|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online 19 April 2006
doi: 10.1242/dev.02372
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Program in Developmental Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
77030, USA.
2 Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine,
Houston, TX 77030, USA.
3 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
77030, USA.
4 Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, FORTH and Department of
Biology, University of Crete, Heraklion, GR-71110, Greece.
Author for correspondence (e-mail:
hbellen{at}bcm.tmc.edu)
Accepted 20 March 2006
 |
SUMMARY |
|---|
 TOP SUMMARY INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
90% identical to the
corresponding zinc fingers of its vertebrate homologue Gfi1, which is thought
to cooperate with bHLH proteins in several contexts, the Senseless/bHLH
interaction might be evolutionarily conserved.
Key words: Drosophila, Senseless
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
; Chandrasekaran and
Beckendorf, 2003; Frankfort et
al., 2001; Gilks et al.,
1993; Grimes et al.,
1996; Hock et al.,
2004; Hock et al.,
2003; Jia et al.,
1996; Karsunky et al.,
2002; Nolo et al.,
2000; Saleque et al.,
2002; Shroyer et al.,
2005; Tong et al.,
1998; Tsuda et al.,
2005; Zeng et al.,
2004). Although the functions of sens and its C.
elegans homologue pattern of gene expression-3 (pag-3)
have been mainly studied in the context of the nervous system, most of the
studies of the vertebrate homologues growth factor independence 1
(Gfi1) and Gfi1b have focused on hematopoietic development.
However, recent work has provided strong evidence that Gfi1 is
required in the nervous system (Dufourcq
et al., 2004; Tsuda et al.,
2005; Wallis et al.,
2003). Indeed, the Gfi1 loss-of-function phenotype in
mouse inner ear hair cells is quite similar to the loss-of-function phenotype
of sens in embryonic sensory organs
(Nolo et al., 2000;
Wallis et al., 2003). In
addition, expression of sens and Gfi1 in fly and mouse
sensory organ precursors depends on the activity of fly basic helix-loop-helix
(bHLH)-type proneural proteins and their mouse orthologues, respectively
(Bertrand et al., 2002;
Brown et al., 2001;
Hassan and Bellen, 2000;
Jafar-Nejad et al., 2003;
Nolo et al., 2000;
Wallis et al., 2003).
Moreover, sens and proneural genes function in the same pathway
during sensory organ development, and there is evidence for Gfi1/bHLH
cooperation in vertebrate tissues (Brown et
al., 2001; Frankfort et al.,
2001; Frankfort et al.,
2004; Jafar-Nejad et al.,
2003; Kazanjian et al.,
2004; Nolo et al.,
2000; Shroyer et al.,
2005; Wallis et al.,
2003). Altogether, these observations strongly suggest that some
mechanisms involved in the expression and function of Gfi1/1b, PAG-3 and Sens
(GPS) proteins are evolutionarily conserved.
GPS proteins are C2H2-type Zn-finger nuclear proteins. There are six Zn
fingers in Gfi1 and Gfi1b, five in PAG-3 and four in Sens. There is
88-89% sequence identity between Sens Zn fingers and the four
C-terminal-most Zn fingers of Gfi1/1b and PAG-3
(Jafar-Nejad and Bellen,
2004). Both Gfi1 and Gfi1b have been shown to bind to the same
consensus DNA element [taAATCac(a/t)gca; with the core sequence in uppercase]
using their Zn-finger domains. There is ample evidence that both proteins
function as DNA-binding transcriptional repressors
(Doan et al., 2004;
Grimes et al., 1996;
Jegalian and Wu, 2002;
Tong et al., 1998;
Vassen et al., 2005;
Zweidler-Mckay et al., 1996),
although it has been suggested that they can also act as transcriptional
activators (Osawa et al.,
2002; Sharina et al.,
2003). As predicted from the evolutionary conservation of their Zn
fingers, PAG-3 and Sens strongly bind to the Gfi1/1b consensus binding site
(Aamodt et al., 2000;
Jafar-Nejad et al., 2003).
Indeed, the sequence identity between the Zn fingers of the GPS proteins goes
beyond what is necessary to bind the same DNA sequence, suggesting that GPS Zn
fingers might play conserved functional roles other than DNA binding
(Jia et al., 1997).
sens was isolated in a genetic screen designed to identify novel
genes involved in the development of the embryonic peripheral nervous system
(PNS) in Drosophila (Salzberg et
al., 1994). sens is expressed in sensory organ precursors
and their progeny in both embryonic and adult PNS. In sens mutant
embryos, sensory organ precursors (SOPs) form and divide but fail to
differentiate properly, and instead undergo apoptosis
(Nolo et al., 2000;
Salzberg et al., 1994). Adult
PNS development is also impaired in sens mutant clones, indicating
that sens is required for the development of most or all sensory
organs in flies. Moreover, ectopic expression of sens induces ectopic
sensory organ formation, suggesting that Sens can play an instructive role in
this process (Jafar-Nejad et al.,
2003; Nolo et al.,
2000). In Drosophila, the bHLH proneural proteins are
involved in the selection of SOPs and implementation of neuronal fate in
sensory lineages (Bertrand et al.,
2002; Culi and Modolell,
1998; Goulding et al.,
2000; Huang et al.,
2000; Jarman et al.,
1993; Modolell,
1997; Villares and Cabrera,
1987). As DNA-binding transcriptional activators, proneural
proteins bind E-box elements and drive gene expression
(Cabrera and Alonso, 1991;
Murre et al., 1989;
Van Doren et al., 1991). Given
the evolutionary conservation of the role of bHLH proteins in neurogenesis,
understanding how bHLH proteins regulate the expression of their target genes
is of interest (Bertrand et al.,
2002; Hassan and Bellen,
2000). We have previously presented in vivo and in vitro evidence
that on a proneural target gene enhancer with multiple E-boxes and a
Sens-binding site (S-box), Sens can function as a repressor or activator,
depending on the level of Sens relative to proneural proteins
(Jafar-Nejad et al., 2003).
