|
J Biol Chem, Vol. 275, Issue 16, 11799-11808, April 21, 2000
Transcriptional Activation of the Rice Tungro Bacilliform Virus
Gene Is Critically Dependent on an Activator Element Located
Immediately Upstream of the TATA Box*
Xiaoyuan
He ,
Thomas
Hohn §, and
Johannes
Fütterer¶
From the Friedrich Miescher Institute, P. O. Box
2543, CH-4002 Basel and the ¶ Institute of Plant Sciences,
Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich,
Zürich CH-8092, Switzerland
 |
ABSTRACT |
To investigate the transcriptional mechanisms of
rice tungro bacilliform virus, we have systematically analyzed an
activator element located immediately upstream of the TATA box in the
rice tungro bacilliform virus promoter and its cognate
trans-acting factors. Using electrophoretic mobility shift
assays, we showed that rice nuclear proteins bind to the activator
element, forming multiple specific DNA-protein complexes via
protein-protein interactions. Copper-phenanthroline footprinting and
DNA methylation interference analysis indicated that multiple
DNA-protein complexes share a common binding site located between
positions 60 to 39, and the proteins contact the activator element
in the major groove. DNA UV cross-linking assays further showed that
two nuclear proteins (36 and 33 kDa), found in rice cell suspension and
shoot nuclear extracts, and one (27 kDa), present in root nuclear
extracts, bind to this activator element. In protoplasts derived from a rice (Oryza sativa) suspension culture, the activator
element is a prerequisite for promoter activity and its function is
critically dependent on its position relative to the TATA box. Thus,
transcriptional activation may function via interactions with the basal
transcriptional machinery, and we propose that this activation is
mediated by protein-protein interactions in a
position-dependent mechanism.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
In eukaryotes, the transcription of protein-coding genes by RNA
polymerase II is regulated via two distinct types of DNA sequences: core promoter elements, located near the transcription start site that
are sufficient to direct the accurate initiation of transcription; and
upstream promoter elements, which contain binding sites for sequence-specific transcriptional activator and/or repressor proteins (1, 2). Transcriptional activators stimulate transcription by
recruiting the RNA polymerase II machinery to a core promoter and/or
stabilizing the transcription-initiation complex (3-6). Activators
have been proposed to directly or indirectly (through coactivators)
interact with components of the basal transcription machinery in
mammalian systems (3, 7, 8).
Although the basal transcriptional machinery, also referred to as the
polymerase II transcription initiation complex, has not been studied in
plants as extensively as in mammalian, Drosophila, and yeast
systems, TATA-binding proteins
(TBPs),1 TFIID, TFIIA, and
RNA polymerase II subunits have been isolated from plants (9-12).
Moreover, a number of plant trans-acting factors have been
identified (13). Little is known in plants about the molecular
mechanisms of transcriptional activation. It has been shown that TGA1a,
a transcription activator interacting with the activation sequence-1
element in the CaMV 35 S promoter (14), increases the rate of
preinitiation complex formation (15, 16). The plant transcription
factor GT-1 belongs to the class of trihelix DNA-binding proteins, and
it binds to a promoter cis-element with the core DNA
sequence 5'-GGTTAA found initially in light-regulated genes (17).
Recently, it has been shown that Arabidopsis GT-1 can
interact with and stabilize the TFIIA-TBP-TATA complex, suggesting that
GT-1 may activate transcription through direct interaction with the
transcriptional pre-initiation complex (18).
Rice tungro bacilliform virus (RTBV) is a plant pararetrovirus (19-22)
and belongs to the "RTBV-like" genus of the caulimoviridae family
(23). RTBV has a circular, double-stranded DNA genome of 8 kilobase
pairs from which the terminally redundant pregenomic transcript is
produced (19, 20, 24). A single promoter from the virus genome was
isolated, and phloem-specific activity was observed in transgenic rice
plants (25), suggesting that the promoter can account for the
tissue-specific localization of this virus. The RTBV promoter has been
analyzed in both transformed rice plants (26-28) and transfected rice
protoplasts (29, 30). Multiple upstream elements have been identified
as being required for phloem-specific gene expression in the context of
the 164 to +45 promoter in transformed rice plants (26, 27).
Moreover, the full-length RTBV promoter including the first 250 nucleotides downstream of the transcription start site is active in a
wider range of rice cell types than one where these sequences are
lacking (28). A promoter element required for gene expression in the vascular tissue was located to sequences between 165 and 100 to
which proteins from rice nuclear extracts bind (28). In transfected protoplasts, the activity of the RTBV promoter also required downstream promoter elements located in the region from +1 to +90 (29, 30).
In the current study, we have investigated the cis-acting
element located immediately upstream of the TATA box in considerably more detail. We have compared the binding activity of different types
of nuclear proteins and characterized the nuclear factors that bind to
this element by DNA UV cross-linking assays. Furthermore, we have
analyzed its function by deletion and mutation analysis in transfected
protoplasts. The results reveal this element to be a prerequisite for
promoter activity. Its function is critically dependent on its position
relative to the TATA box. We propose that activation of the RTBV
promoter by this element is mediated by a
position-dependent transcriptional activation mechanism.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Plasmid Constructions--
The basic plasmid used in this study,
R-218.I-CAT (here called R-218), has been described previously (29,
30). The 5' deletions and point mutations were made by PCR with
appropriate synthetic oligonucleotides. A common 5' end oligonucleotide
primer, designated P5, was located at vector sequences upstream of the RTBV promoter. A common 3' end oligonucleotide primer, designated P3,
covered the first 20 nucleotides of the CAT ORF on the antisense strand.
To generate plasmids with 5' end deletions to 70 or 40, a DNA
fragment was amplified from the R-218 template by PCR with a 5' end
primer corresponding to position 70 or 40 flanked by an
XbaI site and primer P3. The PCR products were cloned into the XbaI-XhoI site of R-218 to generate plasmids
R-70 or R-40, respectively.
The internal deletion from 70 to 35 was constructed as follows: a
DNA fragment covering the region from 218 to 70 was amplified by
PCR with primer P5 and a primer corresponding to nucleotides from 85
to 70 in antisense. A second DNA fragment (from 35 to first 20 nucleotides of the CAT ORF) was amplified with a primer corresponding
to nucleotides from 35 to 20 and primer P3. These two PCR products
were then phosphorylated and digested with XbaI or
XhoI, respectively. The resulting DNA fragments were ligated
together into the XbaI-XhoI site of R-218 to
yield R-218d.
To obtain eR-218d(+) and eR-218d( ), double-stranded oligonucleotides
corresponding to nucleotides from 70 to 35 flanked with an
XbaI site were inserted into XbaI site of R-218.
The resulting constructs were designated as eR-218d(+) with the
insertion in the sense orientation and eR-218d( ) in antisense orientation.
For point mutations, an overlap extension PCR strategy was used: two
overlapping fragments, one amplified with primer P5 and a 3' end primer
of the antisense strand with mutation of Gs directly contacted by
nuclear proteins to Ts (see below), and the other with a 5'-primer
corresponding to the sense strand with mutation of Gs directly
contacted by nuclear proteins to Ts and primer P3, were used as
templates to amplify a mutated promoter fragment using P5 and P3
primers. The resulting product was digested with XbaI and
XhoI, and introduced between the XbaI and
XhoI sites of R-218 to yield R-218m.
