that adjacent positively-charged surfaces from EHF and JUN-FOS disfavor simultaneous DNA binding due to electrostatic repulsion. The conservation of positively charged residues on the JUN-FOS interface identified ELF1 as an additional ETS factor that exhibits anticooperative DNA binding, and we present evidence that ELF1 is frequently downregulated in prostate cancer. In summary, the divergence of electrostatic features of ETS factors at their JUN-FOS interface enables distinct binding events at ETS-AP1 DNA sequences. We propose that this mechanism can drive unique targeting of ETS transcription factors, thereby facilitating distinct transcriptional programs.

Selection of new HSF1 and HSF2 DNA-binding sites reveals difference in trimer cooperativity

1994 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 7592-7603
Author(s):  
P E Kroeger ◽  
R I Morimoto
Keyword(s):  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Heat Shock ◽  
Dna Binding ◽  
Binding Site ◽  
Binding Sites ◽  
Cellular Stress Response ◽  
Specific Factor ◽  
Heat Shock Element ◽  
Cooperative Interactions ◽  
Dna Binding Sites

Multiple heat shock transcription factors (HSFs) have been discovered in several higher eukaryotes, raising questions about their respective functions in the cellular stress response. Previously, we had demonstrated that the two mouse HSFs (mHSF1 and mHSF2) interacted differently with the HSP70 heat shock element (HSE). To further address the issues of cooperativity and the interaction of multiple HSFs with the HSE, we selected new mHSF1 and mHSF2 DNA-binding sites through protein binding and PCR amplification. The selected sequences, isolated from a random population, were composed primarily of alternating inverted arrays of the pentameric consensus 5'-nGAAn-3', and the nucleotides flanking the core GAA motif were nonrandom. The average number of pentamers selected in each binding site was four to five for mHSF1 and two to three for mHSF2, suggesting differences in the potential for cooperative interactions between adjacent trimers. Our comparison of mHSF1 and mHSF2 binding to selected sequences further substantiated these differences in cooperativity as mHSF1, unlike mHSF2, was able to bind to extended HSE sequences, confirming previous observations on the HSP70 HSE. Certain selected sequences that exhibited preferential binding of mHSF1 or mHSF2 were mutagenized, and these studies demonstrated that the affinity of an HSE for a particular HSF and the extent of HSF interaction could be altered by single base substitutions. The domain of mHSF1 utilized for cooperative interactions was transferable, as chimeric mHSF1/mHSF2 proteins demonstrated that sequences within or adjacent to the mHSF1 DNA-binding domain were responsible. We have demonstrated that HSEs can have a greater affinity for a specific HSF and that in mice, mHSF1 utilizes a higher degree of cooperativity in DNA binding. This suggests two ways in which cells have developed to regulate the activity of closely related transcription factors: developing the ability to fully occupy the target binding site and alteration of the target site to favor interaction with a specific factor.

An interaction between the DNA-binding domains of RelA(p65) and Sp1 mediates human immunodeficiency virus gene activation

1994 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 6570-6583 ◽  
Author(s):  
N D Perkins ◽  
A B Agranoff ◽  
E Pascal ◽  
G J Nabel
Keyword(s):  
Human Immunodeficiency Virus ◽  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Dna Binding ◽  
Binding Sites ◽  
Nf Kappa B ◽  
Dna Binding Domains ◽  
Amino Terminal ◽  
Binding Domains ◽  
Immunodeficiency Virus ◽  
Hiv 1

