Role of Architecture in the Function and Specificity of Two Notch-Regulated Transcriptional Enhancer Modules
In Drosophila melanogaster, cis-regulatory modules that are activated by the Notch cell–cell signaling pathway all contain two types of transcription factor binding sites: those for the pathway's transducing factor Suppressor of Hairless [Su(H)] and those for one or more tissue- or cell type–specific factors called “local activators.” The use of different “Su(H) plus local activator” motif combinations, or codes, is critical to ensure that only the correct subset of the broadly utilized Notch pathway's target genes are activated in each developmental context. However, much less is known about the role of enhancer “architecture”—the number, order, spacing, and orientation of its component transcription factor binding motifs—in determining the module's specificity. Here we investigate the relationship between architecture and function for two Notch-regulated enhancers with spatially distinct activities, each of which includes five high-affinity Su(H) sites. We find that the first, which is active specifically in the socket cells of external sensory organs, is largely resistant to perturbations of its architecture. By contrast, the second enhancer, active in the “non-SOP” cells of the proneural clusters from which neural precursors arise, is sensitive to even simple rearrangements of its transcription factor binding sites, responding with both loss of normal specificity and striking ectopic activity. Thus, diverse cryptic specificities can be inherent in an enhancer's particular combination of transcription factor binding motifs. We propose that for certain types of enhancer, architecture plays an essential role in determining specificity, not only by permitting factor–factor synergies necessary to generate the desired activity, but also by preventing other activator synergies that would otherwise lead to unwanted specificities.
Vyšlo v časopise:
Role of Architecture in the Function and Specificity of Two Notch-Regulated Transcriptional Enhancer Modules. PLoS Genet 8(7): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002796
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002796
Souhrn
In Drosophila melanogaster, cis-regulatory modules that are activated by the Notch cell–cell signaling pathway all contain two types of transcription factor binding sites: those for the pathway's transducing factor Suppressor of Hairless [Su(H)] and those for one or more tissue- or cell type–specific factors called “local activators.” The use of different “Su(H) plus local activator” motif combinations, or codes, is critical to ensure that only the correct subset of the broadly utilized Notch pathway's target genes are activated in each developmental context. However, much less is known about the role of enhancer “architecture”—the number, order, spacing, and orientation of its component transcription factor binding motifs—in determining the module's specificity. Here we investigate the relationship between architecture and function for two Notch-regulated enhancers with spatially distinct activities, each of which includes five high-affinity Su(H) sites. We find that the first, which is active specifically in the socket cells of external sensory organs, is largely resistant to perturbations of its architecture. By contrast, the second enhancer, active in the “non-SOP” cells of the proneural clusters from which neural precursors arise, is sensitive to even simple rearrangements of its transcription factor binding sites, responding with both loss of normal specificity and striking ectopic activity. Thus, diverse cryptic specificities can be inherent in an enhancer's particular combination of transcription factor binding motifs. We propose that for certain types of enhancer, architecture plays an essential role in determining specificity, not only by permitting factor–factor synergies necessary to generate the desired activity, but also by preventing other activator synergies that would otherwise lead to unwanted specificities.
Zdroje
1. BaroloSPosakonyJW 2002 Three habits of highly effective signaling pathways: principles of transcriptional control by developmental cell signaling. Genes Dev 16 1167 1181
2. DavidsonEH 2006 The regulatory genome. Gene regulatory networks in development and evolution San Diego Academic Press
3. ArnostiDNKulkarniMM 2005 Transcriptional enhancers: Intelligent enhanceosomes or flexible billboards? J Cell Biochem 94 890 898
4. CrockerJErivesA 2008 A closer look at the eve stripe 2 enhancers of Drosophila and Themira. PLoS Genet 4 e1000276 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000276