Although our findings suggested that binding of Sens to DNA might oppose its
transcriptional synergism with proneural proteins, the structural basis for
this synergism and the mechanism for the switch between the repressor and
activator functions of Sens remain unknown.
Here, we dissect the mechanism of the transcriptional activation and repression mediated by the Sens protein on bHLH target enhancers. We present evidence that besides binding DNA, the core Zn fingers of Sens physically interact with proneural proteins, and therefore are responsible for both repression and co-activation. The DNA-binding-dependent repression and the bHLH-binding-dependent co-activator functions of Senseless are separable both in transcription assays and in vivo. We propose that differential affinity of the Sens Zn fingers for their DNA recognition site versus proneural proteins allows dual function in the transcriptional regulation of target genes.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
); C684-Gal4
(Manseau et al., 1997); y
w; UAS-FLP; C684-Gal4 y+ FRT80B, UAS-sens-1CC, UAS-sens-2CC,
UAS-sens-3CC, UAS-sens-4CC, y w; sens-g; sensE2 red e/TM3, Kr-GFP,
y w; sens-1CCg; sensE2 red e/TM3, Kr-GFP, y w; sens-3CCg;
sensE2 red e/TM3, Kr-GFP (this study); and
Eq-Gal4/TM6B (Pi et al.,
2001). To rescue the adult mitotic clones of
sensE2 with sens genomic transgenes (sens-g,
sens-1CCg or sens-3CCg), L+ Tb+
progeny of the following cross were inspected for regions of bristle loss or
yellow- bristles: y w; UAS-FLP; C684-Gal4
y+ FRT80B x y w; sens-Xg/L; sensE2
FRT80B/TM6, Tb. Quantification of the post-orbital bristles was performed
in y w eyeless-FLP; sensE2 FRT80B/w+ M(3)67C
FRT80B (sens clones with no rescue) and y w eyeless-FLP;
sens-Xg/+; sensE2 FRT80B/w+ M(3)67C FRT80B flies,
in which sens-Xg stands for sens-g, sens-1CCg, sens-2CCg,
sens-3CCg or sens-4CCg. Embryo collection, fixation and staining
were performed using standard procedures
(Bellen et al., 1992). Primary
antibodies used in this study are rat 
-Elav 1:500 (7E8A10; DSHB)
(O'Neill et al., 1994), guinea
pig anti-Sens 1:1000 (Nolo et al.,
2000) and mouse mAb 22C10 1:100 (DSHB)
(Zipursky et al., 1984).
Secondary antibodies were from Molecular Probes (Alexa488-conjugated) and from
Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories (Cy3 and Cy5 conjugated), and were used at
1:500.
Preparation of the mutant sens genomic rescue and UAS constructs
sens open reading frame cloned in pBluescript was mutated using
the Quikchange site-directed mutagenesis kit (Stratagene) to generate
Zn-finger mutant versions of sens, which were then transferred to the
pUAST vector. A 1769 bp fragment that includes the coding region for the
Zn-finger domains of sens in the genomic construct of sens
was obtained by digesting the sens genomic rescue fragment with
RsrII and AatII restriction enzymes. This 1769 bp
RsrII-AatII fragment was cloned into a modified version of
pBluescript vector using AatII and RsrII sites. The
Quikchange site directed mutagenesis kit was used to change the cysteines in
Zn-finger domains into alanines. The mutant 1769 bp
AatII-RsrII fragment was then excised from the pBluescript
vector and cloned into the 21 kb pCaSpeR4-sens genomic rescue
construct, which was fully digested with RsrII and partially digested
with AatII. Colonies were screened by PCR and positive colonies were
sequenced to determine the correct insertions.
EMSA, S2 cell transfection and luciferase assays
EMSA was performed as described previously
(Ou et al., 2000). The
proteins were in vitro translated using TNT Quick Coupled
Transcription/Translation System kit (Promega). The R21 optimal
Gfi1/Sens-binding sequence (Jafar-Nejad et
al., 2003; Zweidler-Mckay et
al., 1996) and the Sens-binding site on the ac promoter
were used as the probes. Fifty times unlabeled probe was used as cold
competitor. Transfection and luciferase assays were performed as described by
Jafar-Nejad et al. (Jafar-Nejad et al.,
2003). E-box and S-box mutagenesis were performed using the
Quikchange site-directed mutagenesis kit. E-boxes were mutated from CANNTG to
AANNTT, and the S-box core was mutated from AATC to GGTC. All constructs were
verified by sequencing. The primer sequences are available upon request.
GST pull-down experiments
GST fusion proteins were expressed using pGEX-4T1 vector (Amersham
Biosciences) in BL-21 pLys(S) cells (Novagen). sens and different
sens fragments were cloned into pGBKT7 vector (Clontech) in-frame
with the N terminal c-myc tag and in vitro translated using TNT Quick Coupled
Transcription/Translation System kit (Promega). The same protocol as described
by Giagtzoglou et al. (Giagtzoglou et al.,
2003) was used to perform GST pull-down experiments. Detection was
performed by western blot using anti-c-myc antibody (9E10, DSHB).
