|
Volume 270,
Number 43,
Issue of October 27, 1995 pp. 25785-25791
©1995 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
Two
Homologous Enhancer Elements in the Chicken Vimentin Gene May Bind a
Nuclear Factor in Common with a Nearby Silencer Element (*)
(Received for publication, May 30, 1995)
Edward B.
Perkins
,
Janet
G.
Cunningham (§),
,
Alma M.
Bracete
,
Zendra E.
Zehner (¶)
From the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics
and the Massey Cancer Center, Medical College of Virginia/Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23298
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
ABSTRACT
Vimentin, a cytoskeletal protein belonging to the intermediate
filament protein family, exhibits a complex pattern of expression. In
the case of the chicken vimentin gene, several regulatory elements
within the 5` region of the gene have been characterized, including an
enhancer activity between -160 and -320, which may
contribute to the down-regulation of vimentin expression during
myogenesis. In this study, sequences within this region were examined
via transient transfections of various deletion constructs, and two
distinct enhancer elements were found, one on either side of a
previously described silencer element. These two enhancer elements also
enhanced transcription when fused separately to the basal promoter
region of the chicken vimentin gene. Gel mobility shift assays, UV
cross-linking experiments, and DNase I protection studies indicate that
these two enhancer elements and the silencer element all contain a
common binding site for the previously described 95-kDa silencer
element binding protein, suggesting that this regulatory protein can
act as both an activator and a repressor.
INTRODUCTION
The initiation of transcription is a key control point for
eukaryotic gene expression, and regulation of this critical event is
central to producing the correct tissue-specific and temporal pattern
of gene expression. Regulation is primarily accomplished by
gene-specific DNA-binding transcription factors, which either increase
or decrease the rate of transcription
initiation(1, 2) . The target sequences for these
transcription factors can be either upstream or downstream of the
transcription start site and are often quite far removed from the start
site. Over the last few years, a number of enhancer and repressor
elements, along with their corresponding DNA-binding transcription
factors, have been well characterized(1) . As a result, the
distinction between enhancers and repressors has become less
definitive. For example, several studies have demonstrated how a single
gene, by way of either alternative splicing or the use of alternative
translational start sites, can encode for both an enhancer and a
repressor protein(3) . In other cases particular transcription
factors have been shown to either enhance or repress transcription
depending on the absence or presence of a metabolic
intermediate(4) , the concentration of the transcription factor
itself(5, 6) , or the number of DNA-binding sites
present(7) . Vimentin belongs to the intermediate filament
protein (IFP) ( )family, a related group of structural
proteins which are prominent components of the eukaryotic
cytoskeleton(8, 9) . IFPs can be subdivided into six
distinct types, based on sequence and site of synthesis. These include
keratins in epithelial cells, desmin in muscle cells, lamins in the
nucleus, neurofilaments in neurons, glial fibrillary acidic protein in
glial cells, and vimentin in cells of mesenchymal origin. IFPs are more
dynamic structures than previously thought(10) , and their
importance has been emphasized by the recent discovery that mutations
in specific keratin genes can give rise to genetic skin
diseases(11, 12, 13) . Among the different
IFP types, vimentin exhibits a complex pattern of expression (14, 15) and is often coexpressed with one of the
other IFPs, usually early in development. For example, vimentin is
coexpressed with desmin in the early stages of myogenesis but not in
the later stages(16) . Vimentin is also frequently expressed in
cultured cell lines, regardless of origin(17, 18) .
