![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 32, 24865-24871, August 11, 2000
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the § Department of Developmental Neurobiology, St.
Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee 38105 and the
Received for publication, February 29, 2000, and in revised form, April 27, 2000
EWS is an RNA-binding protein involved in human
tumor-specific chromosomal translocations. In approximately 85% of
Ewing's sarcomas, such translocations give rise to the chimeric gene
EWS/FLI. In the resulting fusion protein, the RNA binding
domains from the C terminus of EWS are replaced by the DNA-binding
domain of the ETS protein FLI-1. EWS/FLI can function as a
transcription factor with the same DNA binding specificity as FLI-1.
EWS and EWS/FLI can associate with the RNA polymerase II holoenzyme as well as with SF1, an essential splicing factor. Here we report that
U1C, one of three human U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein-specific proteins, interacts in vitro and in vivo with
both EWS and EWS/FLI. U1C interacts with other splicing factors and is
important in the early stages of spliceosome formation. Importantly,
co-expression of U1C represses EWS/FLI-mediated transactivation,
demonstrating that this interaction can have functional ramifications.
Our findings demonstrate that U1C, a well characterized splicing
protein, can also function in transcriptional regulation. Furthermore,
they suggest that EWS and EWS/FLI may function both in transcriptional and post-transcriptional processes.
Chromosomal abnormalities such as deletions, inversions, or
translocations are common genetic mechanisms to induce mutations that
contribute to tumorigenesis. One important consequence of chromosomal
translocations is the creation of novel in-frame fusion genes that
often involve transcription factors (1). In virtually all cases of
Ewing's sarcoma, a chromosomal translocation creates a fusion gene
between EWS and a member of the ETS family of transcription factors, most commonly FLI-1 (2-6). The resulting chimeric
protein retains the N terminus of EWS and replaces the RNA binding
domains in its C terminus with the DNA binding domain of FLI-1. Similar fusion proteins between EWS or the related proteins TLS or
TAFII68 with other transcription factor DNA binding domains
have been observed in many other tumor types (7-17).
EWS, TLS, and TAFII68 comprise a unique family of
RNA-binding proteins termed the TET family (TLS/FUS,
EWS, TAFII68), which may play a
role in multiple nuclear processes. The RNP motifs in these proteins
differ structurally from those in other RNA-binding proteins in that
they contain an unusually long predicted loop structure following the
first We used a yeast two-hybrid screen to identify proteins that interact
with the N-terminal tumor-associated portion of EWS. We identified U1C,
one of three U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein (snRNP)1-specific proteins.
snRNPs play an essential role in splicing through a large complex known
as the spliceosome. All snRNPs are made up of snRNA and associated
proteins. They share at least eight common Sm proteins and have
specific protein associations as well (32). The U1 snRNP is composed of
an RNA backbone, common Sm proteins, and three U1-specific proteins:
U1A, U1C, and U1-70K (33). The U1snRNP binds to the 5' splice site on
pre-mRNA to form a stable complex identified as the early or E
complex in mammalian splicing extracts (34). U1A and U1-70K contain
RNA-binding domains and interact with naked snRNA on their own (35,
36). However, the binding of U1C to the U1snRNP particle is dependent on protein-protein interactions between U1C and U1-70K as well as U1C
and the common Sm proteins (37).
We show that U1C interacts in vitro and in vivo
with EWS and with higher affinity with EWS/FLI. This interaction can
cause repression of EWS/FLI-mediated transactivation and may therefore affect EWS/FLI target gene regulation.
Plasmids--
To generate t-EWS/LexA as bait for the yeast
two-hybrid screen, a fragment corresponding to the tumor-associated
portion of EWS (t-EWS, amino acids 1-264) was PCR-amplified from HL-60
cDNA and cloned into a modification of the yeast expression vector pSD.08 (38) to allow in-frame fusion with the DNA binding domain of
LexA (amino acids 2-202). Expression of the fusion protein was under
control of the GAL1-10/CYC1 promoter. The plasmid also contained a
TRP1+ marker. Absence of PCR mutations was
verified by sequence analysis.
To create a U1C clone for in vitro transcription and
translation, the U1C coding sequence was amplified by PCR from the
clone isolated in the yeast two-hybrid screen and cloned into
pBluescript KS containing a FLAG epitope tag between the
BamHI and EcoRI sites as an
EcoRI/HindIII fragment. The absence of PCR
mutations was confirmed by sequence analysis.
To create glutathione S-transferase (GST) fusion plasmids,
sequences for t-EWS (amino acids 1-264), c-EWS
(the C terminus of EWS; amino acids 245-647), wild-type EWS
or a type I EWS/FLI fusion (2) was PCR-amplified and cloned
in frame with the EcoRI site in the pGEX 4T-1 (Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech) vector. EWS deletion plasmids were also
cloned in this way to make pGEX EWS-(1-58), pGEX EWS-(1-120),
pGEX EWS-(1-133), pGEX EWS-(1-209), pGEX EWS-(59-184), pGEX
EWS-(121-264), pGEX EWS-(184-264), and pGEX EWS-(210-264) (numbers
indicate amino acid residues). The absence of PCR mutations was
verified for all clones by sequence analysis.