Plasmids (AATTG)1, (AATTG)2,
(AATTG)3, and (AATTG)4 were created as follows:
an upstream fragment covering the region from 218 to 35 was
amplified with primer P5 and a primer corresponding to the antisense
strand from 50 to 35 flanked with a MunI site (CAATTG).
A downstream fragment from 34 to the first 20 nucleotides of the CAT
ORF was made by PCR with a 5'-primer corresponding to sequences from
34 to 20 flanked with a MunI site and primer P3. The
resulting PCR products thus harbor AATTG. Downstream fragments bearing
(AATTG)2, (AATTG)3, or (AATTG)4 at
the 5' end were produced as above. The upstream and downstream
fragments were digested with MunI and ligated, followed by
digestion with XbaI and XhoI. The resulting
fragments were inserted between XbaI and XhoI
sites of R-218.
A DNA fragment spanning positions 100 to 1 amplified by PCR was
inserted into the HindIII site (filled in with Klenow
polymerase) of pBluescript II KS(+) to generate plasmids for
preparation of DNA probes. The resulting plasmids were designated as
pRP100(+) with the 5' end of the sense strand adjacent to the
ClaI site, and pRP100( ) in antisense orientation. To
create plasmid mP100 for preparation of the DNA probe used in UV
cross-linking assays, a PCR fragment covering positions 100 to 1 of
the promoter, flanked by an XbaI site at the 5' end and
HindIII at the 3' end, was inserted between the
XbaI and HindIII sites of M13mp18.
PCR conditions were as follows: one cycle at 94 °C for 3 min, 30 cycles at 94 °C for 1 min, 55 °C for 1 min, and 72 °C for 2 min, followed by one cycle at 72 °C for 10 min. Pfu DNA
polymerase (Stratagene) was used in all the PCR reactions. All
deletions and mutations were verified by restriction digestions and DNA sequencing. Plasmids were isolated from Escherichia coli
(strain DH5 ) using a Qiagen plasmid kit.
Preparation of Nuclear Extracts--
Nuclear extracts from cell
suspensions of Oryza sativa line Oc were prepared as
described (30). Nuclear extracts from 2-week-old O. sativa
plant shoots and roots were prepared essentially as described (31). All
steps were performed at 4 °C. Briefly, 100 g of fresh tissue of
shoots or roots was homogenized in 400 ml of cold homogenization buffer
(1 M 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol, 10 mM PIPES/KOH,
pH 7.0, 10 mM MgCl2, 0.5% Triton X-100, 5 mM 2-mercaptoethanol, 0.8 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride). The homogenate was filtered sequentially through two layers of gauze, 60-µm and then 40-µm nylon mesh filters. The nuclei were pelleted by centrifugation at
3,000 × g for 10 min and resuspended in 100 ml of
nuclear wash buffer with Triton (0.5 M
2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol, 10 mM PIPES/KOH, pH 7.0, 10 mM MgCl2, 5 mM 2-mercaptoethanol,
0.8 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 0.5% Triton X-100).
The solution was filtered through 10-µm nylon mesh filters, and the
nuclei were collected by centrifugation at 3000 × g
for 5 min. The nuclear pellet was resuspended in 50 ml of nuclear wash
buffer without Triton. After centrifugation as above, the nuclei were
resuspended in 20 ml of nuclear lysis buffer (110 mM KCl,
15 mM Hepes/KOH, pH 7.5, 5 mM
MgCl2, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 5 µg/ml antipain,
and 5 µg/ml leupeptin), followed by addition of three aliquots of 4 M ammonium sulfate (total volume of 2 ml) with gentle
mixing. After shaking gently for 30 min, the solution was centrifuged
to pellet the chromatin and particulate matter at 40,000 rpm for 45 min. Ammonium sulfate (0.30 g/ml) was then added to the supernatant
with gentle stirring over a 30-min period, and the solution was left to
stand for 30 min. The solution was then centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for
15 min to precipitate protein, and the pellet was resuspended gently in 0.5-1 ml of nuclear extract buffer (40 mM KCl, 25 mM Hepes/KOH, pH 7.5, 0.1 mM EDTA, 10%
glycerol, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 5 µg/ml antipain, 5 µg/ml leupeptin), followed by dialysis against nuclear extract buffer
(dithiothreitol was replaced by 5 mM 2-mercaptoethanol and
protease inhibitors were omitted) three times for 1 h. The dialyzed solution was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 10 min, frozen in
liquid nitrogen, and stored in aliquots at 80 °C. Protein concentration was measured by the method of Bradford (Bio-Rad) with
bovine serum albumin as the standard.
Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay (EMSA)--
A DNA probe was
5' end-labeled with [ -32P]dCTP using the Klenow DNA
polymerase with ClaI-digested pRP100(+), followed by a second restriction digestion at the EcoRV site. The
resulting probe was purified on a 5% native polyacrylamide gel.
Binding reactions were carried out essentially as described (30),
except that 15,000 cpm of labeled DNA (around 0.4 ng of DNA) and 10-20 µg of nuclear extract proteins were used for each reaction. 5 µg of
poly(dI-dC) (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) was used as an unspecific competitor.
For treatments with sodium desoxycholate (DOC), DOC was added to the
reaction mixture at the amounts indicated 20 min after addition of the
labeled DNA probe, and the mixtures were incubated at room temperature
for an additional 10 min. As a control, Nonidet P-40 was added to a
final concentration of 1% to reverse the function of DOC as detergent.
Copper-Phenanthroline Footprinting Analysis--
The same 5'
end-labeled DNA probe was used as for EMSA. A 3' end-labeled DNA probe
was prepared in the same way as the 5' end-labeled probe except using
plasmid pRP100( ). The footprinting analysis was performed as
described (32) with some modifications. Binding reactions were scaled
up 10-fold as compared with the EMSA and fractionated by polyacrylamide
gel electrophoresis as with EMSA. In situ digestion of the
DNA by the nuclease activity of 1,10-phenanthroline-cuprous complex was
allowed to proceed for 5-6 min at 25 °C. DNA from free and bound
fractions were visualized by autoradiography of the wet gel at 4 °C
overnight, then the DNA was eluted from the corresponding bands in 300 µl of elution buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 2 mM EDTA, 0.4 M NaCl, 0.05% SDS) overnight at
37 °C. The DNA was extracted with phenol-chloroform and purified
using a Qiagen PCR purification kit. Equal Cerenkov counts of the bound
and free DNA fractions were loaded on a 6% polyacrylamide sequencing
gel. The gel was then fixed, dried, and exposed for autoradiography.
Chemical sequencing reactions were carried out according to the Maxam
and Gilbert method (33).
Methylation Interference Footprinting Analysis--
The probes
and the binding reactions were exactly the same as those used for
copper-phenanthroline footprinting analysis. The labeled probe was
partially methylated with dimethyl sulfate (34). EMSAs were then
carried out as described above with the methylated probe. Following
native gel electrophoresis, the unbound probe and protein-DNA complexes
were located by autoradiography, excised, and eluted from the gel
overnight at 37 °C in elution buffer (see above). Proteins were
removed by extraction with phenol-chloroform, and the DNA was purified
using a Qiagen PCR purification kit. The DNA was then cleaved in 1 M piperidine at 90 °C for 30 min, lyophilized, dissolved
in formamide gel-loading dye, and resolved in a 6% sequencing gel.