Regulation of vimentin gene expression is correspondingly complex,
involving multiple regulatory elements, including both enhancers and
silencers. In the case of the chicken vimentin gene, these regulatory
elements are all located upstream of a promoter region that encompasses
the first 160 bases upstream of the start site and provides a
constitutive level of activity(15, 19) . Several
regulatory elements upstream of this proximal promoter region, along
with associated DNA binding proteins, have been identified and
characterized. Three homologous silencer elements (SEs), denoted SE1,
SE2, and SE3, and an associated SE binding protein have been
identified(20, 21) . Approximately 1 kilobase upstream
of the most distal silencer element (SE3) is an antisilencer element,
which overrides the negative effect of the silencer element but shows
no independent enhancer activity(22) . The SE closest to the
transcription start site (SE1) lies in a region, between -160 and
-320, that we have previously shown contains a tissue-specific
enhancer of possible importance for the down-regulation of vimentin
during myogenesis(23, 24) . In this report, we examine
this upstream region in more detail and show that two homologous
enhancer elements exist here, one on each side of SE1. Gel mobility
shift assays, DNase I protection studies, and UV cross-linking
experiments are used to argue that these two enhancer elements bind to
the previously described SE binding protein, suggesting that this
regulatory protein can both activate and repress transcription.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Oligonucleotide Synthesis, Labeling, and
AnnealingThe DNA fragments used in the gel mobility shift
assays (GMSAs) and the UV cross-linking experiments were made by
annealing complementary strands. The following oligonucleotides were
synthesized, along with their complementary strands, for the two
proximal enhancer elements (PEEs): PEE1 (5`-TCGAAGGGGCGTAGGGCGCCAA-3`)
and PEE2 (5`-CTAAGAAAGAAGGGACGGG-3`). The following strands were
synthesized for the three SEs: SE1 (5`-TCGACAGGAGCGCTGGCGGAGCAG-3` and
5`-TCGACTGCTCCGCCAGCGCTCCTG-3`), SE2
(5`-TCGACAGAGCGCGCTGAGCCCATGAGCACAGG-3` and
5`-TCGACCTGTGCTCATGGGCTCAGCGCGCTCTG-3`), SE3,
5`-TCGACAGGAGCGCTGTGCCCGAAGCAAAGCGATGCCCCTCCTGCAGG-3` and
5`-TCGACCTGCAGGAGGGGCATCGCTTTGCTTCGGGCACAGCGCTCCTG-3`). The SEs include SalI restriction site sequences at the ends for cloning
purposes unrelated to these experiments. Before annealing, each strand
was labeled using [ - P]ATP and T4
polynucleotide kinase. The complementary strands were annealed in 0.3 M KCl, 10 mM Tris (pH 7.8), and 1 mM EDTA by
heating to 95 °C and slowly cooling to 25 °C. The
double-stranded fragments were separated from unincorporated P-nucleotides on a 6% polyacrylamide gel, electroeluted,
and ethanol-precipitated.
PlasmidsThe p8CAT expression vector was used to
test the transcriptional activity of various vimentin 5`-flanking
sequences. p8CAT is a pEMBL derivative (25) containing the
bacterial chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) gene, the ampicillin
resistance gene, and the pUC8 multicloning site. Several different
vimentin 5`-flanking sequences were placed in front of the CAT gene
using standard molecular biology techniques(26) . Plasmids
pcV-160, pcV-320, and pcV-767 have been described
previously(20, 24) . Plasmids pcV-302 and pcV-283 were
created by Bal31 digestion of pcV-320. Naturally occurring TaqI and BanI restriction sites were used to generate
pcV-200 and pcV-179, respectively. PEE1 and PEE2 were cloned into the KpnI and BamHI sites, respectively, of pUC18. To
accomplish this, the same oligonucleotides described above,
representing the complementary strands of PEE1 and PEE2, were
synthesized with KpnI and BamHI restriction site
sequences, respectively, on the ends. After annealing, these
double-stranded fragments were directly ligated into the KpnI
and BamHI sites of pUC18. The following scheme was used to
generate a construct containing PEE1 in front of the basal promoter
elements contained in pcV-160. The pcV-160 plasmid was cut with EcoRI to create a fragment containing the upstream promoter
elements up to -160, and this fragment was ligated into the EcoRI site of the pUC18 plasmid, which contained PEE1 in the BamHI site. HindIII digestion of this intermediate
pUC18 construct produced a fragment containing PEE1 in front of the
upstream promoter elements, and this fragment was ligated into the HindIII site of p8CAT to produce the final PEE1/-160
reporter plasmid. A plasmid containing PEE2 in front of -160 was
constructed similarly.
Cell Culture, Transient Transfections, and CAT
AssaysMouse L-cell fibroblasts were maintained in 90%
Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, 10% fetal calf serum, 2
mM glutamine, and 0.1 mg/ml gentamicin at 37 °C in 5%
CO as monolayer cultures. Cells were plated at a density of
5 10 cells/100-mm tissue culture dish 24 h prior to
transfection. Transfections and CAT assays were performed as described
previously(21) . Activity was calculated as pmol of acetylated
chloramphenicol produced per min per µg of protein and is reported
as percentage relative to pcV-160 or pcV-320.
Preparation of Nuclear ExtractsCrude nuclear
extracts were made from HeLa cell cultures by the method of
Dignam(27) . Aliquots were stored at -70 °C in Dignam
buffer D (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.9, 20% (v/v) glycerol, 0.1 M KCl, 0.2 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl
fluoride, 0.5 mM dithiothreitol.