To generate epitope-tagged constructs, the mammalian expression vector
pCB6+ (a gift from Dr. Frank Rauscher) was modified by the addition of
two tandem FLAG or HA epitope tags cloned between the BglII
and EcoRI sites. EWS and EWS/FLI were
amplified by PCR and cloned in frame with the tags at the
EcoRI site. EWS/FLI deletion clones
EF-B, EF-C, and EF-H were made by
ligating the EWS portion from pGEX EWS-(1-120), pGEX EWS-(1-133), and
pGEX EWS-(210-264), respectively, in frame with the FLAG tag at the
5'-end and the region of FLI from EWS/FLI at the
3'-end.
To create clones for the mammalian two-hybrid system, the vectors
pCMVbd and pCMVad (Stratagene) were modified by the addition of FLAG or
HA epitope tags cloned between the BamHI and
EcoRI sites to create pbdFLAG, padFLAG, and padHA. Sequences
encoding EWS, EWS/FLI, EWS/FLI-B, EWS/FLI-C, and EWS/FLI-H were excised from pCFLAG and cloned into padFLAG or padHA as
EcoRI/HindIII fragments. U1C was
excised from pBluescript and cloned into pbdFLAG as an
EcoRI/HindIII fragment. The reporter gene
plasmid, pFrLuc (Stratagene), contains five tandem Gal4 DNA binding
sites upstream of a luciferase reporter.
To generate tkD2A-luc, an EWS/FLI-responsive luciferase reporter
construct, the chloramphenicol acetyltransferase gene and its poly(A)
sequences were excised from the tkD2A vector (20), a kind gift from Dr.
Jacques Ghysdael, as an MluI/EcoRI fragment. The
EcoRI site was blunted, and the luciferase gene and its
poly(A) sequences from the pGL2 promoter vector (Promega) were inserted as an MluI/blunted BamHI fragment.
Yeast Two-hybrid Screening--
A cDNA library was generated
using random-primed cDNA from the Ewing's sarcoma cell line RD-ES
(ATCC) that contains an EWS/FLI fusion gene. cDNA was
ligated to BstXI adapters and cloned into plasmid pSD10A (a
gift from Dr. Steven Dalton) downstream of sequences encoding the
activation domain of VP16 (38). The library plasmid pSD10a also
contains URA3 and In Vitro Protein Interaction--
pGEX, pGEX t-EWS, pGEX c-EWS,
pGEX EWS, and pGEX EWS/FLI were transformed into E. coli
BL21. Expression of t-EWS, c-EWS, and EWS GST fusion proteins was
induced by 0.1 mM
isopropyl-1-thio- Mammalian Two-hybrid Assays--
293T cells were grown in
Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf
serum. 3 × 105 cells were seeded on six-well plates
and were transfected 16-18 h later. All transfections contained 500 ng
of pFrLuc reporter (Stratagene), 100 µl of CMV In Vivo Transactivation Assays--
HeLa cells were grown in
Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf
serum. Approximately 4 × 105 cells were seeded on
60-mm plates and were transfected 16-18 h later. Cells were
transfected according to the manufacturer's recommendations using 5.6 µl of Superfect (Qiagen) and 2.8 µg of total DNA (800 ng of ptkdluc
reporter, 400 ng of CMVBgal, and a total of 1.6 µg from combinations
of pCFLAG EWS/FLI construct, pCFLAG U1C, or empty vector).
Transfections were incubated 3 h at 37 °C. Medium was then
aspirated from plates, and 6 ml of Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium
were added. Cells were washed with phosphate-buffered saline and lysed
in 150 µl of reporter lysis buffer (Promega) 48 h later.
Luciferase assays were performed with 20 and 80 µl of cell lysis
supernatant, and values were normalized with Western Blotting--
Cell extracts were sonicated briefly,
resolved by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and transferred to
nitrocellulose. Epitope-tagged proteins were detected with anti-FLAG M2
monoclonal antibody (Babco) at a concentration of 10 µg/ml or anti-HA
mouse monoclonal antibody (clone 12CA5) (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) at a concentration of 7 µg/ml and visualized with
peroxidase-conjugated anti-mouse antibody at a dilution of 1:5000,
followed by enhanced chemiluminescence (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech).
U1C Interacts with the N Terminus of EWS--
We performed a yeast
two-hybrid screen to identify proteins that interact with the
amino-terminal region of EWS found in several tumor-specific
chromosomal translocations. A bait expression vector was constructed by
fusing amino acids 1-264 of EWS (t-EWS) in frame with sequences
encoding the dimerization and DNA binding domain of the bacterial
repressor protein LexA. A cDNA library was generated from a
Ewing's sarcoma cell line containing an EWS/FLI fusion to increase the
likelihood that essential interacting partners contributing to the
transforming ability of the fusion protein would be expressed. The
library was cloned into a vector containing the transcriptional
activation domain from the herpes simplex virus protein VP-16.