DNA UV Cross-linking Assays--
Single-stranded mP100 DNA was
prepared as described (33). DNA probe that has had its thymidine
residues substituted by bromodeoxyuridine was uniformly labeled with
[ -32P]dCTP by extension of the M13 universal primer as
described (35), and then digested with XbaI and
HindIII, followed by purification on a 5% native
polyacrylamide gel. The binding reactions were carried out as described
for EMSA and included 1 × 105 cpm of the uniformly
labeled DNA probe. Following the 20-min incubation period, the reaction
mixtures were irradiated with UV light (312 nm) for 30 min in a UV
Stratalinker 1800 (Stratagene) at 4 °C. Samples were then digested
with 10 units each of DNase I and micrococcal nuclease in the presence
of 10 mM CaCl2 for 30 min at 37 °C. The
resulting mixtures were resolved on a 14% SDS-polyacrylamide gel.
Transient Expression Assays--
Protoplasts derived from a rice
Oc suspension culture were prepared and transfected by polyethylene
glycol-mediated transfection as described previously (36, 37). 10 µg
of plasmid DNA was used to transfect 0.6 × 106
protoplasts, together with 3 µg of a plasmid expressing
-glucuronidase (GUS) under the control of the CaMV 35 S promoter to
serve as an internal standard for transfection efficiency. Measurement of CAT and GUS activities in protoplast extracts prepared after overnight incubation was carried out by using a CAT enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit (Roche Diagnostics Ltd) and as described elsewhere (38), respectively. CAT activity was normalized to the GUS
activity of the same extract. Relative expression levels did not vary
more than ±10% with the given constructs in this study. All
constructs were tested in at least three independent experiments with
at least three independent clones of each transformation.
 |
RESULTS |
Identification of an Activator Element Located Immediately Upstream
of the TATA Box--
Our previous studies have shown that a version of
the RTBV promoter truncated to position 50 relative to the
transcription start site retained 40% activity of the full-length
promoter in transient expression systems (29). To further identify
potential upstream cis-acting elements, a series of promoter
5' deletion constructs was used to analyze RTBV promoter regulation in
transfected rice protoplasts. RTBV promoter sequences to position 218
were used in these constructs, because the region between positions 618 (full length) and 218 does not influence transcription from the
RTBV promoter in O. sativa protoplasts (29). All constructs included a full-length RTBV leader sequence and a chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) ORF fused to RTBV ORF I. As shown in Fig. 1, expression of the CAT reporter gene
was not affected by deletion of upstream sequences to position 70
relative to the transcriptional start site. However, deletion to
nucleotide 40, leaving only the TATA box and transcriptional start
site, resulted in a significant loss of CAT activity to a level
reflecting only basal transcription. Hence, these results clearly
indicated that a cis-regulatory element conferring maximal
promoter activity in transfected rice protoplasts is located between
the sequences from 70 to 40 of the promoter. We refer to this
region as activator element (AE).

View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Deletion analysis of the 5'-flanking region
of the RTBV promoter. Promoter 5' end deletions were constructed
with the full-length RTBV leader sequence and the CAT ORF fused to RTBV
ORF I as shown. These constructs were tested for their effects on
promoter activity in transfected O. sativa protoplasts. For
each construct, the mean promoter activity obtained from at least three
independent transfections is indicated as a percentage of the activity
of the wild-type construct R218 (set to 100%).
|
|
Multiple Nuclear Proteins Specifically Bind to Sequences from 60
to 39--
It has been shown that nuclear proteins from rice
seedlings bind to DNA sequences from 53 to 39, called box II, of
the RTBV promoter (26). To test whether nuclear proteins from rice cell suspension cultures can bind to this activator element, EMSA were performed with nuclear extracts from rice cell suspensions in comparison with rice shoot and root nuclear extracts. One or more DNA-protein complexes were detected upon incubation of each of these
extracts with radiolabeled promoter sequences from 100 to 1 (Fig.
2). Four specific DNA-protein complexes,
designated C1, C2, C3/C3', and C4, were repeatedly observed with
nuclear extracts from rice shoots (S) and cell suspensions (C) (Fig. 2, lanes 2 and 3); C3 and C3' were
observed in shoot nuclear extracts and cell suspension nuclear
extracts, respectively. C1 and C2 are predominant complexes with high
intensity, and C3' migrates slightly faster than C3. However, in root
extracts (R), only one DNA-protein complex, named C, was observed with
a slightly higher mobility than those in shoot or cell suspension
nuclear extracts (Fig. 2, lane 4). Two additional
DNA-protein complexes (C5 and C5') that migrate faster than any others
were detected with nuclear extract prepared from cell suspension
cultures (Fig. 2, lane 3).

View larger version (59K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Comparison of DNA-protein complexes formed in
different types of nuclear extracts with RTBV promoter sequences from
100 to 1. EMSAs were performed using a labeled DNA probe from
100 to 1 without (lane 1) or with rice shoot
(S, lane 2), cell suspension
(C, lane 3), or root (R,
lane 4) nuclear extracts. The names and positions
of DNA-protein complexes are indicated. P represents unbound
DNA probe.
|
|
To determine the specificity of protein binding to the DNA probe,
competition experiments were performed with specific unlabeled DNA
fragments. All complexes were completely competed with a 200-fold molar
excess of unlabeled 100 to 1 probe DNA fragment (fl) (Fig. 3, B-D, lanes
2). A series of shorter double-stranded oligonucleotides covering subregions of this fragment (Fig. 3A) were then
used as competitors. The presence of competitor m2 abolished the
formation of all complexes (Fig. 3, B-D, lanes
4), while m1 and m3 showed no competition for complexes
C1-C4 and C (Fig. 3, B-D, lanes 3 and 5). Complexes C5 and C5' can be competed completely by
m2 and m3, but only partially by m1 (Fig. 3B,
lanes 3, 4, and 5). These
results indicate that nuclear factors bind to the m2 region from 70
to 35 to form multiple DNA-protein complexes, and that both m2 and m3
contribute to the formation of complexes C5 and C5'. To further
determine the minimal sequence requirement for the formation of the
major DNA-protein complexes, three overlapping double-stranded
oligonucleotides covering different regions from 70 to 35 were used
as competitors (Fig. 3A). It is evident that m5, which
corresponds to the region from 60 to 39, is equally effective in
competing complexes C1-C4 and C as m2 (Fig. 3, B-D, lanes 7). However, m4 and m6 were not able to
compete those complexes (Fig. 3, B-D, lanes
6 and 8). M6, corresponding to the region from
70 to 54, competed for C5 and C5' efficiently (Fig. 3B, lane 8), while m5 showed a weak competition (Fig.
3B, lane 7) and m4 none (Fig.
3B, lane 6).