Purification of the SE Binding ProteinA detailed
description of the purification and characterization of the SE binding
protein will be the subject of a different report. ( )
GMSAOligonucleotides representing
each strand of the various DNA fragments were labeled and annealed as
described above. The DNA fragments (6 ng) were incubated with 750 ng
salmon sperm DNA, 1.5 µg of poly(dI-dC), and 8 µg of crude HeLa
nuclear extract in a buffer containing 10 mM HEPES (pH 7.9), 4
mM Tris, 50 mM KCl, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM
dithiothreitol, and 5% (v/v) glycerol. The total reaction volume was 20
µl, and binding reactions were incubated on ice for 20 min. Binding
reactions with affinity-purified protein fractions were performed in
the same way, except that no salmon sperm DNA was included. For
competition assays, small nonspecific DNA fragments were produced by
blunt cleavage of pUC18 plasmid with the HaeIII restriction
enzyme. Protein-DNA complexes were separated by 4% nondenaturing
polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in TBE buffer. The gel was
electrophoresed for 2 h at 150 V at 4 °C, dried, and placed on XAR
film with an intensifying screen at -70 °C overnight.
UV Cross-linking ExperimentsGMSAs were performed
as described above, but using 100 ng of labeled DNA and 10 µg of
crude nuclear extract. Following electrophoresis, the wet gel was
removed, wrapped in Saran Wrap, irradiated with UV light at 254 nm for
20 min, and placed on XAR film for 5 h at 4 °C. The developed film
was used to localize and cut out the shifted bands. The bands were
soaked in SDS-sample buffer for 15 min at 25 °C, placed in the
bottom of the wells of a denaturing SDS-polyacrylamide gel (8%
separating, 3.9% stacking), and electrophoresed for 2 h at 175 V. The
gel was dried, placed on XAR film with an intensifying screen, and kept
at -70 °C overnight.
DNase I Protection AssaysThe SEs, PEE1, and PEE2
cloned into the MCS of pUC18 were digested with HindIII and
labeled with [ - P]dATP using the Klenow
fragment. After a single extraction with phenol/chloroform followed by
ethanol precipitation, a second digest was performed using EcoRI, and the labeled fragment was purified by PAGE, excised,
electroeluted, and ethanol-precipitated. The DNase I protection assay
was performed as described previously (13) with the following
modifications. Five microliters of affinity-purified protein was used
during the binding reaction, and nonspecific DNA was not included. Two
microliters of DNase I (12.5 ng/µl; Sigma) was added to the binding
mixture and left at 25 °C for 2 min before adding stop solution.
RESULTS
Two Enhancer Elements Are Present in the Upstream
RegionWe had previously reported that the upstream region from
-160 to -320 in the chicken vimentin gene contained an
enhancer potentially important for the down-regulation of vimentin
during myogenesis. To examine this region in more detail in a
nonmyogenic cell line (mouse L-cells), several other constructs,
containing progressively more of the DNA sequence between -160
and -320, were created via Bal31 digestion and
transiently transfected into mouse L-cells (Fig. 1A). Two
short sequences within this region were found to significantly enhance
expression of the CAT reporter gene: the 22-bp sequence between
-179 and -200, referred to as proximal enhancer element 1,
and the 19-bp sequence between -302 and -320, referred to
as proximal enhancer element 2.
Figure 1:
Transient transfection assays of
various chicken 5`-deletion constructs in mouse L cells. A,
deletion constructs fused to the CAT reporter gene are identified by
the number of upstream bases included, beginning at +42, relative
to the transcription start site set as +1, and ending at the
designated nucleotide. The CAT activity of each construct is expressed
relative to that of pcV-320, which is set at 100%. Errorbars represent the S.E. B, relative position of
several upstream regulatory elements in the chicken vimentin gene. A
proximal promoter region with constitutive activity encompasses the
first 160 bases upstream of the start site and includes several GC
boxes and a CAAT box. A proximal enhancer region lies between
-160 and -320 and includes the two enhancer elements, PEE1
and PEE2, identified by transient transfection. PEE1 and PEE2 flank the
first of three silencer elements (SE1). The other two SEs are located
upstream of this proximal enhancer region, between -462 and
-486 (SE2) and between -567 and -607
(SE3).