Co-immunoprecipitations
sens open reading frame was cloned into pCMV-HA vector (Clontech)
in-frame with the N-terminal HA tag. achaete open reading frame was
cloned into p3XFLAG-CMV-10 expression vector (Sigma) in-frame with N-terminal
3xFLAG tag. Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen) was used to transfect COS-7
cells according to the manufacturer's protocol. A total of 24 µg of DNA was
transfected per 100 mm culture dish. Thirty-six hours after transfection cells
in each culture dish were washed twice with cold PBS and were then harvested
in 700 µl IP buffer [50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 150 mM NaCl, 0.5% NP40, 5 mM
EDTA, 0.1 mM PMSF and Complete protease inhibitor (Roche)] for 45 minutes to
obtain whole cell lysate. Upon centrifugation at 16,000 g, the
supernatant was used for the IP reaction. Anti-HA monoclonal agarose conjugate
(Sigma) was used for Co-IP reactions based on the product user manual. For
washing steps the above-mentioned IP buffer was used.
Statistical analysis of the post-orbital bristle numbers
One-way ANOVA with Scheffe error protection was used to determine the
statistical significance of the differences between the number of post-orbital
bristles in the genotypes under study. The P values are determined
using `t-test for independent samples'.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
).
The reporter construct used in that study consists of the ac proximal
enhancer/promoter region upstream of the firefly luciferase coding sequence
(ac-luc; Fig. 1A).
This ac enhancer contains a Sens-binding site (S-box) and three
E-boxes, known binding sites for proneural proteins. Proneural proteins
heterodimerize with Daughterless (Da) via their bHLH domains and bind to the
E-boxes on ac-luc to upregulate transcription
(Cabrera and Alonso, 1991;
Caudy et al., 1988;
Van Doren et al., 1991;
Van Doren et al., 1992).
Depending on the amount of ac and da expression constructs
transfected, the luciferase expression from this reporter can be increased 10
to 1000 times the basal level. To obtain the optimal sensitivity in the
transcription assays, we use low levels of proneural expression constructs
(1-2 ng) to assess the transcriptional activation potential of Sens
(activation assay), and higher levels of proneurals (10 ng) to assess the
transcriptional repression potential of Sens (repression assay). In the
absence of Ac and Da, Sens does not activate or repress ac
transcription.
|
), and
found nine conserved stretches of 6-10 amino acids in the Sens N-terminal
domain. Mutational analysis of the conserved stretches followed by
transcription assays indicate that the individual conserved motifs in the
N-terminal domain are not important for the activation and repression mediated
on ac by Sens (data not shown).
The four C2H2-type Zn-finger domains of the GPS proteins, which mediate DNA
binding, are shown in Fig. 1B
(Nolo et al., 2000;
Zweidler-Mckay et al., 1996).
Deletion analysis of Gfi1 Zn fingers has shown that Zn fingers 3-5 of Gfi1,
which correspond to Zn fingers 1-3 of Sens, are required for DNA binding
(Zweidler-Mckay et al., 1996).
To begin to assess the precise role of individual Zn fingers in the repressor
and activator functions of Sens, we mutated each Zn finger in Sens and
examined the ability of the mutant Sens proteins to bind DNA in
electromobility shift assays (EMSA). We generated two types of mutants for
each Zn finger. In the first group (Sens-1CC, Sens-2CC, Sens-3CC and
Sens-4CC), we mutated the two cysteines in the C2H2 structure to alanines
(Fig. 1B, stars). These
mutations probably disrupt the structure of the individual Zn fingers. In the
second group (Sens-1RTT, Sens-2QDK, Sens-3QNT and Sens-4RDR), we altered the
amino acids that have been predicted to directly contact DNA to alanines
(Fig. 1B, boxes)
(Pavletich and Pabo, 1991;
Zweidler-Mckay et al., 1996).
Since these amino acids are not crucial for the Zn-finger structure
(Blancafort et al., 2004),
these mutations should abolish direct contact with specific DNA targets but at
least partially preserve the overall Zn-finger structure.
To determine protein-DNA interactions and relative binding affinities of
the mutant Sens proteins for DNA, we used two different probes in EMSA assays.
To detect weak protein-DNA interactions, we used as a probe a previously
characterized Gfi1-binding site called R21, to which the wild-type Sens is
able to bind strongly (Fig. 1C,
lane 2). As shown in Fig. 1C,
Sens-1CC, Sens-2CC and Sens-3CC proteins lose their ability to bind the R21
probe, suggesting that Zn fingers 1, 2 and 3 are required for DNA binding
(Fig. 1C, lanes 4, 6, 8).
However, in agreement with Gfi1 data
(Zweidler-Mckay et al., 1996),
Sens-4CC can bind DNA, suggesting that Zn finger 4 is not essential for DNA
binding (Fig. 1C, lane 10). As
shown in Fig. 1C, the second
group of Sens Zn-finger mutants behave somewhat differently in the EMSA.
Sens-2QDK, Sens-3QNT and Sens-4RDR behave similarly to their CC counterparts,
indicating that the amino acids predicted to directly contact the R21 probe in
Zn fingers 2 and 3 are crucially important for DNA binding. However, unlike
Sens-1CC, Sens-1RTT is still able to bind the R21 probe, albeit weaker than
wild-type Sens and Zn-finger 4 mutants
(Fig. 1C, lane 12). This
difference suggests that although Zn finger 1 is required for DNA binding, its
role in DNA binding is more complex than a direct contact between the RTT
amino acids and DNA.