Because the region of EWS contained in the bait possesses a strong
transcription activation domain, two steps were taken to minimize
background activity contributed from the bait alone. First, a yeast
reporter strain was chosen that contains six LexA binding sites
upstream of the lacZ gene integrated into the
ura3 locus (39). This decreased background signals because
only a single copy of the reporter is integrated. Second, the level of t-EWS/LexA expression was regulated by a galactose-inducible promoter. If cells were grown on galactose for 24 h or more, little
difference could be seen between t-EWS/LexA and VP-16/LexA activity as
detected by X-gal staining. However, following 8-10 h of galactose
induction, a VP-16/LexA fusion protein produced blue staining within
12-15 min, while the t-EWS/LexA fusion required 3 h to produce
the same degree of staining. Protein-protein interactions were detected within 15-25 min after the addition of X-gal.
One clone identified in the two-hybrid screen contained the full-length
sequence encoding U1C, one of three human U1 snRNP-specific proteins.
This clone was further tested to exclude the possibility that it
represented a false positive or nonspecific interaction. The U1C/VP16
clone failed to activate the yeast reporter in the absence of
t-EWS/LexA and also failed to interact with any of a panel of LexA
fusion proteins used to screen for nonspecific interactions. Therefore,
the interaction between U1C and t-EWS was specific in yeast.
U1C Interacts with EWS and EWS/FLI in Vitro through the N-terminal
Domain of EWS--
To confirm the interaction of U1C with EWS outside
of the yeast system, we tested the in vitro association
between these proteins by GST pull-down assays. We fused t-EWS (amino
acids 1-264), the C terminus of EWS (amino acids 245-656), EWS/FLI,
or wild-type EWS with GST (Fig.
1A) and expressed the
resulting chimeric proteins in E. coli BL21. Full-length U1C
protein was transcribed and translated in vitro and
incubated with each of the chimeric proteins and GST alone. U1C
interacted with t-EWS alone or in the context of the full-length EWS
protein or EWS/FLI. This interaction was specific, since U1C did not
bind to GST alone or to GST fused to the C terminus of EWS containing
the RNA binding domains (Fig. 1B).
To further delineate the amino acids in the N terminus of EWS
responsible for the interaction with U1C, eight GST fusion proteins comprising deletions of t-EWS were made (Fig.
2A). GST pull-down assays were
performed on this series of EWS deletions with in vitro
translated U1C. U1C was specifically retained on beads coupled with
GST-EWS-(1-120), GST-EWS-(1-133), GST-EWS-(1-209), and GST-t-EWS (Fig. 2B). Therefore, the minimal region required for
interaction between EWS and U1C comprised amino acids 1-120 in
EWS.
U1C Interacts with EWS and EWS/FLI in Vivo--
To demonstrate an
intracellular association between EWS or EWS/FLI and U1C, a mammalian
two-hybrid system was employed. This system is similar to a yeast
two-hybrid system in that it allows detection of protein-protein
interactions by activation of reporter gene expression if a functional
transcription factor is reconstituted as a result of interaction
between two hybrid proteins. We fused full-length EWS or EWS/FLI to the
strong transcriptional activation domain of NF-
To confirm the specificity of these interactions in mammalian cells,
EWS deletion constructs were made. EWS deletions B and C (Fig.
2A) contained the region of EWS necessary for interaction as
defined in the GST pull-down assay, and EWS deletion H (Fig. 2A) lacked the complete interaction domain. These regions of
EWS were cloned as EWS/FLI fusions in the NF- U1C Represses EWS/FLI-mediated Transactivation--
To determine
the functional significance of the interaction between U1C and EWS/FLI,
we tested the ability of U1C to affect EWS/FLI-mediated
transactivation. An EWS/FLI-responsive reporter gene was cotransfected
with EWS/FLI and vector or increasing amounts of U1C. EWS/FLI activated
the reporter 9.7-fold over basal levels seen with vector alone. When
400 ng of U1C was added, a 35% repression of this activation was seen.
Increasing the amount of U1C to 800 ng increased the repression to 75%
(Fig. 4A). The increased
amounts of U1C plasmid in the transfections gave a corresponding
increase in U1C protein (Fig. 4B). Therefore, co-expression
of U1C repressed EWS/FLI-mediated transactivation in a
dose-dependent manner. U1C did not specifically repress
transactivation of a GAL4-responsive reporter construct by a t-EWS/GAL4
fusion protein (data not shown). Thus, the repression mediated by the
U1C-EWS interaction may be dependent upon specific promoter contexts or
dependent upon the C-terminal motifs fused to EWS, or it may not have
been evident due to the decreased affinity of U1C for EWS compared with
EWS/FLI.
To confirm that the repression effect of U1C on EWS/FLI-mediated
transactivation is dependent on its binding to the N terminus of EWS,
equivalent amounts of the deletion constructs EWS/FLI-B and EWS/FLI-H
were transfected in place of full-length EWS/FLI. Both deletion
constructs were still capable of activating transcription of the
reporter (Fig. 4C). U1C repressed activation of EWS/FLI-B by
77%, showing a specific interaction with the minimal interacting domain of EWS, whereas no significant repression was seen with EWS/FLI-H (Fig. 4C). Thus, the interaction domain of EWS is
necessary for U1C-mediated repression.