Although both PEE1 and PEE2 enhanced
transcription severalfold, the CAT activity of pcV-320, which contains
both enhancers, was only about 2-3 times that of pcV-160. This is
likely due to the silencer element that is located between PEE1 and
PEE2. We have previously described three homologous silencer elements
(SE1, SE2, and SE3), which are important in regulating expression of
the vimentin gene(20, 21) . Their positions relative
to PEE1, PEE2, and the basal promoter region are illustrated in Fig. 1B. One of these silencer elements, SE1, is
located between -236 and -253 and has been shown to
decrease the transcriptional activity of pcV-160 by about 75% when
placed directly upstream of -160(21) . The repressive
effect of SE1 was evident in the transfections described here, with
construct pcV-283 showing a low level of CAT activity compared with
pcV-200 (Fig. 1A). The single SE and the two enhancer
elements are all present in construct pcV-320, with the net effect
being a 2-3-fold increase over pcV-160. To confirm the ability
of PEE1 and PEE2 to independently enhance transcription, these two
elements were separately cloned in front of the basal promoter region
contained in pcV-160 and transiently transfected into mouse L-cells (Fig. 2). In these constructs, possible interactions between
PEE1 and PEE2 or between SE1 and the enhancer elements were eliminated.
When placed directly upstream of -160, both PEE1 and PEE2
continued to show enhancing activity of about 4- and 2-fold,
respectively, providing additional evidence for their functional
significance. PEE1 also appeared to be a stronger enhancer than PEE2,
which correlates with the data shown in Fig. 1A, where
PEE1 produced a larger increase in transcription than PEE2.
Figure 2:
Activity of individual enhancer elements.
Transient transfection assays in mouse L cells demonstrate independent
enhancer activity for both PEE1 and PEE2. Each enhancer element was
cloned directly upstream of the basal promoter region(-160). The
CAT activity of each construct is expressed relative to that of
pcV-160, which is set at 100%.
Both Enhancer Elements Specifically Bind a Nuclear
ProteinSince sequence elements that help regulate transcription
typically act by binding to trans-acting factors, we carried out GMSAs
to look for DNA binding to nuclear proteins. PEE1 and PEE2 were
synthesized and used to perform GMSAs as described under
``Materials and Methods.'' Both PEE1 and PEE2 bound nuclear
protein(s) to produce complexes of nearly equal mobility (marked L in Fig. 3A). In addition, PEE1
formed a second complex, which migrated much more slowly (marked U in Fig. 3A). Binding reactions with
competitor DNA showed that for both PEE1 and PEE2 an excess of
unlabeled PEE1 or PEE2, respectively, effectively eliminated any
binding to the labeled fragment (lanes 3 and 8). For band L with both PEE1 and PEE2, an excess of unlabeled DNA
from an unrelated sequence did not compete effectively for binding (lanes 6 and 11), indicating that this complex
represents sequence-specific binding to PEE1 and PEE2. For band U, an excess of unlabeled nonspecific DNA did
reduce the binding to PEE1, probably because the nonspecific DNA, which
is a mixture of small fragments resulting from a HaeIII digest
of pUC plasmid DNA, contained some sequences that were similar to PEE1.
Figure 3:
GMSA analysis. Crude nuclear extract (8
µg) prepared from HeLa cell cultures was incubated with 6 ng of
radiolabeled DNA as described under ``Materials and
Methods.'' A, nuclear protein binding to both PEE1 (22
bp) and PEE2 (19 bp). Lane 1, control reaction with no protein
extract added. Either no competitor (lanes 2 and 7)
or the following unlabeled competitor DNA was added. Lanes 3 and 8, PEE2 and PEE1, respectively; lanes 4 and 9, PEE1 and PEE2, respectively; lanes 5 and 10, SE3; lanes 6 and 11, nonspecific DNA.
Both PEE1 and PEE2 bind a lower band (marked L), while PEE1
also binds an upper band (marked U). Reactions with unlabeled
competitor DNA (lanes 3-6 and 8-11) include a
500-fold molar excess of competitor DNA. B, nuclear protein
binding to both enhancer elements and all three SEs. Lane2 is a control with no protein extract
added.