View larger version (70K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Determination of minimal sequences required
for the formation of DNA-protein complexes. Double-stranded
oligonucleotides covering different sections of the sequence between
100 to 1 (fl, m1, m2, or
m3), or having overlapping sequences (m4,
m5, or m6) shown in panel A
were synthesized and used as cold competitors at a 200-fold molar
excess in EMSAs. EMSAs were carried out in the absence ( ) or presence
of competitors (fl, m1-m6;
lanes 2-8 in panels B,
C, and D) with nuclear extracts from cell
suspensions (panel B), shoots (panel
C), or roots (panel D).
|
|
Taken together, these results indicate that the minimal sequence
required for formation of DNA-protein complexes C1-C4 and C resides
within the region from 60 to 39, while the binding sites for C5 and
C5' complexes are located within the regions from 70 to 54 and 35
to 1. We did not detect the proteins that bind to the ASL box from
98 to 79 reported by Yin et al. (27). The differences in
our results may be due to differences in the methods used to prepare
nuclear extracts.
Copper-Phenanthroline Footprinting Assays Show That Complexes C1 to
C4 Share a Common Binding Site from 60 to 39--
Complexes C1 to
C4 might bind to individual sites or share the same site within the
region from 60 to 39. To address this question, we performed
copper-phenanthroline footprinting assays. EMSAs were performed with
nuclear extracts prepared from cell suspension cultures using the
100-bp probe utilized in Figs. 2 and 3 labeled on either the top or
bottom strand. Complexes corresponding to C1, C2, C3', C4, C5, and C5'
were then subjected to footprinting analysis. DNA from each fraction
was recovered and characterized on sequencing gels. The footprinting
patterns for the top and bottom strands of the RTBV promoter are shown
in Fig. 4A. A single protected
area was detected from 60 to 39 in both the top and bottom strands
from complexes C1, C2, C3', and C4 (Fig. 4C). The large
footprints observed probably result from the binding of more than one
protein. A single protected area in the top strand and two protected
areas in the bottom strand were detected from complex C5 (mixture of C5
and C5') (Fig. 4A). The protected areas were located in a
region from 70 to 60 in the top strand and in regions from 60 to
54 and 50 to 43 in the bottom strand (Fig. 4C). The
footprinting data are in precise agreement with the results of the
binding assays performed with competitors and indicate that all
complexes except C5 and C5' share a common binding site including
nucleotides from 60 to 39. In all complexes, the A at position 96
showed an enhanced reactivity on the top strand in the presence of
protein, while unbound DNA (F) is almost not cleaved at this residue
under the conditions employed (Fig. 4A).

View larger version (89K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Precise localization of the nuclear factor
binding sites within the AE on the promoter. A DNA fragment
spanning 100 to 1 was 5' end-labeled on either the top or bottom
strand and incubated with cell suspension nuclear extracts.
A, copper-phenanthroline footprinting analysis. Labeled DNA
probe was incubated with nuclear extracts and resolved on a native
polyacrylamide gel. DNA-protein complexes (C1-C5) as well
as free probe (F) were digested in situ with
1,10-phenanthroline-copper ion, eluted from the gel, and complexes
resolved on a 6% polyacrylamide sequencing gel. A Maxam and Gilbert
sequencing ladder (G) was run in parallel. The protected
areas are depicted on the right of the gel by
open (C1-C4) or filled
(C5) vertical bars. The
numbers on the right correspond to base pairs
upstream of the transcription start site. A strong hypersensitive site
at nucleotide A at position 96 is indicated with an arrow.
B, methylation interference footprinting reveals that
protein contacts are made in the major groove of the AE. A labeled DNA
probe was partially methylated with dimethyl sulfate, incubated with
nuclear extracts, and complexes resolved on a native polyacrylamide
gel. Both protein-bound (complexes C1-C4) and free (F) DNA
were eluted from the gel, cleaved at the modified bases with
piperidine, and resolved on a 6% polyacrylamide sequencing gel. A
Maxam and Gilbert sequencing ladder (G) was run in parallel.
The positions of G residues at which methylation interfered with
binding are indicated with arrowheads. A weakly interfered G
residue at position 52 is marked by an open
circle. The numbers on the right
correspond to guanine residue positions upstream of the transcription
start site. Data for C1 in the bottom strand are not shown.
C, nucleotide sequence of the RTBV promoter from 70 to
35 showing the protected regions. The open box
indicates the copper-phenanthroline footprint of complexes C1-C4.
Gray boxes represent protected regions of complex
C5. Arrowheads (and open circle)
indicate guanine residues identified as contact points by methylation
interference footprinting.
|
|
Methylation Interference Analysis Shows That Proteins Contact the
Activator Element in the Major Groove--
To further identify the
precise contacts made by nuclear proteins in binding to this region of
DNA, methylation interference analysis was performed using the 100 to
1 probe labeled on either the top or bottom strand. Partially
methylated DNA bound to nuclear proteins was cleaved at G residues
methylated at the N-7 position, which interferes with major groove DNA
binding (39). Methylation of guanine nucleotides in the top strand at
positions 55 and 46 and in the bottom strand at positions 53,
45 to 42 strongly affected the specific DNA-protein interactions
(Fig. 4B). Methylation of the guanine nucleotide in the
bottom strand at position 52 resulted in a weak interference with the
protein binding. Again, complexes C1, C2, C3', and C4 all involved the
same G residue contacts in both top and bottom strands (Fig.
4C). The G at position 55 in the top strand was not
involved in protein binding analyzed previously by DNase I footprinting
(26). To verify the involvement of the G at position 55 in protein
binding, a G to T mutation at this position (within the context of m2,
70 to 35, see Fig. 3A) was tested as a competitor in
EMSA. The mutated sequence was not able to compete any of the complexes
(data not shown), suggesting that the G at position 55 is crucial for
formation of the DNA-protein complexes. Taken together, the results
indicated that nuclear proteins directly contacted the activator
element in the major groove.
The Formation of Multiple DNA-Protein Complexes on the Activator
Element Is Based on Protein-Protein Interactions--
Because multiple
DNA-protein complexes are observed in EMSA and only a single protected
area is detected in footprinting analysis from complexes C1, C2, C3',
and C4, we hypothesized that these multiple complexes result from
either protein-protein association of a common DNA-binding protein with
non-DNA-binding proteins or the interaction of multiple DNA-binding
proteins of different sizes to a common binding site. To test this
hypothesis, we utilized the detergent DOC in EMSA, which is known to
disrupt protein-protein interactions and has been widely used to
characterize multi-protein complexes (40-43). When DOC was added in
low concentration, the four DNA-protein complexes were converted into
only two complexes that migrated faster than the initial complexes with
nuclear extracts from cell suspension cultures and shoots (Fig.
5). Adding an excess of the nonionic
detergent Nonidet P-40 reversed this effect (Fig. 5, lanes
5 and 10). This observation implies that
protein-protein interactions were required for the formation of
multiple DNA-protein complexes, and that there are two specific
DNA-binding proteins, designated AEBP-1 and AEBP-2
(activator element-binding
protein 1 and 2), respectively,
directly recognizing the AE. The DOC treatment abolished the formation
of complexes C5 and C5' even at very low concentration (Fig.
5A, lane 2), and complex formation
could not be restored by Nonidet P-40 (Fig. 5A,
lane 5), suggesting that proteins interact with
each other and are unable to bind DNA alone.