We also used the S-box in the ac promoter as a probe in the EMSA assay to determine the binding affinities of mutant Sens proteins for the endogenous Sens-binding site. Wild-type Sens and Sens-4CC but not Sens-1CC, Sens-2CC nor Sens-3CC are able to bind to the S-box probe (data not shown). Moreover, in line with the R21 data, the Sens-1RTT binds much weaker than wild-type Sens and Sens-4CC. Note that the Sens-4CC binding affinity for the S-box is weaker than wild-type Sens, suggesting that although Zn finger 4 is not essential for DNA binding, it may increase the strength of Sens-DNA interaction.
Zn fingers play different roles in the activation and repression conferred by Sens
To determine the importance of each Zn-finger domain for the activation and
repression mediated by Sens, we tested the mutants in the S2 cell
transcription assay. In our activation assay (ac-da, 2ng), wild-type
Sens can synergize with Ac-Da and increase the transcription induced by Ac-Da
about 18 times (Fig. 1D).
Sens-2CC and Sens-3CC failed to synergize with Ac-Da
(Fig. 1D). Sens-4CC and
especially Sens-1CC exhibited significantly less synergism than wild-type
Sens. Western blot analysis shows that wild-type Sens and all mutant Sens
constructs are expressed at similar levels, indicating that the difference
between the activator potential of mutant versions of Sens is not simply due
to their level of expression or their stability (data not shown). Similar
results were obtained for Sens-1RTT, Sens2-QDK, Sens-3QNT and Sens-4RDR (data
not shown). These data indicate that all Zn fingers cooperate in the Sens/bHLH
synergism. However, Zn fingers 2 and 3 are indispensable for this process.
To test the ability of the Zn-finger mutants to repress ac
transcription, we used our `repression assay'. Low levels of wild-type Sens
repress transcription in this assay and as the Sens to proneural ratio
increases, the Sens activity switches from a repressor to an activator
(Fig. 1E,F)
(Jafar-Nejad et al., 2003).
Sens-4CC and Sens-4RDR behave essentially as wild-type proteins in this assay
(Fig. 1E,F). By contrast,
mutations in Zn fingers 1, 2 or 3 abolish the repression function of Sens,
corroborating the correlation between Sens DNA binding and repression.
Interestingly, Sens-1CC and Sens-1RTT display transcriptional activation at a
lower Sens to proneural ratio compared with the wild-type Sens
(Fig. 1E,F), providing further
evidence for the negative contribution of Sens DNA-binding to its ability to
synergize with proneural proteins. Similar to the data obtained from the
`activation assay' (Fig. 1D),
Sens proteins with mutations in Zn finger 2 or 3 do not show any premature
synergism with Ac-Da (Fig.
1E,F), highlighting the role of these core Zn fingers in both
synergism and repression. Together, these data indicate specific roles for the
Zn fingers in repression and activation
(Table 1).
|
).
Wild-type sens and the CC mutants were ectopically expressed using
the thorax-specific driver Eq-Gal4
(Pi et al., 2001;
Tang and Sun, 2002).
Expression of wild-type Sens using this driver induces numerous extra bristles
on the thorax (Fig. 2B)
(Pi et al., 2004). Sens-1CC
and Sens-4CC are both able to induce many extra bristles
(Fig. 2C,F). However, although
immunohistochemical staining with anti-Senseless antibody indicates comparable
expression levels from all transgenes (data not shown), Sens-2CC and 3CC are
unable to induce extra sensory organs (Fig.
2D,E). As Sens-1CC is unable to bind DNA, the data suggest that
DNA binding is not essential for SOP induction upon Sens overexpression.
Moreover, the inability of Sens-2CC and Sens-3CC to generate extra sensory
organs correlates well with their inability to synergize with Ac-Da in
transcription assays (Table 1)
and suggests a link between Sens transcriptional synergism and SOP
induction.
|
),
and tested each sens genomic transgene for its ability to rescue the
loss of post-orbital bristles in sens clones. In animals with
sens mutant clones but without a rescue transgene, the number of
post-orbital bristles is less than a third of the wild-type number
(Fig. 3E and data not shown). A
wild-type genomic transgene as well as sens-4CCg fully rescues the
bristle loss (Fig. 3E an data
not shown), and sens-1CC causes a partial restoration to about
two-thirds of the wild type. By contrast, sens-2CC or
sens-3CC do not rescue (Fig.
3E and data not shown). In addition, the rescue data for bristles
perfectly correlate with the rescue data of eye size and morphology (data not
shown), where Sens has been shown to be required for R8 photoreceptor
specification (Frankfort et al.,
2001). As 1CC, 2CC and 3CC all disrupt the DNA binding and 1CC
partially preserves the synergism, these data corroborate our cell culture and
in vivo overexpression observations and indicate that the sens
requirement for adult bristle development corresponds to the activator
function of Sens.
|
|
;
Jantz and Berg, 2004). EMSA
assays indicated that phosphomimetic mutation in linker 3 did not cause any
detectable effect on Sens-DNA interactions and phosphomimetic mutation in
linker 1 caused a slight decrease in the affinity of Sens for DNA
(Fig. 4A). However, we did not
detect DNA-binding for Sens with a phosphomimetic mutation in linker 2
(Sens-L2-T-E, Fig. 4A). We next
performed `activation assays' in S2 cells and found that, similar to Sens-1CC,
Sens-L2-T-E can partially synergize with Ac-Da (data not shown). Finally, we
generated transgenic flies that express Sens-L2-T-E and ectopically expressed
mutant Sens using the Eq-Gal4 driver to test if it can induce extra
SOP formation. We found that although weaker than wild-type Sens,
misexpression of Sens-L2-T-E can induce numerous extra bristles
(Fig. 4B,C). These data support
the notion that Sens DNA-binding is not essential for the generation of extra
bristles in vivo and further establish a correlation between the
Sens-proneural synergism in cell culture and bristle induction by Sens in
vivo.