The observation that band L has nearly equal mobility with
both PEE1 and PEE2 led us to investigate whether PEE1 and PEE2 were
binding the same protein. Competition with the other enhancer element
in excess (lanes 4 and 9) did indeed show effective
cross-competition for band L, indicating that the same
protein, or proteins with similar mobilities and DNA binding
specificities, are binding to both PEE1 and PEE2. Band U was
not affected by the addition of excess unlabeled PEE2 (lane
9). As an additional control, binding reactions with an excess of
unlabeled SE3 were carried out for both PEE2 and PEE1 (lanes 5 and 10). Surprisingly, an excess of unlabeled SE3
abolished all binding to both PEE1 and PEE2, resulting in almost no
detectable band L or band U. This suggests that this
protein is binding to sequences common to PEE1, PEE2, and SE3. To
further investigate the possibility that these elements are all binding
the same protein, another GMSA, comparing all three SEs plus PEE1 and
PEE2, was performed. As shown in Fig. 3B, all three SEs
bound a protein to produce a band of equal mobility to band L observed with PEE1 and PEE2. We had previously reported that all
three SEs bind the 95-kDa SE binding protein in GMSAs or Southwestern
blots(21) , suggesting that the SE binding protein is present
in band L in Fig. 3A. SE3 also produced a
complex with the same mobility as band U observed with PEE1 (Fig. 3B, lane 6), explaining why unlabeled
SE3 was an effective competitor for both bands (Fig. 3A, lane 10).
UV Cross-linking of Protein-DNA ComplexesTo help
confirm whether the same protein is binding PEE1, PEE2, and the three
SEs, and to establish whether it is the SE binding protein or some
other protein, the GMSA in Fig. 3B was repeated. After
electrophoresis, the wet gel was exposed to UV radiation to covalently
cross-link the protein-DNA complexes, as described under
``Materials and Methods.'' The cross-linked complexes were
separated by SDS-PAGE, and a single predominant band of nearly equal
mobility was observed migrating between the 88- and 125-kDa markers (Fig. 4). The slight differences in mobility between the bands
are likely attributable to the small differences in the size of the
labeled DNA fragments. While PEE1, PEE2, SE1, and SE2 are all between
19 and 32 bases in size, SE3 is 47 bp, and a protein covalently bound
to it would be expected to migrate at a slightly slower rate. The
result of this experiment strongly suggests that all of these DNA
fragments are specifically binding to the 95-kDa SE binding protein.
Figure 4:
UV
cross-linking of protein-DNA complexes. The lower bands from the GMSA (Fig. 3B) were UV-cross-linked as described
under ``Materials and Methods'' and separated by 8% SDS-PAGE. Lane 1, control reaction using free DNA from the
GMSA.
DNase I Protection Assays and Sequence
ComparisonsEfforts to purify the SE binding protein were
concurrent with these experiments, and a relatively pure fraction
containing the SE binding protein was used to compare the binding
specificity of these elements via DNase I protection experiments. A
Coomassie Blue-stained gel of this DNA affinity-purified fraction shows
the presence of two major components, around 95 and 66 kDa (Fig. 5). As shown in Fig. 6A, protected binding
sites (marked by verticalbars) are clearly identified
for PEE1, PEE2, SE1, and SE3 using this fraction. A sequence comparison
reveals a homologous region (Fig. 6B, box)
where DNase I protection occurred for all of these elements (underlined bases). SE1 and SE3 also contain a second
protected binding site. The areas of SE1 and SE3 that are protected are
much the same as the protected regions previously reported using less
purified fractions (boldface bases)(21) .
Figure 5:
SDS-PAGE of affinity-purified extract. A
sample of the 0.6 M KCl fraction from the SE1-DNA affinity
column was separated by 8% SDS-PAGE. The positions of molecular mass
markers are indicated on the right.
Figure 6:
DNase I footprints and sequence comparison
of PEE1, PEE2, SE1, and SE3. A, 20 fmol of each DNA element
was incubated with 5 µl of affinity-purified HeLa nuclear extract
and digested as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' Verticalbars to the right of each gelimage mark protected regions. The leftlane on each gel is a Maxam and Gilbert cleavage reaction used to
identify bases in the DNase I cleavage pattern. B, underlined bases correspond to the protected areas of the
DNase I footprints. Boldface bases in SE1 and SE3 correspond
to areas protected in previous DNase I footprints using less purified
nuclear extracts(21) . The boxedarea encloses a homologous region of each element. The human element is a matching sequence from the regulatory region of the
human vimentin gene.