View larger version (103K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
The multiple DNA-protein complexes are due to
protein-protein interactions. EMSAs were performed with nuclear
extracts as indicated. DNA-protein complexes were treated with
different concentrations of the detergent DOC (%) as indicated. In
addition, at 0.2% DOC, Nonidet P-40 was added to a final concentration
of 1% as a control. DNA-binding proteins are indicated (AEBP-1 and
-2).
|
|
Identification of Proteins Bound to the AE by DNA UV Cross-linking
Assays--
Our results demonstrate that formation of multiple
DNA-protein complexes on the AE is based on protein-protein
interactions, and only two proteins directly contact this element. To
specifically identify these proteins, we performed DNA UV cross-linking
assays with a bromo-dUTP-labeled probe. The bromo-dUTP-labeled probe formed the same specific DNA-protein complexes (data not shown) as the
regular probe 100 to 1 (Fig. 2). After UV cross-linking, DNA-protein complexes were analyzed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. In addition to a nonspecific protein of 30 kDa (see
below), which appeared in all extracts tested, two proteins with
apparent molecular masses of 33 and 36 kDa were identified in nuclear
extracts from cell suspension cultures and shoots, while only one
protein of 26 kDa was detected in root nuclear extracts (Fig.
6). The 36-kDa protein predominates in
shoot nuclear extracts, while the 33-kDa protein is more abundant than
the 36-kDa protein in cell suspension culture nuclear extracts.

View larger version (57K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Identification of the AE-binding proteins by
UV cross-linking. Radiolabeled DNA probe substituted with
bromodeoxyuridine was incubated without (lane 1) or with
nuclear extracts (shoot (S), lanes
2-5; cell suspension (C), lanes
6-9; root (R), lanes
10-13) in the absence ( ) or presence of a 200-fold molar
excess of the competitor indicated. The reaction mixtures were
irradiated with UV light, treated with DNase I and micrococcal
nuclease, and analyzed on a 14% SDS-polyacrylamide gel. Molecular size
standards are indicated on the right. The UV cross-linked
proteins are indicated by arrows on the left. A
nonspecific cross-linked protein appearing in all three extracts is
marked with an asterisk.
|
|
Competition experiments were performed in the presence of a 200-fold
molar excess of three different unlabeled DNA competitors (m1, m2, and
m3; see Fig. 3A). The 30-kDa band was not competed by any of
these competitors; therefore, it was judged to be nonspecific. All the
other cross-linked proteins were competed by competitor m2
(corresponding to region 70 to 35), but not by m1 and m3, demonstrating specific interactions between the AE and these
cross-linked proteins (Fig. 6). These results are consistent with those
determined by EMSA. Treatment of the UV-irradiated reaction mixture
with proteinase K prior to gel electrophoresis abolished complex
formation, indicating that nuclear proteins were indeed present in the
bands detected (data not shown). We could not detect proteins that form complexes C5 and C5' with the nuclear extract prepared from cell suspension culture. Possibly, these might be present in the extract at
levels below the limit of detection using this method.
The AE Is a Prerequisite for Promoter Activity--
To address the
functional consequence of the DNA-protein interactions with the AE,
deletions or mutations were made in the context of the whole leader and
promoter sequences to 218. The activity of these constructs was
assessed in transfected rice protoplasts. Internal deletion from 70
to 35 resulted in a dramatic reduction in promoter activity to less
than 10% of wild type (Fig. 7). Mutation
of Gs identified as being directly contacted by nuclear factors to Ts
had a similar effect. A double-stranded oligonucleotide from 70 to
35 bearing these mutations was also not able to compete any of the
DNA-protein complexes when used as a competitor in EMSA (data not
shown). These results highlight the crucial importance of the AE for
efficient transcription from the promoter.

View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
The AE is a prerequisite for promoter
activity. Constructs used for transfection of O. sativa
protoplasts are shown schematically on the left. The TATA
box is indicated by a solid box. The
hatched box indicates the DNA fragment from 70
to 35 containing the AE. The transcription start site is indicated by
a bent arrow. The orientation of the DNA fragment
from 70 to 35 inserted at position 218 of the RTBV promoter is
depicted by arrows. Deletion of DNA from 70 to 35 is
indicated by bent dashed lines. The
asterisks denote the mutations of all Gs directly contacted
by nuclear proteins in both top ( 56 and 46) and bottom ( 53, 52,
and 45 to 42) strands to Ts. All constructs were tested in at least
three independent transfections. For each construct, the mean promoter
activity is indicated as a percentage of the activity of the wild-type
construct (set to 100%).
|
|
The Position of the AE Relative to the TATA Box Is Critical for
Promoter Activity--
To determine whether the AE could confer
promoter activity from an upstream position, sequences from 70 to
35 were deleted in the wild-type position and one copy of this DNA
fragment was placed at position 218 upstream of the transcription
start site. As shown in Fig. 7, one copy of the AE positioned at
nucleotide 218 in either forward or reverse orientation is not able
to compensate at all for the deletion of sequences from 70 to 35.
This finding indicated that the AE could not enhance promoter activity
from a distance. Thus, activation by the AE is
position-dependent.
Functional Association of the AE Is DNA
Distance-dependent but Not
Turn-dependent--
Inspection of the sequences in the
promoter-proximal region revealed that the binding sites for nuclear
factors within the AE are very close to the TATA box, with only a very
few base pairs separating the two elements. This close proximity, and
the position-dependent characteristics of the AE raised the
question whether AE-binding activator proteins would interact directly
or indirectly with basal transcription factors to activate
transcription from the promoter. If so, it would be predicted that
altering the spacing between the AE and the TATA box could affect
protein-protein interactions between these two sets of factors, and
thereby influence transcription from the promoter. To test this
prediction, a series of constructs was made in which the distance
between the AE and the TATA box was varied from 5 to 20 bases (Fig.
8). The effect on promoter activity was
tested in transfected rice protoplasts. As the distance between the AE
and the TATA box increased, the promoter activity gradually decreased
(Fig. 8). When five nucleotides, corresponding to half a DNA helical
turn, were inserted between the AE and the TATA box, CAT activity was
reduced to 73% of the wild-type construct, indicating a lack of strict
dependence on stereospecific alignment between the AE and the TATA box
for activation. A further reduction was observed with a 10-nucleotide
insertion (a full DNA helical turn). Insertion of 15 or 20 nucleotides
resulted in a significant loss of promoter activity (to 32% and 26%
of wild-type, respectively). Thus, activation via the AE is DNA
distance-dependent but not turn-dependent.

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Altering the distance between the AE and the
TATA box significantly reduces promoter activity. A schematic
representation of the constructs tested in transfected O. sativa protoplasts is shown on the top left,
with the expanded sequence underneath indicating insertion of synthetic
oligonucleotides carrying one, two, three, or four copies of AATTG
between positions 35 and 34. The TATA box is underlined.