Proneural proteins are able to recruit Sens to the ac regulatory region
The proximal ac enhancer used in the ac-luc reporter has
three E-boxes as well as one S-box (Fig.
1A). Removal of the three E-boxes shows that they are important
for transcriptional activation by Ac-Da or Sc-Da in S2 cell co-transfection
experiments and for proper expression of an ac-lacZ transgene in vivo
(Martinez et al., 1993;
Van Doren et al., 1992). As
our data indicate that binding of Sens to the S-box in the ac
enhancer is not necessary for Sens-proneural synergism, we assessed the role
of each E-box in this process. To this end, we generated ac-luc
reporter constructs with all combinations of single, double and triple mutant
E-boxes in the presence and absence of the S-box.
|
).
Although each individual E-box seems to contribute to the wild-type level of
transcription, E1 is more important than E2 and E3. Similar results were
obtained when low levels of ac-da (2 ng each) were used in
transfection assays (data not shown). These data also serve as a control to
show that when the sens expression vector is not co-transfected with
ac-da, presence or absence of the S-box does not affect the
luciferase expression mediated by Ac-Da. We next co-transfected sens together with proneurals and calculated the ratio between luciferase expression conferred by Ac-Da in the presence and absence of Sens as an amplification ratio (Fig. 5B). Absence of the S-box in an otherwise wild-type construct results in a significant enhancement of luciferase expression in the presence of Sens (Fig. 5B). The amplification ratio becomes even higher in E1, E2 and E3 single mutants. Moreover, when the S-box is mutated, even the presence of E1 or E2 site alone is enough to mediate Sens-proneural synergism. However, when Ac and Da are not able to bind DNA (triple E1, E2, E3 mutant), Sens is unable to synergize with proneural proteins. Together, these data strongly suggest that Sens can be recruited to the ac promoter by the Ac-Da protein complex to potently activate transcription.
Sens interacts with proneural proteins via its Zn-finger domains
As the activator function of Sens fully depends on the presence of
proneural proteins and at least one intact E-box in the enhancer, we
hypothesize that Sens is recruited to the ac enhancer not only via
DNA interaction but also through interaction with proneural proteins. To test
this hypothesis, we first performed a co-IP experiment by expressing HA-tagged
Sens and Flag-tagged Ac in Cos-7 cells. Indeed, antibodies against HA-Sens
permitted precipitation of the Flag-Ac protein, suggesting that Ac and Sens
interact in vivo (Fig. 6A). To
test if Sens and other proneural proteins also interact, we examined if
GST-tagged Ac, Scute (Sc) and Atonal (Ato) can pull down tagged Sens. We find
that Sens physically interacts with all of the bHLH-type proneural proteins
tested here (Fig. 6B) and also
with the ubiquitously expressed bHLH-type protein Daughterless
(Jafar-Nejad et al., 2006), in
agreement with the observation that Sens can synergize with various proneural
proteins in vivo (Nolo et al.,
2000; Quan et al.,
2004).
|
Our cell culture, ectopic expression and rescue experiments indicate that Zn finger 2 and Zn finger 3 are indispensable for Sens function in cell culture and in vivo. To examine if Zn finger 2 and Zn finger 3 are involved in the interaction between Sens and proneural proteins, we deleted each Sens Zn finger individually and tested mutant Sens proteins in GST pull-down assays for their ability to interact with Scute. We find that Sens is still able to interact with Scute in the absence of any of the four Zn fingers (Fig. 6D, lanes b-e), indicating that the Sens-bHLH interaction does not depend on a single Zn finger. However, when both Zn finger 2 and Zn finger 3, and the linker between them are removed, Sens is no longer able to interact with Scute (Fig. 6D, lane f). These data indicate that the core region of the Sens Zn-finger domain, which contains Zn finger 2 and Zn finger 3, mediates the interaction between Sens and Scute. To further support the notion that Sens-proneural interaction is required for bristle formation, we tested the Sens-L2-T-E mutation, which fails to bind DNA but is able to induce bristle formation upon overexpression, for its ability to interact with Sc. As shown in Fig. 6E, Sens-L2-T-E can bind Sc, although weaker than wild-type Sens. Altogether, these data strongly suggest that Sens-proneural interaction is necessary for the recruitment of Sens to proneural target enhancers and for its bristle-inducing ability. However, the data also indicate that the binding to proneural proteins is not sufficient and that these Zn fingers have additional functions.
Sens acts as a repressor when bound to DNA, and as an activator when bound to proneural proteins
As the ac promoter may have other binding sites for unknown
factors that are also involved in the synergism between Sens and proneural
proteins, we performed another set of transcription assays on an artificial
reporter consisting of five UAS sites and a thymidine kinase promoter,
UAS-tk-luc (Fig. 7A).
Giagtzoglou et al. recently showed that the Scute protein is able to induce
luciferase expression from the UAS-tk-luc reporter when fused with
the Gal4-DNA binding domain (Gal4DBD)
(Giagtzoglou et al., 2005). If
binding of proneural proteins is enough to recruit Sens to an enhancer, we
anticipate synergism in this assay when Scute or Achaete is fused to the
Gal4DBD. As shown in Fig. 7B,
Sens is able to synergize with full-length Scute and Achaete, strongly
suggesting that Sens is brought to the enhancer via proneural proteins.