GMSA with Affinity-purified ProteinsThe GMSA and
UV cross-linking experiments were repeated using the DNA
affinity-purified fraction. A single predominant band of equal mobility
was observed for both PEE and SE (Fig. 7A, lanes2 and 7). Competition with specific DNA (lanes3, 4, 8, and 9) and
nonspecific DNA (lanes5 and 10) confirmed
the sequence-specific nature of this binding. For both PEE and SE this
band cross-linked to the 95-kDa protein (data not shown), as with the
crude extracts. In a separate purification scheme using a different DNA
affinity column we were able to remove the 66-kDa protein from the
95-kDa fraction, as confirmed by a Coomassie Blue-stained gel (data not
shown). Surprisingly, GMSAs with this 95-kDa fraction showed no binding
to either the enhancer or silencer elements (Fig. 7B, lanes labeled -66). Binding was
restored when the 66-kDa fraction was added (lanes Both). The
66-kDa protein thus appears to play an essential role in the binding of
these elements to the 95-kDa SE binding protein, although it does not
easily cross-link to the DNA under these conditions.
Figure 7:
GMSAs with affinity-purified fractions. A, 0.5 µl of affinity-purified protein was used in the
GMSA. Lanes1 and 6 are control reactions
with no protein. Lanes3-5 and 8-10 include an excess of the following unlabeled competitor DNA. Lanes3 and 9, unlabeled SE; lanes4 and 8, unlabeled PEE; lanes5 and 10, unlabeled nonspecific DNA. B, lanes marked -66 were incubated with a DNA
affinity-purified fraction containing the 95-kDa protein but missing
the 66-kDa protein. Lanes marked Both were incubated
with both extracts.
DISCUSSION
Previous studies of the chicken vimentin gene have
demonstrated that several upstream regulatory elements, both positive
and negative, function in an integrated but as yet incompletely
understood fashion to regulate gene expression(15) . In the
case of the human vimentin gene, positive and negative elements have
also been identified that appear to correspond to the regulatory
elements in the chicken vimentin gene, although not necessarily in the
same number or absolute position (28, 29) . We
have previously described a region between 160 and 320 bases upstream
of the transcription start site in the chicken vimentin gene, which
contains a tissue-specific enhancer of possible importance for the
down-regulation of vimentin expression during
myogenesis(23, 24) . Here we have used transient
transfection assays with various deletion constructs (Fig. 1A) to show that two separate enhancer elements,
PEE1 and PEE2, exist in this region, one on each side of a previously
characterized SE(21) . Transient transfection assays with each
of these enhancer elements fused separately to the basal promoter
region(-160) support the functional importance of these two
enhancer elements (Fig. 2). When binding to nuclear proteins was
tested via GMSA, both PEE1 and PEE2 produced a protein-DNA complex with
equal mobility (Fig. 3A, band L), and the
addition of both specific and nonspecific competitor DNA confirmed that
this complex is the result of a sequence-specific interaction.
Unlabeled SE3 was also an effective competitor in this experiment (Fig. 3A, lanes 5 and 10), and a
second GMSA confirmed that both enhancer elements and all three
silencer elements produce a complex with equal mobility (Fig. 3B). UV cross-linking of these complexes suggests
that the 95-kDa SE binding protein is binding to all of these elements (Fig. 4). Efforts to purify the SE binding protein using a
SE1/DNA affinity column were under way at the same time as these
experiments, and a nearly pure fraction containing the SE
binding protein was available for use in DNase I protection studies.
This purified fraction contains only two major components when stained
with either Coomassie Blue (Fig. 5) or silver (data not shown):
the SE binding protein around 95 kDa and another protein around 66 kDa.
DNase I protection studies of PEE1, PEE2, SE1, and SE3 confirm that all
of these elements have a region or regions protected against DNase I
cleavage when incubated with this purified fraction (Fig. 6A). Furthermore, a sequence comparison reveals a
homologous eight-base region where all four elements show protein
binding (Fig. 6B, box), providing a common
basis for DNA-protein interaction. The two SEs show an additional area
of protection, and a comparison of these DNase I footprints (underlined bases) with previously described footprints using
less purified extracts (highlighted bases) shows good
correlation for all protected areas(21) . Studies on
regulation of the human vimentin gene support the relevance of these
results. A computer search of the human vimentin 5` end identified one
sequence that exactly matches the eight-base sequence in PEE1 (Fig. 6B). Interestingly, this matching human sequence
lies immediately upstream of a 19-bp negative
element(29, 30, 31) , which was clearly
protected in DNase I footprints(29) . We have previously shown
using Southwestern blots and UV cross-linking that this 19-bp negative
element binds the same 95-kDa protein as the chicken SEs(21) . These results suggest that the same protein can bind both an
enhancer and a silencer element, thereby activating or repressing
transcription. In recent years, several instances of such dual
regulation by the same transcription factor or related transcription
factors, have been demonstrated. In the case of the Wilm's tumor
gene product WT1, separate domains of WT1 mediate activation and
repression, but the same DNA binding site is utilized in both cases.