The recurrent combination of t-EWS with DNA binding motifs via
chromosomal translocations in multiple human tumors indicates an
important role for this domain. We hypothesized that the N-terminal domain of EWS may contribute unique properties to the chimeric proteins
through interactions with other cellular proteins. We used a yeast
two-hybrid screen to identify proteins that interact with this
tumor-associated portion of EWS to identify cellular pathways that may
be altered in the tumors. In this report, we showed that t-EWS in the
context of EWS and EWS/FLI interacts with the splicing protein U1C.
Additionally, the essential splicing factor SF1, also termed ZFM1 (42),
was identified in our yeast two-hybrid screen (data not shown) and in a
previously published study as an EWS-interacting protein (25). These
interactions suggest that EWS and perhaps the EWS/FLI fusion protein
may play a role in splicing.
Several additional lines of evidence implicate EWS and the related
protein TLS in splicing. TLS and EWS have both been
co-immunoprecipitated with the heterologous nuclear proteins hnRNPA1
and hnRNPC1/C2 (21), which also participate in splicing (43, 44).
Further, TLS can interact with TASR, a member of the SR
domain-containing family of splicing proteins (26). TLS can also
modulate 5' splice site selection (27). The role of U1C and SF1 in
splicing is well established. These two splicing factors are involved
in early stages of spliceosome formation. The U1 snRNP is required for the formation of complex E of the spliceosome, the earliest stage of
spliceosome assembly, which commits the pre-mRNA to the splicing pathway. The U1snRNP complex binds to the 5' splice site, and the U1C
protein appears to potentiate the base pairing between the U1 snRNA and
the 5' splice site (45). SF1 as well as several other protein
components and ATP are required for the formation of the next step in
spliceosome assembly, the presplicing complex A (42).
Our results indicate that U1C binds to EWS in mammalian cells and can
bind to EWS/FLI with higher affinity than to wild-type EWS (Fig.
3A). Differential interactions between EWS and EWS/FLI have
also been observed with TFIID components (24, 46). Taken together, the
selectivity of these interactions suggests that the folding or
accessibility of t-EWS is somewhat dependent upon the C terminus of the
protein. Thus, the regulation of this domain in chimeric fusion
proteins found in tumors may be modulated by a subset of
EWS-interacting proteins. Furthermore, EWS/FLI could potentially
interfere with normal interactions of EWS with the splicing and
transcriptional machinery by binding interacting partners more strongly.
Our results also show that U1C is able to repress EWS/FLI-mediated
transactivation (Fig. 4A). This functional effect is
dose-dependent and requires the region of EWS that
interacts with U1C. Like U1C, SF1 was also a specific repressor of
EWS-mediated transactivation (25). As expected, EWS/FLI, a strong
transcriptional activator, increases expression of some downstream
genes including stromelysin and Manic Fringe (47, 48). Interestingly,
EWS/FLI can repress the transcription of the transforming growth
factor- Creation of a functional transcription factor through chromosomal
translocations is an invariant theme among EWS, TLS, and TAFII68 fusion proteins generated in human solid tumors;
therefore, it is likely that aberrant gene regulation plays an
important role in tumorigenesis. However, while EWS/FLI is a strong
transcriptional activator, deletions within the EWS domain that
significantly decrease the transactivation potential of the fusion
protein cause only a moderate decrease in transforming activity (50).
The region of EWS contributing the greatest transforming activity is
included in the region required for interaction with U1C. In addition,
an EWS/FLI mutant that can no longer bind DNA is still transforming
(51), suggesting that the fusion proteins may perform other roles in
addition to deregulated transcription. Thus, the transcriptional
activation and cellular transformation functions of EWS are not
entirely concordant. Accordingly, the effect of interaction with U1C on
transformation may not be solely determined by modulation of
EWS/FLI-mediated transactivation and may also include alterations in
splicing regulation.
Accumulating evidence suggests that the processes of RNA transcription
and processing are closely coupled in vivo. In fact, the
carboxyl-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II is required for efficient
capping, cleavage at the polyadenylation site, and splicing of mRNA
(reviewed in Ref. 52). The sequence of the t-EWS domain consists of a
series of degenerate repeats that show similarity to the repeats of the
carboxyl-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II (2). Indeed, t-EWS can
function as a transcription activation domain, and it has also been
shown to interact directly with components of TFIID and the RNA
polymerase II complex (24, 46). Interaction between t-EWS and the
splicing machinery further extends the functional similarities between
EWS and the carboxyl-terminal domain.
The identification of these protein-protein interactions and their
physiological relevance may be critical in understanding the molecular
mechanisms underlying Ewing's sarcoma and multiple other tumor types
containing EWS, TLS, and TAFII68 fusion proteins. Emerging
data suggest that disruption of RNA splicing may be a novel pathway
that contributes to tumorigenesis. For example, changes in expression
patterns of splicing factors as well as alterations in alternative
splicing increased with tumor progression in a mouse model of mammary
tumorigenesis (53). Additionally, changes in expression patterns of
splicing factors have been identified in some human colon
adenocarcinomas (54), and alternatively spliced forms of important cell
cycle regulators, such as p53 and cyclin D1, have been found in human
cancer cell lines and tumors (55, 56). The interaction of t-EWS with
splicing factors as well as basal transcription factors strongly
suggests that the fusion of EWS, or the related proteins TLS and
TAFII68, to different DNA binding domains may
provide an efficient mechanism for the tumor cell to subvert normal
regulation of transcription and post-transcriptional processing.