All constructs were tested in at three independent experiments. For
each construct, the mean promoter activity is indicated as percentage
of the activity of the wild-type construct (set to 100%).
|
|
Loss of Promoter Activity Is Not Due to the Loss of Protein Binding
to the AE--
To determine whether these insertions affect the
formation of DNA-protein complexes on the AE, EMSA was performed using
DNA probe bearing the same insertions between 35 and 34 as in the above constructs. The DNA-protein complexes with these probes in
nuclear extracts from both cell suspension cultures and shoots were
identical to those obtained with wild-type probe, and the resulting
DNA-protein complexes can be competed completely by wild-type sequences
from 70 to 35 (data not shown). These results indicated that these
insertions did not affect DNA-protein interactions on the AE, and
therefore loss of promoter activity is not due to loss of protein
binding to the AE.
 |
DISCUSSION |
To elucidate the molecular mechanisms involved in regulating
transcription from the RTBV promoter, we have undertaken a systematic analysis of the AE and its cognate trans-acting factors. The
current study provides a new insight into the transcriptional
regulation mechanisms of RTBV. We have demonstrated that (i) nuclear
proteins bind to the AE, forming multiple DNA-protein complexes through protein-protein interactions, (ii) AE is a
position-dependent element whose function is critically
dependent on its position relative to the TATA box, (iii) AE is a
prerequisite for efficient promoter activity, and (iv) activators
probably stimulate transcription via interactions with basal
transcription factors.
Formation of multiple DNA-protein complexes on the AE is based on
protein-protein interactions, and these interactions correlate with the
functional activity of the promoter. EMSA analyses with different
nuclear extracts have led to the identification of different DNA-binding proteins, which may be involved in regulating cell type-specific transcription from the promoter. Our EMSA results showed
that the protein binding patterns are not exactly the same in cell
suspension, shoot and root nuclear extracts, indicating that different
proteins from different types of nuclear extracts directly or
indirectly bind to the same element. DNA UV cross-linking studies
revealed two proteins of 36 and 33 kDa binding to this element,
suggesting that formation of protein-protein interactions in the RTBV
promoter requires the binding of both the 36- and 33-kDa proteins to
this element. Based on the protein profile and the mobility of each
complex in native gels, it is most likely that AEBP-1 is the 33-kDa
protein, while AEBP-2 is the 36-kDa protein. Complex C1 contains two
DNA-binding proteins of 33 and 36 kDa, and complexes C2, C3, C3', and
C4 may represent heterodimers of the 33- or 36-kDa proteins with
unknown proteins, which do not directly bind to DNA. However, a 26-kDa
DNA-binding protein was found in root nuclear extracts with which no
protein-protein interaction was observed. Taken together, we may
conclude that the direct or indirect binding of different nuclear
factors to the same element may contribute to alternative
transcriptional regulation mechanisms from the promoter in different
cell types, and that protein-protein interactions play a critical role
in transcriptional activation from the promoter.
The importance of the AE for transcription from the RTBV promoter
in vivo is apparent from the effects of internal deletions and mutations in this element on the activity of the promoter tested in
a transient expression system (Fig. 7). Moreover, when the DNA fragment
from 70 to 35 was placed upstream of promoter at position 218, it
was not able to exert its effect regardless of orientation, suggesting
that its function is position-dependent. Mutation of Gs
directly contacted by nuclear proteins in both top and bottom strands
resulted in the same reduction of promoter activity as deletion of this
element. These mutations also disrupt the formation of DNA-protein
complexes. Taken together, these results indicated that the AE is a
position-dependent element, and that there is a complete
correlation between nuclear protein binding in vitro and
transcription activation in vivo. Interestingly, deletion or
mutation of this element has a more drastic effect than deletion of
upstream sequences to 40 (cf. Figs. 1 and 7). This is most
likely due to an inhibitor element located upstream at sequences from
165 to 100 identified in transfected rice protoplasts.2
Studies on the RTBV promoter in transgenic rice plants have shown that
three upstream elements, box II ( 53 to 39), the ASL box ( 98 to
79), and the GATA motif ( 143 to 135), act combinatorially to
confer phloem-specific gene expression in the context of the 164 to
+45 promoter (27), and that a promoter element located to sequences
from 164 to 100 is very important for gene expression in the
vascular tissue (28). The results presented here show that, for full
promoter activity, upstream sequences to 70 containing the activator
element in the context of complete leader are required in transfected
rice protoplasts. The differences in our results may reflect
differences between stable and transient expression systems (28, 30),
as demonstrated by EMSA analysis in this study.
In the -amylase gene promoter regulated by gibberellin (GA) during
germination, a cis-acting element called box T is located three bases upstream of the TATA box. Box T is a polypyrimidine sequence element ( 50GATCACATCCCCCCT 36). It
was suggested that box T may be bound by basal transcription factors
(44). The FP56 element in the parsley 4CL1 promoter is also a
pyrimidine-rich element (5'-TCCCCATTTACCCCT-3') on which multiple
DNA-protein complexes form (45). This element consists of a perfect
indirect repeat of the octanucleotide TCCCCATT, but its functional
significance remains to be clarified. The AE is also pyrimidine-rich
and is apparently not bound directly by basal transcription factors.
Inspection of the AE nucleotide sequence revealed the presence of two
motifs: a TGACG-like motif ( 56TGACC 51) and
an octamer-like motif ( 48GTGCCCCT 41). This
octamer sequence is found in the C4-type phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase gene in maize and binds a light-inducible DNA-binding factor (MUF1) (46). The TGACG motif and variations have been identified
in the promoters of a variety of plant genes, such as the
auxin-regulated tobacco glutathione transferase genes
Nt103-1 and Nt103-35 (47), the CaMV 35 S
promoter (the activation sequence-1 element) (48, 49), the octopine
synthase gene (50), a wheat histone gene (14), a light-regulated TGA1
gene (51), a cucumber hpr-A gene (52), and a tobacco group 1 pathogenesis-related proteins (PR-1) gene (53).
Recently, a gene encoding the rice bZIP transcription factor RF2a that
is critical for vascular development was isolated (54). This factor was
found to interact with RTBV promoter elements located between
nucleotides 53 and 39. The factor was not present in the
DNA-protein complexes observed in this study.
A recent report analyzing transcriptional activation by the
Arabidopsis transcription factor GT-1 showed that the factor
can interact with and stabilize the TFIIA-TBP-TATA complex, suggesting that GT-1 may activate transcription through direct interaction with
the transcriptional pre-initiation complex (18). Activators often lose
activity as their distance from the initiation site is increased (55),
since activators must be located stereospecifically with respect to the
TATA box for transcriptional activation (56-58). However, in some
instances, the alignment of the DNA binding site was shown not to play
a strict role in promoter activity (59). The strict requirement for
stereospecific alignments of protein binding sites in the promoter
regions does not seem to hold in the RTBV case. However, the location
of the AE relative to the TATA box is very important for transcription
activation, indicating that the relative spacing rather than DNA
helical turn is most important for activation. The simplest
interpretation of these data is that there is lateral flexibility of
the binding proteins. A model for transcriptional activation by
activators in the RTBV promoter is presented in Fig.
9. This model involves two activators (P36 and P33) binding directly to the AE, unknown proteins then interact with P36 and P33 through protein-protein interactions. For
transcriptional activation, activators recruit holoenzyme containing
TFIID to the core promoter. On the promoter, the activators and TFIID
are brought into proximity, enabling proteins that directly or
indirectly bind to the activator element to interact with TFIID. The
interactions between activators and TFIID can facilitate and stabilize
the transcriptional pre-initiation complex, and thereby stimulate
transcription. As the distance between the bound activators and bound
TFIID is increased, this interactive effect is diminished, leading to a
decrease in transcription. In the roots, no protein-protein interactions were observed. The low transcription level detected in
roots of transgenic rice plants (26-28) may be due to the fact that
the activator is not able to interact with basal transcription factors
in this tissue. Isolation of cDNAs expressing these DNA-binding proteins, either by screening an expression library using the minimal
binding sequence or by protein purification, will help us to verify the
above model and further elucidate transcriptional regulation mechanisms
from RTBV promoter.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 9.