Whether WT1 activates or represses transcription depends on the number
of binding sites and their position within the gene. In cases where
related transcription factors with opposite effects have been
described, the two proteins can be derived from the same gene, either
as a result of alternative splicing (3, 32, 33, 34) or multiple
translational start sites(35) , or from separate
genes(36, 37) . Although two proteins of noticeably
different molecular weights often result, this is not always the case.
The gene for the POU domain nuclear protein I-POU, for example, can be
alternatively spliced to create twin of I-POU, which activates
transcription instead of repressing it like I-POU and differs from
I-POU by only two amino acids(34) . An example involving two
proteins from separate genes is found in the interferon regulatory
system, where the regulatory factors IRF-1 and IRF-2 possess similar
molecular weights and DNA binding specificities but produce opposite
effects on the transcription of the interferon gene and
interferon-inducible genes(36, 37) . IRF-1 and IRF-2
are derived from separate but related genes. In our case, the 95-kDa
SE binding protein is clearly interacting with both the positive and
negative regulatory elements, as demonstrated by GMSAs, UV
cross-linking experiments, and DNA footprints. It is unlikely that the
opposing effects depend on binding site position or number, as with
WT1, since these elements always increase (PEE1 and PEE2) or decrease
(SE1, SE2, SE3) transcription when placed independently in front of the
CAT reporter gene. A more promising hypothesis is that the SE binding
protein is producing opposing effects due to differences in the binding
site itself. To test this hypothesis, work is currently under way to
construct a series of mutations that can convert the silencer element
to an enhancer of transcription and vice versa. Another
possibility is that additional proteins, acting in concert with the SE
binding protein, control whether these DNA elements act in a positive
or negative manner. The 66-kDa protein, which copurified with the
95-kDa SE binding protein on the DNA affinity column, is one candidate,
and preliminary results do indicate that it is essential for binding of
the SE binding protein. A GMSA using a partially purified fraction of
the SE binding protein that did not contain the 66-kDa protein produced
no binding (Fig. 7B, lanes labeled -66). Subsequent addition of the 66-kDa fraction
restored binding (lanes labeled Both).
Interestingly, the 66-kDa protein was never detected in the UV
cross-linking experiments, perhaps because it only contacts the 95-kDa
protein and not the DNA itself. It is also possible that the 66-kDa
protein and the SE binding protein are binding as a dimer, but the
nature of the contacts between the 66-kDa protein and the DNA does not
permit UV cross-linking under our conditions. In this case the 66-kDa
protein might still be responsible for part of the DNase I protection
pattern, and the eventual purification of this protein should allow us
to examine more detailed and informative footprints. In addition to the
66-kDa protein, other proteins that play a role in gene regulation
could be removed during purification. Since the functional assay used
during purification was binding to SE1, proteins that do not directly
bind to the DNA, but that nevertheless are important components in
vivo, could be missed. The successful purification of the 95-kDa
SE binding protein and production of antibodies will eventually allow
us to immunoprecipitate intact complexes from labeled extracts.
Analysis of these complexes will help us unravel how these regulatory
elements and factors interact in vivo to activate or repress
transcription of the vimentin gene.
FOOTNOTES
- *
- This work was
supported by United States Public Health Service Grant HL45422 (to Z.
E. Z.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part
by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore by hereby
marked ``advertisement'' in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
- §
- Present address: Children's Hospital
Oakland Research Institute, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609.
- ¶
- To whom correspondence should be addressed:
Tel.: 804-828-8753; Fax: 804-828-1473; Zehner@vcuvax (bitnet), Zehner@gems.vcu.edu (internet).
- (
) - The abbreviations used are: IFP, intermediate
filament protein; SE, silencer element; GMSA, gel mobility shift assay;
PEE, proximal enhancer element; bp, base pair(s); CAT, chloramphenicol
acetyltransferase.