5. HareEEPetersonBKEisenMB 2008 A careful look at binding site reorganization in the even-skipped enhancers of Drosophila and sepsids. PLoS Genet 4 e1000268 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000268
6. HareEEPetersonBKIyerVNMeierREisenMB 2008 Sepsid even-skipped enhancers are functionally conserved in Drosophila despite lack of sequence conservation. PLoS Genet 4 e1000106 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000106
7. RastegarSHessIDickmeisTNicodJCErtzerR 2008 The words of the regulatory code are arranged in a variable manner in highly conserved enhancers. Dev Biol 318 366 377
8. SwansonCISchwimmerDBBaroloS 2011 Rapid evolutionary rewiring of a structurally constrained eye enhancer. Curr Biol 21 1186 1196
9. SwansonCIEvansNCBaroloS 2010 Structural rules and complex regulatory circuitry constrain expression of a Notch- and EGFR-regulated eye enhancer. Dev Cell 18 359 370
10. BaroloSWalkerRGPolyanovskyADFreschiGKeilT 2000 A Notch-independent activity of Suppressor of Hairless is required for normal mechanoreceptor physiology. Cell 103 957 969
11. CastroBBaroloSBaileyAMPosakonyJW 2005 Lateral inhibition in proneural clusters: Cis-regulatory logic and default repression by Suppressor of Hairless. Development 132 3333 3344
12. CertelKAndersonMGShrigleyRJJohnsonWA 1996 Distinct variant DNA-binding sites determine cell-specific autoregulated expression of the Drosophila POU domain transcription factor Drifter in midline glia or trachea. Mol Cell Biol 16 1813 1823
13. MaYCertelKGaoYNiemitzEMosherJ 2000 Functional interactions between Drosophila bHLH/PAS, Sox, and POU transcription factors regulate CNS midline expression of the slit gene. J Neurosci 20 4596 4605
14. MillerSWAvidor-ReissTPolyanovskyAPosakonyJW 2009 Complex interplay of three transcription factors in controlling the tormogen differentiation program of Drosophila mechanoreceptors. Dev Biol 329 386 399
15. HerrWClearyMA 1995 The POU domain: versatility in transcriptional regulation by a flexible two-in-one DNA-binding domain. Genes Dev 9 1679 1693
16. de CelisJFLlimargasMCasanovaJ 1995 ventral veinless, the gene encoding the Cf1a transcription factor, links positional information and cell differentiation during embryonic and imaginal development in Drosophila melanogaster. Development 121 3405 3416
17. NgMDiaz-BenjumeaFJCohenSM 1995 nubbin encodes a POU-domain protein required for proximal-distal patterning in the Drosophila wing. Development 121 589 599
18. BorokMJTranDAHoMCDrewellRA 2010 Dissecting the regulatory switches of development: lessons from enhancer evolution in Drosophila. Development 137 5 13
19. LaiECBodnerRKavalerJFreschiGPosakonyJW 2000 Antagonism of Notch signaling activity by members of a novel protein family encoded by the Bearded and Enhancer of split gene complexes. Development 127 291 306
20. LaiECBodnerRPosakonyJW 2000 The Enhancer of split Complex of Drosophila includes four Notch-regulated members of the Bearded gene family. Development 127 3441 3455
21. NellesenDTLaiECPosakonyJW 1999 Discrete enhancer elements mediate selective responsiveness of Enhancer of split Complex genes to common transcriptional activators. Dev Biol 213 33 53
22. ProdromouCPearlLH 1992 Recursive PCR: a novel technique for total gene synthesis. Protein Eng 5 827 829
23. BaroloSCarverLAPosakonyJW 2000 GFP and β-galactosidase transformation vectors for promoter/enhancer analysis in Drosophila. Bio Techniques 29 726 732
24. GeLRudolphP 1997 Simultaneous introduction of multiple mutations using overlap extension PCR. Biotechniques 22 28 30
25. HoSNHuntHDHortonRMPullenJKPeaseLR 1989 Site-directed mutagenesis by overlap extension using the polymerase chain reaction. Gene 77 51 59
26. RubinGMSpradlingAC 1982 Genetic transformation of Drosophila with transposable element vectors. Science 218 348 353
27. BischofJMaedaRKHedigerMKarchFBaslerK 2007 An optimized transgenesis system for Drosophila using germ-line-specific phiC31 integrases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104 3312 3317
28. RebeizMPosakonyJW 2004 GenePalette: A universal software tool for genome sequence visualization and analysis. Dev Biol 271 431 438
Štítky
Genetika Reprodukčná medicínaČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Genetics
2012 Číslo 7
- Je „freeze-all“ pro všechny? Odborníci na fertilitu diskutovali na virtuálním summitu
- Gynekologové a odborníci na reprodukční medicínu se sejdou na prvním virtuálním summitu
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Guidelines for Genome-Wide Association Studies
- GWAS Identifies Novel Susceptibility Loci on 6p21.32 and 21q21.3 for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Carriers
- The Role of Rice HEI10 in the Formation of Meiotic Crossovers
- Identification of Chromatin-Associated Regulators of MSL Complex Targeting in Dosage Compensation