We thank Dr. Steve Dalton for yeast
two-hybrid reagents and advice and Dr. Jacques Ghysdael for plasmids.
We also thank Drs. Tom Curran, Sobha Jaishankar, and Peter McKinnon for
helpful discussions.
*
This work was supported in part by National Institutes of
Health Grant PO1-CA-71907, by Cancer Center Support CORE Grant P30 CA21765, and by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.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: Dept. of
Developmental Neurobiology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 332 N. Lauderdale, Memphis, TN 38105. Tel. 901-495-2254; Fax: 901-495-2270; Suzanne.baker{at}stjude.org.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, May 25, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M001661200
The abbreviations used are:
snRNP, small
nuclear ribonucleoprotein;
PCR, polymerase chain reaction;
GST, glutathione S-transferase;
HA, hemagglutinin;
X-gal, 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl
The Splicing Factor U1C Represses EWS/FLI-mediated
Transactivation*
and
§¶
Department of Pathology, University of Tennessee,
Memphis, Tennessee 38163
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-helix of the domain. This structural feature is limited to
TET family members and may allow for unique interactions with RNA (18).
The N-terminal domains of EWS, TLS, and TAFII68 involved in
tumor-derived fusion proteins are all rich in glutamine, serine, and
tyrosine and are capable of transcriptional activation (19-23). Both
EWS and TAFII68 have been identified in specific
populations of the TFIID complex and associate with the human RNA
polymerase II holoenzyme (18, 24). EWS and TLS have also been
shown to interact with splicing factors (25-27). In addition, TLS is
capable of promoting homologous DNA pairing and D-loop formation,
essential steps in double-strand DNA break repair through recombination
(28, 29). Perhaps due to loss of this repair activity, TLS knock-out
mice show evidence of genetic instability (30, 31), suggesting that TLS
may play an important role in genomic integrity and maintenance. It is
unclear which of the functions associated with the TET family
contribute to tumorigenesis in the context of the fusion proteins.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-lactamase genes for selection in Saccharomyces cereviseae and Escherichia coli,
respectively. The yeast reporter strain S330 (39) was transformed with
the plasmid pt-EWS/LexA to create the strain S330-EL. To identify proteins that interact with t-EWS, S330EL was then transformed by
electroporation as described (40). Colonies were plated onto nylon
filters overlaid on medium that contained 2% glucose and was deficient
in tryptophan and uracil (trp
ura
).
Thirty-six hours later, filters were transferred to
trp
ura
medium containing 2% galactose, and
colonies were grown on galactose for 12 h.
-Galactosidase
activity was assayed as described (38). To control for the possible
background contributed by t-EWS/LexA alone, S330-EL and S330
transformed with VP16/LexA were subjected to X-gal staining in parallel
with the library transformants. All positive colonies were picked
within 25 min following the addition of X-gal, before background
staining in the S330-EL cells appeared. One positive clone was
identified as U1C and contained the full-length coding sequence as well
as 36 base pairs of 5'-untranslated sequence and 306 base pairs of
3'-untranslated sequence. The U1C/VP16 plasmid isolated in the library
screen was reintroduced into S330 yeast, alone or in combination with
14 different LexA fusion proteins (gifts from Dr. Mark Osborne), to
ensure that the intrinsic activation activity of the t-EWS bait did not
cause sporadic false positives. U1C/VP16 did not activate transcription
of the reporter with any of these negative controls.
-D-galactopyranoside for 2 h at
25 °C. Expression of EWS/FLI GST fusion protein was induced under
the same conditions for 5 h. The soluble fraction of these
proteins was coupled to glutathione-Sepharose beads according to the
manufacturer's instructions (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). Equivalent
quantities of GST fusion proteins used for pull-down assays were
verified by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and Coomassie
staining. In vitro transcribed and translated U1C protein
was synthesized using the TNT-coupled reticulocyte lysates (Promega)
and [35S]methionine. Labeled proteins were incubated for
1 h in 300 µl of GST-binding buffer (150 mM NaCl,
1% IGEPAL, 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 5 mM
MgCl2, 0.5 mM DTT, and 10% glycerol) with 2 µg of GST fusion proteins bound to glutathione-Sepharose beads. Bound
proteins were washed three times with 500 µl of GST binding buffer,
and were analyzed by electrophoresis on a 4-20% gradient gel followed by autoradiography.
gal, and 1.7 µg of
pCMVad and pCMVbd plasmids to achieve equivalent protein expression.
DNA was mixed with 6.2 µl of FuGene (Roche Molecular Biochemicals)
and added to cells according to the manufacturer's recommendations.
Cells were harvested 48 h after transfection. Cells were washed
with phosphate-buffered saline and lysed in 200 µl of reporter lysis buffer (Promega). Luciferase assays were performed with 20 and 40 µl
of cell lysis supernatant using Promega luciferase assay reagent and a
Monolight analytical luminometer.