E(spl) proteins are known to be negative regulators of proneural protein
expression and function (Culi and
Modolell, 1998; Delidakis and
Artavanis-Tsakonas, 1992;
Giagtzoglou et al., 2003;
Jimenez and Ish-Horowicz,
1997; Knust et al.,
1992). E(spl)m7 was shown to inhibit Scute-mediated
transcriptional activation by binding to Sc directly
(Giagtzoglou et al., 2005). As
shown in Fig. 7C, Sens is not
able to synergize with the Scute protein in the presence of the E(spl)m7,
providing further support to the hypothesis that Sens can only synergize with
proneural proteins when proneural proteins are able to induce
transcription.
Our previous data indicate that repression mediated by low levels of Sens requires DNA binding, and that Sens DNA binding has a negative role on the synergism between Sens and proneurals. To test if proneural proteins can synergize with Sens when it is tethered to DNA, we generated Sens-Gal4DBD fusion protein. This fusion protein significantly represses the basal level of luciferase expression from the UAS-tk-luc reporter (Fig. 7D). The repression is also observed in the presence of high levels of proneural proteins. These observations provide further evidence that Sens, when bound to DNA, indeed acts as a repressor.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
; Frankfort et al.,
2004; Jafar-Nejad et al.,
2003; Koelzer and Klein,
2003; Nolo et al.,
2000). Expression of sens is under the direct control of
the proneural proteins (Jafar-Nejad et
al., 2003) and SOPs co-express proneural proteins and Sens
(Jafar-Nejad et al., 2003;
Nolo et al., 2000;
zur Lage et al., 2003). We
have previously shown that high levels of Sens synergize with proneural
proteins to upregulate the expression of the ac gene via the
ac proximal enhancer, a known target of proneural proteins
(Jafar-Nejad et al., 2003;
Van Doren et al., 1992).
However, low levels of Sens oppose the activator function of proneural
proteins on this enhancer. Intriguingly, our data suggested that Sens DNA
binding has a negative role in the synergism between proneural proteins and
Sens, but the molecular mechanism underlying this dual role in transcriptional
regulation was not elucidated.
Based on our current data, we propose the following model for the role of
Sens in transcriptional regulation of proneural target genes in sensory
precursors. Early in the proneural cluster, proneural gene expression is under
the control of proneural and E(spl) proteins. At this stage, proneural genes
start to engage in a positive autoregulatory loop by binding to the E-boxes in
their own enhancers (Culi and Modolell,
1998; Van Doren et al.,
1992). Initially, low levels of Sens bind DNA rather than the
proneural proteins via its Zn fingers because it has a higher affinity for DNA
(Fig. 8A). When bound to DNA,
Sens acts as a repressor. As Sens interacts with several E(spl) proteins
(Jafar-Nejad et al., 2003),
recruitment of E(spl) through Sens might contribute to the negative regulation
of proneural target enhancers (Fig.
8A). As the level of proneural proteins increases, proneural
proteins induce more Sens expression. This will lead to saturation of the
S-boxes (Fig. 8B). Additional
Sens will bind proneural proteins via its core Zn-finger domains and act as a
co-activator to increase the transcription induced by proneural proteins
(Fig. 8C). We propose that the
switch between the repressor and co-activator functions of Sens depends on the
conformational state of its Zn fingers. In this model, binding to proneural
proteins will allow the Sens Zn fingers to adopt an alternative conformation
compared to the DNA-bound state. This will enable Sens to cooperate with
co-activators already recruited by proneural proteins, or to recruit new
co-activators to further increase the ability of proneural proteins to
increase the expression of their target genes in some contexts. This
conformation-based hypothesis is supported by our observation that even point
mutations in Sens Zn fingers that are dispensable for proneural interaction
still cause severe reduction in the synergism between Sens and proneural
proteins.
|
). Second, Sens synergizes with proneural proteins to
upregulate the expression of the ac proximal enhancer in S2 cell
assays (Jafar-Nejad et al.,
2003). Third, ectopic expression of Sens induces ectopic proneural
gene expression (Lai, 2003;
Nolo et al., 2000). Fourth,
Sens physically binds bHLH proteins via the core region of its Zn-finger
domain. Fifth, Sens can not induce transcription in the absence of proneural
proteins. It should be mentioned that our in vitro and in vivo observations
indicate that DNA binding is not essential for the ability of Sens to act as a
co-activator and to induce SOP formation. Therefore, as SOPs accumulate high
levels of both proneural proteins and Sens, it is likely that proneural target
enhancers that do not contain a Sens-binding site might also be a target for
proneural-Sens transcriptional synergism.
Similar to its vertebrate homologues
(Grimes et al., 1996;
Tong et al., 1998), Sens can
function as a transcriptional repressor when bound to DNA
(Fig. 7). Mutational analysis
of Sens Zn fingers also indicates a link between DNA binding and the repressor
function of Sens: those Sens mutants that do not bind DNA (1CC, 2CC and 3CC)
fail to repress ac transcription, whereas mutating Zn finger 4, which
does not play a major role in DNA binding, does not affect the repressor
function of Sens. Although the repressor function seems to be less crucial
than the co-activator function in vivo, our data suggest that the repressor
function of Sens also contributes to its role in PNS development.
Sens physically interacts with proneural proteins via its Zn-finger
domains, which are highly conserved between Sens and its vertebrate
homologues. In addition, Sens can synergize with the mouse Ato homologue Math1
(Atoh1 - Mouse Genome Informatics), when the two proteins are co-expressed in
flies (Quan et al., 2004).