Position-dependent
transcriptional activation. Activator-mediated activation involves
binding of activators to the activator element and recruiting
holoenzyme containing TFIID to the core promoter. The interaction
between activators and TFIID can facilitate and stabilize the
transcriptional pre-initiation complex, resulting in activated
transcription (A). This interactive effect can be diminished
by increasing the distance between the activators and the TATA box
(B). In this case, activators cannot interact with TFIID,
resulting in a basal level of transcription.
|
|
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We especially thank Drs. Helen Rothnie and
Patrick Matthias for critical reading of the manuscript. We highly
acknowledge the expert technical assistance of Matthias Müller,
Sandra Corsten, and David Kirk. We also thank Dr. Helen
Rothnie for helpful discussions.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 41-61-697-72-66;
Fax: 41-61-697-39-76; E-mail: thomas.hohn@fmi.ch.
2
X. He, J. Fütterer, and T. Hohn,
unpublished results.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
TBP, TATA-binding
protein;
CaMV, cauliflower mosaic virus;
RTBV, rice tungro bacilliform
virus;
PCR, polymerase chain reaction;
CAT, chloramphenicol
acetyltransferase;
ORF, open reading frame;
EMSA, electrophoretic
mobility shift assay;
DOC, sodium desoxycholate;
AE, activator element;
TF, transcription factor;
GUS, -glucuronidase;
PIPES, 1,4-piperazinediethanesulfonic acid.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Tjian, R.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1994)
Cell
77,
5-8[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Orphanides, G.,
Lagrange, T.,
and Reinberg, D.
(1996)
Genes Dev.
10,
2657-2683[Free Full Text]
|
| 3.
|
Carey, M.
(1998)
Cell
92,
5-8[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 4.
|
Singh, K. B.
(1998)
Plant Physiol
118,
1111-1120[Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
Hahn, S.
(1998)
Cell
95,
579-582[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Ptashne, M.,
and Gann, A.
(1997)
Nature
386,
569-577[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
Guarente, L.
(1995)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
20,
517-521[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 8.
|
Maldonado, E.,
and Reinberg, D.
(1995)
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
7,
352-361[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Kawata, T.,
Minami, M.,
Tamura, T.,
Sumita, K.,
and Iwabuchi, M.
(1992)
Plant Mol. Biol
19,
867-872[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Li, Y. F.,
Le Gourierrec, J.,
Torki, M.,
Kim, Y. J.,
Guerineau, F.,
and Zhou, D. X.
(1999)
Plant Mol. Biol.
39,
515-525[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Guilfoyle, T. J.
(1997)
in
Genetic Engineering
(Setlow, J. K., ed)
, pp. 15-47, Plenum Press, New York
|
| 12.
|
Larkin, R. M.,
and Guilfoyle, T. J.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
5631-5637[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Meisel, L.,
and Lam, E.
(1997)
in
Genetic Engineering
(Setlow, J. K., ed)
, pp. 183-199, Plenum Press, New York
|
| 14.
|
Katagiri, F.,
Lam, E.,
and Chua, N. H.
(1989)
Nature
340,
727-730[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 15.
|
Yamazaki, K.,
Katagiri, F.,
Imaseki, H.,
and Chua, N. H.
(1990)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
87,
7035-7039[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Katagiri, F.,
Yamazaki, K.,
Horikoshi, M.,
Roeder, R. G.,
and Chua, N. H.
(1990)
Genes Dev.
4,
1899-1909[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Green, P. J.,
Kay, S. A.,
and Chua, N. H.
(1987)
EMBO J.
6,
2543-2549[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 18.
|
Le Gourierrec, J.,
Li, Y. F.,
and Zhou, D. X.
(1999)
Plant J.
18,
663-668[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 19.
|
Hay, J. M.,
Jones, M. C.,
Blakebrough, M. L.,
Dasgupta, I.,
Davies, J. W.,
and Hull, R.
(1991)
Nucleic Acids Res.
19,
2615-2621[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Qu, R. D.,
Bhattacharyya, M.,
Laco, G. S.,
de Kochko, A.,
Rao, B. L.,
Kaniewska, M. B.,
Elmer, J. S.,
Rochester, D. E.,
Smith, C. E.,
and Beachy, R. N.
(1991)
Virology
185,
354-364[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
Rothnie, H. M.,
Chapdelaine, Y.,
and Hohn, T.
(1994)
Adv. Virus Res.
44,
1-67[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Hohn, T.,
and Fütterer, J.
(1997)
Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.
16,
133-161[CrossRef]
|
| 23.
|
Mayo, M. A.,
and Pringle, C. R.
(1998)
J. Gen. Virol.
79,
649-657[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Bao, Y.,
and Hull, R.
(1994)
Virology
204,
626-633[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Bhattacharyya-Pakrasi, M.,
Peng, J.,
Elmer, J. S.,
Laco, G.,
Shen, P.,
Kaniewska, M. B.,
Kononowicz, H.,
Wen, F.,
Hodges, T. K.,
and Beachy, R. N.
(1993)
Plant J.
4,
71-79[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Yin, Y.,
and Beachy, R. N.
(1995)
Plant J.
7,
969-980[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Yin, Y.,
Chen, L.,
and Beachy, R.
(1997)
Plant J.
12,
1179-1188[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 28.
|
Klöti, A.,
Henrich, C.,
Bieri, S.,
He, X.,
Chen, G.,
Burkhardt, P. K.,
Wünn, J.,
Lucca, P.,
Hohn, T.,
Potrykus, I.,
and Fütterer, J.
(1999)
Plant Mol. Biol.
40,
249-266[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Chen, G.,
Müller, M.,
Potrykus, I.,
Hohn, T.,
and Fütterer, J.
(1994)
Virology
204,
91-100[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Chen, G.,
Rothnie, H. M.,
He, X.,
Hohn, T.,
and Fütterer, J.
(1996)
J. Virol.
70,
8411-8421[Abstract]
|
| 31.
|
Martino-Catt, S. J.,
and Kay, S. A.
(1994)
in
Plant Molecular Biology Manual
(Gelvin, B.
, and Schilperoort, R. A., eds)
, pp. 1-13, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
|
| 32.
|
Garabedian, M. J.,
Labaer, J.,
Liu, W. H.,
and Thomas, J.
(1993)
in
Gene Transcription
(Hames, B. D.
, and Higgins, S. J., eds)
, pp. 243-293, Oxford University Press, Oxford
|
| 33.
|
Sambrook, J.,
Fritsch, E. F.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1989)
Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual
, 2nd Ed.
, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
|
| 34.
|
Ausubel, F. M.,
Brent, R.,
Kingston, R. E.,
Moore, D. D.,
Seidman, J. G.,
Smith, J. A.,
and Struhl, K.
(1989)
Current Protocols in Molecular Biology
, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
|
| 35.
|
Jackson, S. P.