-galactosidase activity was
measured by adding 1 mM 4-methylumbelliferone at pH 7.5 to
5 µl of cell extract. After a 30-min incubation at 37 °C, 200 µl
of 500 mM Na2CO3, pH 10.7, was
added, and fluorescence was measured with a Fluoroskan fluorometer
(adapted from Ref. 41). Luciferase values were normalized with
-galactosidase activity. The average results of at least three
experiments are shown.
-galactosidase activity
as described above. The average results of at least three experiments
are shown.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
In vitro association of EWS with
U1C. A, schematic representation of GST fusion proteins
used in pull-down assays. Black with white
speckled regions indicate Arg-Gly-Gly (RGG)
domains; white with black speckles
indicates RNA recognition motif; vertically
striped region indicates the ETS domain of FLI.
B, GST pull-down assays of in vitro translated
[35S]methionine-labeled U1C with the given fusion
proteins. ivt indicates one-tenth of the labeled U1C used in
the assay.

View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Mapping the U1C interaction domain in
EWS. A, schematic representation of GST fusion proteins
used in pull-down assays. Numbers represent amino acid
residues in the N terminus of EWS. B, GST pull-down assays
of in vitro translated [35S]methionine-labeled
U1C with the given fusion proteins. ivt indicates one-tenth
of the labeled U1C used in the assay.
B (ad-EWS and
ad-EWS/FLI), and U1C was fused to the DNA binding domain of GAL4
(bd-U1C). We transfected ad-EWS or ad-EWS/FLI alone or with bd-U1C to
assay the ability of the proteins to interact and activate
transcription of a GAL4-responsive luciferase reporter gene. Equivalent
protein expression of EWS, EWS/FLI, and U1C was verified by Western
blotting (data not shown). When EWS was expressed with U1C, a 4-fold
increase in luciferase activity was seen (Fig.
3A). Interestingly, a 14-fold
increase was seen when EWS/FLI was expressed with U1C (Fig.
3A), suggesting that the tumor-associated fusion protein
binds U1C with a higher affinity than wild-type EWS. To ensure that
this difference was not due to a higher intrinsic activation activity
of EWS/FLI as compared with EWS, both proteins were expressed as GAL4
DNA-binding fusion proteins, and luciferase activity was measured. No
difference was seen (data not shown), indicating that the higher
luciferase activity seen by EWS/FLI with U1C was specific to the
interaction. The difference in the strengths of interactions of U1C
with EWS and EWS/FLI may not have been reflected in the GST pull-down
assay because factors critical to the stronger EWS/FLI interaction may have been limited or absent in the in vitro assay but were
available in the environment of the mammalian cells. In addition,
although the GST protein was soluble, it is possible that a greater
proportion of protein is folded in the correct conformation when
synthesized in mammalian cells compared with E. coli.
Alternatively, the mammalian two-hybrid assay may simply be a more
sensitive assay.

View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
In vivo association of EWS and
EWS/FLI with U1C. A, mammalian two-hybrid assay. A
GAL4-responsive luciferase reporter gene was transfected with plasmids
containing EWS or EWS/FLI fused to the NF-
B activation domain
(ad-EWS and ad-EWS/FLI) alone or in combination with a plasmid
containing U1C fused to the GAL4 DNA binding domain (bd-U1C) into 293T
cells. A
-galactosidase expression plasmid was included as an
internal control for transfection efficiency. Each transfection was
repeated at least three times, and the average luciferase activity
normalized to
-galactosidase activity is shown. Error
bars indicate S.D. values. B, EWS/FLI, EWS/FLI-B
(EF-B), or EWS/FLI-H (EF-H) (deletions illustrated in Fig.
2A) were transfected as above in the mammalian two-hybrid
assay to show that the minimal interaction domain in EWS is sufficient
for interaction with U1C. Each transfection was repeated at least three
times, and the average luciferase activity normalized with
-galactosidase activity is shown. Error bars
indicate S.D. values.
B activation domain vector and expressed in the mammalian two-hybrid system with U1C as
described above. The first 120 or the first 133 amino acids of EWS
fused to FLI (EF-B and EF-C) interacted with U1C to a similar degree as
full-length EWS/FLI, while minimal or no interaction was seen between
U1C and amino acids 210-264 of EWS fused to FLI (EF-H) (Fig.
3B and data not shown). Because there was no substantial difference in interaction between U1C and EF-B or EF-C, we used EF-B,
which contained the minimal region necessary for interaction, for
subsequent experiments.