Together, these observations suggest that the Sens-bHLH interaction is
evolutionarily conserved. In other words, vertebrate bHLH proteins such as
Math1, Mash1 (AScl1 - Mouse Genome Informatics) and Math5 (Atoh7 - Mouse
Genome Informatics), which are co-expressed with Gfi1 in mouse tissues
(Kazanjian et al., 2004;
Wallis et al., 2003;
Yang et al., 2003), might be
able to recruit Gfi1 to their target enhancers.
In conclusion, our data suggest that Sens, a C2H2-type Zn-finger protein,
binds to bHLH proneural proteins via its core Zn-finger domains and acts as a
co-activator of the expression induced by proneural proteins. Sens can bind to
various bHLH proteins and synergize with fly proteins, as well as some of
their vertebrate homologues in vivo. These data, together with other examples
of Zn-finger/bHLH synergism (Bellefroid et
al., 1996), suggest that physical and genetic interactions of this
type might be a common mechanism for Zn-finger/bHLH cooperation during
development.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Aamodt, E., Shen, L., Marra, M., Schein, J., Rose, B. and McDermott, J. B. (2000). Conservation of sequence and function of the pag-3 genes from C. elegans and C. briggsae. Gene 243,67 -74.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bellefroid, E. J., Bourguignon, C., Hollemann, T., Ma, Q., Anderson, D. J., Kintner, C. and Pieler, T. (1996). X-MyT1, a Xenopus C2HC-type zinc finger protein with a regulatory function in neuronal differentiation. Cell 87,1191 -1202.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bellen, H. J., Kooyer, S., D'Evelyn, D. and Pearlman, J.
(1992). The Drosophila couch potato protein is expressed in
nuclei of peripheral neuronal precursors and shows homology to RNA-binding
proteins. Genes Dev. 6,2125
-2136.
Bertrand, N., Castro, D. S. and Guillemot, F. (2002). Proneural genes and the specification of neural cell types. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 517-530.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blancafort, P., Segal, D. J. and Barbas, C. F., 3rd
(2004). Designing transcription factor architectures for drug
discovery. Mol. Pharmacol.
66,1361
-1371.
Brand, A. H. and Perrimon, N. (1993). Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development 118,401 -415.[Abstract]
Brown, N. L., Patel, S., Brzezinski, J. and Glaser, T.
(2001). Math5 is required for retinal ganglion cell and optic
nerve formation. Development
128,2497
-2508.
Cabrera, C. V. and Alonso, M. C. (1991). Transcriptional activation by heterodimers of the achaete-scute and daughterless gene products of Drosophila. EMBO J. 10,2965 -2973.[Medline]
Cameron, S., Clark, S. G., McDermott, J. B., Aamodt, E. and
Horvitz, H. R. (2002). PAG-3, a Zn-finger transcription
factor, determines neuroblast fate in C. elegans.
Development 129,1763
-1774.
Caudy, M., Vassin, H., Brand, M., Tuma, R., Jan, L. Y. and Jan, Y. N. (1988). daughterless, a Drosophila gene essential for both neurogenesis and sex determination, has sequence similarities to myc and the achaete-scute complex. Cell 55,1061 -1067.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chandrasekaran, V. and Beckendorf, S. K.
(2003). senseless is necessary for the survival of embryonic
salivary glands in Drosophila. Development
130,4719
-4728.
Culi, J. and Modolell, J. (1998). Proneural
gene self-stimulation in neural precursors: an essential mechanism for sense
organ development that is regulated by Notch signaling. Genes
Dev. 12,2036
-2047.
Delidakis, C. and Artavanis-Tsakonas, S.
(1992). The Enhancer of split [E(spl)] locus of Drosophila
encodes seven independent helix-loop-helix proteins. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 89,8731
-8735.
Devenport, M. P., Blass, C. and Eggleston, P. (2000). Characterization of the Hox gene cluster in the malaria vector mosquito, Anopheles gambiae. Evol. Dev. 2, 326-339.[CrossRef][Medline]
Doan, L. L., Porter, S. D., Duan, Z., Flubacher, M. M., Montoya,
D., Tsichlis, P. N., Horwitz, M., Gilks, C. B. and Grimes, H. L.
(2004). Targeted transcriptional repression of Gfi1 by GFI1 and
GFI1B in lymphoid cells. Nucleic Acids Res.
32,2508
-2519.
Dovat, S., Ronni, T., Russell, D., Ferrini, R., Cobb, B. S. and
Smale, S. T. (2002). A common mechanism for mitotic
inactivation of C2H2 zinc finger DNA-binding domains. Genes
Dev. 16,2985
-2990.
Dufourcq, P., Rastegar, S., Strahle, U. and Blader, P. (2004). Parapineal specific expression of gfi1 in the zebrafish epithalamus. Gene Expr. Patterns 4, 53-57.[CrossRef][Medline]
Frankfort, B. J., Nolo, R., Zhang, Z., Bellen, H. and Mardon, G. (2001). senseless repression of rough is required for R8 photoreceptor differentiation in the developing Drosophila eye. Neuron 32,403 -414.[CrossRef][Medline]
Frankfort, B. J., Pepple, K. L., Mamlouk, M., Rose, M. F. and Mardon, G. (2004). Senseless is required for pupal retinal development in Drosophila. Genesis 38,182 -194.[CrossRef][Medline]
Giagtzoglou, N., Alifragis, P., Koumbanakis, K. A. and
Delidakis, C. (2003). Two modes of recruitment of E(spl)
repressors onto target genes. Development
130,259
-270.
Giagtzoglou, N., Koumbanakis, K. A., Fullard, J., Zarifi, I. and
Delidakis, C. (2005). Role of the Sc C terminus in
transcriptional activation and E(spl) repressor recruitment. J.