- (
) - A. M. Bracete, I. Carey, and
Z. E. Zehner, manuscript in preparation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Indira Carey for critical review of the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
- Johnson, P. F., and McKnight, S. L. (1989) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 58, 799-839
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Mitchell, P. J., and Tjian, R. (1989) Science 245, 371-378
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Foulkes, N. S., and Sassone-Corsi, P. (1992) Cell 68, 411-414
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Sze, J., Remboutsika, E., and Kohlhaw, G. B. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 5702-5709
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sauer, F., and Jackle, H. (1991) Nature 353, 563-566
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Sauer, F., and Jackle, H. (1993) Nature 364, 454-457
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Wang, Z., Qui, Q., and Deuel, T. F. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 9172-9175
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Bloemendal, H., and Pieper, F. R. (1989) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1007, 245-253
- Steinert, P. M., and Roop, D. R. (1988) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 57, 593-625
- Steinert, P. M., and Liem, R. K. H. (1990) Cell 60, 521-523
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Cheng, J., Syder, A. J., Yu, Q., Letai, A., Paller, A. S., and Fuchs, E. (1992) Cell 70, 811-819
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Chipev, C. C., Korge, B. P., Markova, N., Bale, S. J., DiGiovanna, J. J., Compton, J. G., and Steinert, P. M. (1992) Cell 70, 821-828
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Coulombe, P. A., Hutton, M. E., Letai, A. Hebert, A., Paller, A. S., and Fuchs, E. (1991) Cell 66, 1301-1311
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Oshima, R. G. (1992) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 4, 110-116
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Zehner, Z. E. (1991) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 3, 67-74
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Lazarides, E. (1982) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 51, 219-250
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Franke, W. W., Schmid, E., Winter, S., Osborn, M., and Weber, K. (1979) Exp. Cell Res. 123, 25-46
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Gibson, C. W., Rittling, S. R., Hirschhorn, R. R., Kaczamarek, L., Calabretta, B., Stiles, C. D., and Baserga, R. (1986) Mol. Cell. Biochem. 71, 61-69
[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Zehner, Z. E., Li, B. A., Roe, B. R., Patterson, B. M., and Sax, C. M. (1987) J. Biol. Chem. 262, 8112-8120
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Farrell, F. X., Sax, C. M., and Zehner, Z. E. (1990) Mol. Cell. Biol. 10, 2349-2358
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Garzon, R. J., and Zehner, Z. E. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 934-943
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Stover, D. M., and Zehner, Z. E. (1992) Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 2230-2240
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sax, C. M., Farrell, F. X., Tobian, J. A., and Zehner, Z. E. (1988) Nucleic Acids Res. 16, 8057-8076
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sax, C. M., Farrell, F. X., and Zehner, Z. E. (1989) Gene (Amst.) 78, 235-242
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Dente, L., Cesareni, G., and Cortese, R. (1983) Nucleic Acids Res. 6, 1645-1655
- Ausubel, F. A., Brent, R., Kingston, R. E., Moore, D. D., Seidman, J. G., Smith, J. A., and Struhl, K. (eds) (1994) Current Protocols in Molecular Biology , Greene Publishing and Wiley-Interscience, New York
- Dignam, J. D., Lebovitz, R. M., and Roeder, R. G. (1983) Nucleic Acids Res. 11, 1475-1489
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Rittling, S. R., Coutinho, L., Amram, T., and Kolbe, M. (1989) Nucleic Acids Res. 17, 1619-1632
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Salvetti, A., Lilienbaum, A., Li, Z., Paulin, D., and Gazzolo, L. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 89-97
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Lilienbaum, A., Dodon, M. D., Alexandre, C., Gazzolo, L., and Paulin, D. (1990) J. Virol. 64, 256-263
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Lilienbaum, A., and Paulin, D. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 2180-2188
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Foulkes, N. S., Borrelli, E., and Sassone-Corsi, P. (1991) Cell 64, 739-749
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Koenig, R. J., Lazar, M. A., Hodin, R. A., Brent, G. A., Larsen, P. R., Chin, W. W., and Moore, D. D. (1989) Nature 337, 659-661
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Treacy, M. N., Neilson, L. I., Turner, E. E., He, X., and Rosenfeld, M. G. (1992) Cell 68, 491-505
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Descombes, P., and Schibler, U. (1991) Cell 67, 569-579
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Harada, H., Fujita, T., Miyamoto, M., Kimura, Y., Maruyama, M., Furia, A., Miyata, T., and Taniguchi, T. (1989) Cell 58, 729-739
[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Tanaka, N., Kawakami, T., and Taniguchi, T. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 4531-4538
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
©1995 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
Copyright © 1995 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|