(1993)
in
Gene Transcription
(Hames, B. D.
, and Higgins, S. J., eds)
, pp. 189-242, Oxford University Press, Oxford
|
| 36.
|
Datta, S. K.,
Peterhans, A.,
Datta, K.,
and Potrykus, I.
(1990)
Bio/Technology
8,
736-740[CrossRef]
|
| 37.
|
Shillito, R. D.,
Saul, M. W.,
Paszkowski, J.,
Müller, M.,
and Potrykus, I.
(1985)
Bio/Technology
3,
1099-1103[CrossRef]
|
| 38.
|
Fütterer, J.,
and Hohn, T.
(1991)
EMBO J.
10,
3887-3896[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 39.
|
Thanos, D.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1992)
Cell
71,
777-789[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 40.
|
Baeuerle, P. A.,
and Baltimore, D.
(1988)
Cell
53,
211-217[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Chellappan, S. P.,
Hiebert, S.,
Mudryj, M.,
Horowitz, J. M.,
and Nevins, J. R.
(1991)
Cell
65,
1053-1061[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 42.
|
Kremer, A.,
and Knebel-Morsdorf, D.
(1998)
Virology
249,
336-351[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 43.
|
Després, C.,
Subramaniam, R.,
Matton, D. P.,
and Brisson, N.
(1995)
Plant Cell
7,
589-598[Abstract]
|
| 44.
|
Willmott, R. L.,
Rushton, P. J.,
Hooley, R.,
and Lazarus, C. M.
(1998)
Plant Mol. Biol.
38,
817-825[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 45.
|
Neustaedter, D. A.,
Lee, S. P.,
and Douglas, C. J.
(1999)
Plant J.
18,
77-88[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 46.
|
Morishima, A.
(1998)
Plant Mol. Biol.
38,
633-646[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 47.
|
Droog, F.,
Spek, A.,
van der Kooy, A.,
de Ruyter, A.,
Hoge, H.,
Libbenga, K.,
Hooykaas, P.,
and van der Zaal, B.
(1995)
Plant Mol Biol
29,
413-429[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 48.
|
Lam, E.,
Benfey, P. N.,
Gilmartin, P. M.,
Fang, R. X.,
and Chua, N. H.
(1989)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
86,
7890-7894[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 49.
|
Benfey, P. N.,
and Chua, N. H.
(1990)
Science
250,
959-966[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 50.
|
Fromm, H.,
Katagiri, F.,
and Chua, N. H.
(1989)
Plant Cell
1,
977-984[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 51.
|
Schindler, U.,
Beckmann, H.,
and Cashmore, A. R.
(1992)
Plant Cell
4,
1309-1319[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 52.
|
Jin, G.,
Davey, M. C.,
Ertl, J. R.,
Chen, R., Yu, Z. T.,
Daniel, S. G.,
Becker, W. M.,
and Chen, C. M.
(1998)
Plant Mol. Biol.
38,
713-723[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 53.
|
Strompen, G.,
Gruner, R.,
and Pfitzner, U. M.
(1998)
Plant Mol. Biol.
37,
871-883[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 54.
|
Yin, Y.,
Zhu, Q.,
Dai, S.,
Lamb, C.,
and Beachy, R. N.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
5247-5259[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 55.
|
Roberts, S. G.,
Choy, B.,
Walker, S. S.,
Lin, Y. S.,
and Green, M. R.
(1995)
Curr. Biol.
5,
508-516[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 56.
|
Vilen, B. J.,
Cogswell, J. P.,
and Ting, J. P.
(1991)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
11,
2406-2415[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 57.
|
Li, H.,
and Capetanaki, Y.
(1994)
EMBO J.
13,
3580-3589[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 58.
|
Takahashi, K.,
Vigneron, M.,
Matthes, H.,
Wildeman, A.,
Zenke, M.,
and Chambon, P.
(1986)
Nature
319,
121-126[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 59.
|
Inokuchi, K.,
and Nakayama, A.
(1991)
Nucleic Acids Res.
19,
3099-3103[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
Copyright © 2000 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Dai, X. Wei, A. A. Alfonso, L. Pei, U. G. Duque, Z. Zhang, G. M. Babb, and R. N. Beachy
Transgenic rice plants that overexpress transcription factors RF2a and RF2b are tolerant to rice tungro virus replication and disease
PNAS,
December 30, 2008;
105(52):
21012 - 21016.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Dai, Z. Zhang, J. Bick, and R. N. Beachy
Essential role of the Box II cis element and cognate host factors in regulating the promoter of Rice tungro bacilliform virus.
J. Gen. Virol.,
March 1, 2006;
87(Pt 3):
715 - 722.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Pauli, H. M. Rothnie, G. Chen, X. He, and T. Hohn
The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S Promoter Extends into the Transcribed Region
J. Virol.,
November 15, 2004;
78(22):
12120 - 12128.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Dai, Z. Zhang, S. Chen, and R. N. Beachy
RF2b, a rice bZIP transcription activator, interacts with RF2a and is involved in symptom development of rice tungro disease
PNAS,
January 13, 2004;
101(2):
687 - 692.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Dai, S. Petruccelli, M. I. Ordiz, Z. Zhang, S. Chen, and R. N. Beachy
Functional Analysis of RF2a, a Rice Transcription Factor
J. Biol. Chem.,
September 19, 2003;
278(38):
36396 - 36402.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Kloti, X. He, I. Potrykus, T. Hohn, and J. Futterer
Tissue-specific silencing of a transgene in rice
PNAS,
August 6, 2002;
99(16):
10881 - 10886.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. Torrungruang, M. Alvarez, R. Shah, J. E. Onyia, S. J. Rhodes, and J. P. Bidwell
DNA Binding and Gene Activation Properties of the Nmp4 Nuclear Matrix Transcription Factors
J. Biol. Chem.,
May 3, 2002;
277(18):
16153 - 16159.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
X. He, J. Futterer, and T. Hohn
Contribution of downstream promoter elements to transcriptional regulation of the rice tungro bacilliform virus promoter
Nucleic Acids Res.,
January 15, 2002;
30(2):
497 - 506.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Petruccelli, S. Dai, R. Carcamo, Y. Yin, S. Chen, and R. N. Beachy
Transcription factor RF2a alters expression of the rice tungro bacilliform virus promoter in transgenic tobacco plants
PNAS,
May 30, 2001;
(2001)
121186398.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. M. Rothnie, G. Chen, J. Fütterer, and T. Hohn
Polyadenylation in Rice Tungro Bacilliform Virus: cis-Acting Signals and Regulation
J. Virol.,
May 1, 2001;
75(9):
4184 - 4194.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
X. He, J. Futterer, and T. Hohn
Sequence-specific and Methylation-dependent and -independent Binding of Rice Nuclear Proteins to a Rice Tungro Bacilliform Virus Vascular Bundle Expression Element
J. Biol. Chem.,
January 19, 2001;
276(4):
2644 - 2651.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Petruccelli, S. Dai, R. Carcamo, Y. Yin, S. Chen, and R. N. Beachy
Transcription factor RF2a alters expression of the rice tungro bacilliform virus promoter in transgenic tobacco plants
PNAS,
June 19, 2001;
98(13):
7635 - 7640.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2000 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|