View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
U1C represses EWS/FLI-mediated
transactivation. A, increasing amounts of an U1C
expression plasmid were co-transfected with plasmids containing EWS/FLI
and an EWS/FLI-responsive luciferase reporter gene into HeLa cells. A
-galactosidase expression plasmid was included as an internal
control for transfection efficiency. Numbers under the graph
represent µg of each plasmid in individual transfections. pCB6-FLAG
vector was added to keep the total amount of DNA constant in each
transfection mixture. Each transfection was repeated at least three
times, and the average luciferase activity normalized to
-galactosidase activity is shown. Error bars
indicate S.D. values. B, Western blot showing the expression
of EWS/FLI and U1C in transfected cells. Cell extracts were resolved by
4-20% SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and the expression of
proteins was detected using M2 antibody, which recognizes the FLAG tag
on the transfected EWS/FLI and U1C proteins. Numbers
above blot indicate the µg of each plasmid used in
individual transfections. C, U1C and an EWS/FLI-responsive
luciferase reporter gene were cotransfected with EWS/FLI or the EWS/FLI
deletion derivative EF-B or EF-H in HeLa cells. A
-galactosidase
expression plasmid was included as an internal control for transfection
efficiency. Each transfection was repeated at least three times, and
the average luciferase activity normalized with
-galactosidase
activity is shown. Error bars indicate S.D.
values.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
type II receptor, leading to decreased sensitivity to
transforming growth factor-
in cells expressing the fusion protein
(49). Because target genes may be activated or repressed by EWS/FLI,
the U1C-mediated repression could enhance or suppress the transforming
activity of the fusion protein.
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
-D-galactopyranoside.
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Rabbitts, T. H.
(1994)
Nature
372,
143-149
2.
Delattre, O.,
Zucman, J.,
Plougastel, B.,
Desmaze, C.,
Melot, T.,
Peter, M.,
Kovar, H.,
Joubert, I.,
de Jong, P.,
Rouleau, G.,
Aurias, A.,
and Thomas, G.
(1992)
Nature
359,
162-165
3.
Sorensen, P. H.,
Lessnick, S. L.,
Lopez-Terrada, D.,
Liu, X. F.,
Triche, T. J.,
and Denny, C. T.
(1994)
Nat. Genet.
6,
146-151
4.
Jeon, I. S.,
Davis, J. N.,
Braun, B. S.,
Sublett, J. E.,
Roussel, M. F.,
Denny, C. T.,
and Shapiro, D. N.
(1995)
Oncogene
10,
1229-1234
5.
Kaneko, Y.,
Yoshida, K.,
Handa, M.,
Toyoda, Y.,
Nishihira, H.,
Tanaka, Y.,
Sasaki, Y.,
Ishida, S.,
Higashino, F.,
and Fujinaga, K.
(1996)
Genes Chromosomes Cancer
15,
115-121
6.
Peter, M.,
Couturier, J.,
Pacquement, H.,
Michon, J.,
Thomas, G.,
Magdelenat, H.,
and Delattre, O.
(1997)
Oncogene
14,
1159-1164
7.
Rabbitts, T. H.,
Forster, A.,
Larson, R.,
and Nathan, P.
(1993)
Nat. Genet.
4,
175-180
8.
Crozat, A.,
Aman, P.,
Mandahl, N.,
and Ron, D.
(1993)
Nature
363,
640-644
9.
Zucman, J.,
Delattre, O.,
Desmaze, C.,
Epstein, A. L.,
Stenman, G.,
Speleman, F.,
Fletchers, C. D.,
Aurias, A.,
and Thomas, G.
(1993)
Nat. Genet.
4,
341-345
10.
Ichikawa, H.,
Shimizu, K.,
Hayashi, Y.,
and Ohki, M.
(1994)
Cancer Res.
54,
2865-2868
11.
Ladanyi, M.,
and Gerald, W.
(1994)
Cancer Res.
54,
2837-2840
12.
Panagopoulos, I.,
Aman, P.,
Fioretos, T.,
Hoglund, M.,
Johansson, B.,
Mandahl, N.,
Heim, S.,
Behrendtz, M.,
and Mitelman, F.
(1994)
Genes Chromosomes Cancer
11,
256-262
13.
Panagopoulos, I.,
Hoglund, M.,
Mertens, F.,
Mandahl, N.,
Mitelman, F.,
and Aman, P.
(1996)
Oncogene
12,
489-494
14.
Brody, R. I.,
Ueda, T.,
Hamelin, A.,
Jhanwar, S. C.,
Bridge, J. A.,
Healey, J. H.,
Huvos, A. G.,
Gerald, W. L.,
and Ladanyi, M.
(1997)
Am. J. Pathol.
150,
1049-1058
15.
Panagopoulos, I.,
Mencinger, M.,
Dietrich, C. U.,
Bjerkehagen, B.,
Saeter, G.,
Mertens, F.,
Mandahl, N.,
and Heim, S.
(1999)
Oncogene
18,
7594-7598
16.
Sjogren, H.,
Meis-Kindblom, J.,
Kindblom, L. G.,
Aman, P.,
and Stenman, G.
(1999)
Cancer Res.
59,
5064-5067
17.
Attwooll, C.,
Tariq, M.,
Harris, M.,
Coyne, J. D.,
Telford, N.,
and Varley, J. M.
(1999)
Oncogene
18,
7599-7601
18.
Bertolotti, A.,
Lutz, Y.,
Heard, D. J.,
Chambon, P.,
and Tora, L.
(1996)
EMBO J.
15,
5022-5031
19.
May, W. A.,
Gishizky, M. L.,
Lessnick, S. L.,
Lunsford, L. B.,
Lewis, B. C.,
Delattre, O.,
Zucman, J.,
Thomas, G.,
and Denny, C. T.