Biol. Chem. 280,1299
-1305.
Gilks, C. B., Bear, S. E., Grimes, H. L. and Tsichlis, P. N.
(1993). Progression of interleukin-2 (IL-2)-dependent rat T cell
lymphoma lines to IL-2-independent growth following activation of a gene
(Gfi-1) encoding a novel zinc finger protein. Mol. Cell.
Biol. 13,1759
-1768.
Goulding, S. E., zur Lage, P. and Jarman, A. P. (2000). amos, a proneural gene for Drosophila olfactory sense organs that is regulated by lozenge. Neuron 25, 69-78.[CrossRef][Medline]
Grimes, H. L., Chan, T. O., Zweidler-McKay, P. A., Tong, B. and Tsichlis, P. N. (1996). The Gfi-1 proto-oncoprotein contains a novel transcriptional repressor domain, SNAG, and inhibits G1 arrest induced by interleukin-2 withdrawal. Mol. Cell. Biol. 16,6263 -6272.[Abstract]
Hassan, B. A. and Bellen, H. J. (2000). Doing
the MATH: is the mouse a good model for fly development? Genes
Dev. 14,1852
-1865.
Hock, H., Hamblen, M. J., Rooke, H. M., Traver, D., Bronson, R. T., Cameron, S. and Orkin, S. H. (2003). Intrinsic requirement for zinc finger transcription factor Gfi-1 in neutrophil differentiation. Immunity 18,109 -120.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hock, H., Hamblen, M. J., Rooke, H. M., Schindler, J. W., Saleque, S., Fujiwara, Y. and Orkin, S. H. (2004). Gfi-1 restricts proliferation and preserves functional integrity of haematopoietic stem cells. Nature 431,1002 -1007.[CrossRef][Medline]
Huang, M. L., Hsu, C. H. and Chien, C. T. (2000). The proneural gene amos promotes multiple dendritic neuron formation in the Drosophila peripheral nervous system. Neuron 25,57 -67.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jafar-Nejad, H. and Bellen, H. J. (2004).
Gfi/Pag-3/senseless zinc finger proteins: a unifying theme? Mol.
Cell. Biol. 24,8803
-8812.
Jafar-Nejad, H., Acar, M., Nolo, R., Lacin, H., Pan, H.,
Parkhurst, S. M. and Bellen, H. J. (2003). Senseless acts as
a binary switch during sensory organ precursor selection. Genes
Dev. 17,2966
-2978.
Jafar-Nejad, H., Tien, A.-C., Acar, M. and Bellen, H. J.
(2006). Senseless and Daughterless confer neuronal identity to
epithelial cells in the Drosophila wing margin.
Development 133,1683
-1692.
Jantz, D. and Berg, J. M. (2004). Reduction in
DNA-binding affinity of Cys2His2 zinc finger proteins by linker
phosphorylation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
101,7589
-7593.
Jarman, A. P., Grau, Y., Jan, L. Y. and Jan, Y. N. (1993). atonal is a proneural gene that directs chordotonal organ formation in the Drosophila peripheral nervous system. Cell 73,1307 -1321.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jegalian, A. G. and Wu, H. (2002). Regulation
of Socs gene expression by the proto-oncoprotein GFI-1B: two routes for STAT5
target gene induction by erythropoietin. J. Biol.
Chem. 277,2345
-2352.
Jia, Y., Xie, G. and Aamodt, E. (1996). pag-3, a Caenorhabditis elegans gene involved in touch neuron gene expression and coordinated movement. Genetics 142,141 -147.[Abstract]
Jia, Y., Xie, G., McDermott, J. B. and Aamodt, E. (1997). The C. elegans gene pag-3 is homologous to the zinc finger proto-oncogene gfi-1. Development 124,2063 -2073.[Abstract]
Jimenez, G. and Ish-Horowicz, D. (1997). A chimeric enhancer-of-split transcriptional activator drives neural development and achaete-scute expression. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17,4355 -4362.[Abstract]
Karsunky, H., Zeng, H., Schmidt, T., Zevnik, B., Kluge, R., Schmid, K. W., Duhrsen, U. and Moroy, T. (2002). Inflammatory reactions and severe neutropenia in mice lacking the transcriptional repressor Gfi1. Nat. Genet. 30,295 -300.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kazanjian, A., Wallis, D., Au, N., Nigam, R., Venken, K. J.,
Cagle, P. T., Dickey, B. F., Bellen, H. J., Gilks, C. B. and Grimes, H. L.
(2004). Growth factor independence-1 is expressed in primary
human neuroendocrine lung carcinomas and mediates the differentiation of
murine pulmonary neuroendocrine cells. Cancer Res.
64,6874
-6882.
Knust, E., Schrons, H., Grawe, F. and Campos-Ortega, J. A. (1992). Seven genes of the Enhancer of split complex of Drosophila melanogaster encode helix-loop-helix proteins. Genetics 132,505 -518.[Abstract]
Koelzer, S. and Klein, T. (2003). A
Notch-independent function of Suppressor of Hairless during the development of
the bristle sensory organ precursor cell of Drosophila.
Development 130,1973
-1988.
Lai, E. C. (2003). Drosophila tufted is a
gain-of-function allele of the proneural gene amos.
Genetics 163,1413
-1425.
Manseau, L., Baradaran, A., Brower, D., Budhu, A., Elefant, F., Phan, H., Philp, A. V., Yang, M., Glover, D., Kaiser, K. et al. (1997). GAL4 enhancer traps expressed in the embryo, larval brain, imaginal discs, and ovary of Drosophila. Dev. Dyn. 209,310 -322.[CrossRef]