Induction of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) gene expression in stimulated T cells has been attributed to the activation of the transcription factor NF-kappa B. The twice-repeated kappa B sites within the HIV-1 long terminal repeat are in close proximity to three binding sites for Sp1. We have previously shown that a cooperative interaction of NF-kappa B with Sp1 is required for the efficient stimulation of HIV-1 transcription. In this report, we define the domains of each protein responsible for this effect. Although the transactivation domains seemed likely to mediate this interaction, we find, surprisingly, that this interaction occurs through the putative DNA-binding domains of both proteins. Sp1 specifically interacted with the amino-terminal region of RelA(p65). Similarly, RelA bound directly to the zinc finger region of Sp1. This interaction was specific and resulted in cooperative DNA binding to the kappa B and Sp1 sites in the HIV-1 long terminal repeat. Furthermore, the amino-terminal region of RelA did not associate with several other transcription factors, including MyoD, E12, or Kox15, another zinc finger protein. These findings suggest that the juxtaposition of DNA-binding sites promotes a specific protein interaction between the DNA-binding regions of these transcription factors. This interaction is required for HIV transcriptional activation and may provide a mechanism to allow for selective activation of kappa B-regulated genes.

Role of the T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Oncoprotein TLX1/HOX11 in Chromatin Dynamics and Gene Regulatory Networks.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 56-56
Author(s):  
Irene Riz ◽  
Kristin K. Baxter ◽  
Hyo Jung Lee ◽  
Reza Behnam ◽  
Teresa S. Hawley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transcription Factor ◽  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Dna Binding ◽  
Cell Fate ◽  
Malignant Transformation ◽  
Binding Sites ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Abstract Homeodomain proteins (homeoproteins) have long been recognized as powerful transcriptional regulators. Inappropriate expression of these transcription factors often leads to major developmental malformations or malignant transformation. The in vitro DNA binding sites of homeoproteins are short sequences that are widely distributed throughout the genome and some canonical binding sites have been shown to be functionally important at distances >20 kb away from the nearest transcription start site. In addition to DNA-binding activity, several homeoproteins have been demonstrated to interact with chromatin-modifying enzymes. For example, we and others have reported that the TLX1 homeoprotein of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) inhibits the PP1/PP2A serine/threonine phosphatases (I. Riz and R.G. Hawley, Oncogene 24: 5561–5575, 2005) and more recently have found that TLX1 modulates histone/transcription factor acetyltransferase CBP activity (I. Riz et al., Oncogene 26: 4115–4123, 2007). PP1/PP2A and CBP are complex molecular machines integrating diverse regulatory pathways that impact on cell survival, proliferation and differentiation outcomes. Organogenesis and malignant transformation - despite obvious differences - share a common requirement for high-order cooperativity of transcription factors and transcriptional cofactors in regulating the expression of multiple sets of genes executing cell fate shifts. Targeting key regulatory nodes in order to coordinately regulate multiple genes is a common strategy of virus induced cell-transformation: accordingly, PP1/PP2A and CBP are targeted by transforming viral proteins. The Groucho/TLE (transducin-like Enhancer-of-split) family of corepressors are another example of master regulators of cell fate; for instance, it was reported that triggering the MAPK signaling cascade inactivates TLE corepressors leading to coordinated derepression of a large number of genes involved in cell proliferation. We now demonstrate that TLX1 interferes with TLE1 repressive function. By streptavidin affinity-based precipitation of biotinylated recombinant TLX1 protein (TLX1 fused to a biotinylation peptide) we show in vivo interaction of TLX1 and TLE1 in several different cell types, including human T-ALL and neuroblastoma cells. Interaction of TLX1 with TLE1 occurs via an Engrailed homology 1 (Eh1)-like domain as documented by GST pull-down assays and laser scanning confocal microscopy. Transient transfection experiments indicate that TLX1 prevents TLE1-mediated repression of reporter genes. Furthermore, in the context of endogenous chromatin structure, TLX1 derepresses the bHLH transcription factor gene, ACSL1(HASH1), a well characterized target of the HES1/TLE1 repressor complex. The process requires direct interaction of TLX1 with TLE1 and binding of TLX1 to DNA, since a point mutation in the Eh1-like motif or deletion of the third helix of the TLX1 homeodomain abrogated the effect. Additional data to be presented suggest a long-range mechanism of transcriptional regulation by TLX1: we propose that “transcriptional activation” by TLX1 (and, by analogy, other homeoproteins that interact with TLE corepressors) results in part from the chaperoned redistribution of TLE corepressors from proximal promoter regions of target genes to distal chromatin regulatory sites.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document