(1993)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
90,
5752-5756
20.
Bailly, R. A.,
Bosselut, R.,
Zucman, J.,
Cormier, F.,
Delattre, O.,
Roussel, M.,
Thomas, G.,
and Ghysdael, J.
(1994)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
14,
3230-3241
21.
Zinszner, H.,
Albalat, R.,
and Ron, D.
(1994)
Genes Dev.
8,
2513-2526
22.
Brown, A. D.,
Lopez-Terrada, D.,
Denny, C.,
and Lee, K. A.
(1995)
Oncogene
10,
1749-1756
23.
Bertolotti, A.,
Bell, B.,
and Tora, L.
(1999)
Oncogene
18,
8000-8010
24.
Bertolotti, A.,
Melot, T.,
Acker, J.,
Vigneron, M.,
Delattre, O.,
and Tora, L.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18,
1489-1497
25.
Zhang, D.,
Paley, A. J.,
and Childs, G.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
18086-18091
26.
Yang, L.,
Embree, L. J.,
Tsai, S.,
and Hickstein, D. D.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
27761-27764
27.
Hallier, M.,
Lerga, A.,
Barnache, S.,
Tavitian, A.,
and Moreau-Gachelin, F.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
4838-4842
28.
Baechtold, H.,
Kuroda, M.,
Sok, J.,
Ron, D.,
Lopez, B. S.,
and Akhmedov, A. T.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
34337-34342
29.
Bertrand, P.,
Akhmedov, A. T.,
Delacote, F.,
Durrbach, A.,
and Lopez, B. S.
(1999)
Oncogene
18,
4515-4521
30.
Hicks, G. G.,
Singh, N.,
Nashabi, A.,
Mai, S.,
Bozek, G.,
Klewes, L.,
Arapovic, D.,
White, E. K.,
Koury, M. J.,
Oltz, E. M.,
Van Kaer, L.,
and Ruley, H. E.
(2000)
Nat. Genet.
24,
175-179
31.
Kuroda, M.,
Sok, J.,
Webb, L.,
Baechtold, H.,
Urano, F.,
Yin, Y.,
Chung, P.,
de Rooij, D. G.,
Akhmedov, A.,
Ashley, T.,
and Ron, D.
(2000)
EMBO J.
19,
453-462
32.
Kramer, A.
(1996)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
65,
367-409
33.
Pettersson, I.,
Hinterberger, M.,
Mimori, T.,
Gottlieb, E.,
and Steitz, J. A.
(1984)
J. Biol. Chem.
259,
5907-5914
34.
Michaud, S.,
and Reed, R.
(1993)
Genes Dev.
7,
1008-1020
35.
Query, C. C.,
Bentley, R. C.,
and Keene, J. D.
(1989)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
9,
4872-4881
36.
Scherly, D.,
Boelens, W.,
van Venrooij, W. J.,
Dathan, N. A.,
Hamm, J.,
and Mattaj, I. W.
(1989)
EMBO J.
8,
4163-4170
37.
Nelissen, R. L.,
Will, C. L.,
van Venrooij, W. J.,
and Luhrmann, R.
(1994)
EMBO J.
13,
4113-4125
38.
Dalton, S.,
and Treisman, R.
(1992)
Cell
68,
597-612
39.
Dalton, S.,
and Hopwood, B.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
5867-5875
40.
Becker, D. M.,
and Guarente, L.
(1991)
Methods Enzymol.
194,
182-187
41.
Galjaard, H.
(1980)
Genetic Metabolic Disease: Early Diagnosis and Prenatal Analysis
, Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V., Amsterdam
42.
Arning, S.,
Gruter, P.,
Bilbe, G.,
and Kramer, A.
(1996)
RNA
2,
794-810
43.
Choi, Y. D.,
Grabowski, P. J.,
Sharp, P. A.,
and Dreyfuss, G.
(1986)
Science
231,
1534-1539
44.
Yang, X.,
Bani, M. R.,
Lu, S. J.,
Rowan, S.,
Ben-David, Y.,
and Chabot, B.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
6924-6928
45.
Heinrichs, V.,
Bach, M.,
Winkelmann, G.,
and Luhrmann, R.
(1990)
Science
247,
69-72
46.
Petermann, R.,
Mossier, B. M.,
Aryee, D. N.,
Khazak, V.,
Golemis, E. A.,
and Kovar, H.
(1998)
Oncogene
17,
603-610
47.
Braun, B. S.,
Frieden, R.,
Lessnick, S. L.,
May, W. A.,
and Denny, C. T.
(1995)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15,
4623-4630
48.
May, W. A.,
Arvand, A.,
Thompson, A. D.,
Braun, B. S.,
Wright, M.,
and Denny, C. T.
(1997)
Nat. Genet.
17,
495-497
49.
Hahm, K. B.,
Cho, K.,
Lee, C.,
Im, Y. H.,
Chang, J.,
Choi, S. G.,
Sorensen, P.,
Thiele, C. J.,
and Kim, S.-J.
(1999)
Nat. Genet.
23,
222-227
50.
Lessnick, S. L.,
Braun, B. S.,
Denny, C. T.,
and May, W. A.
(1995)
Oncogene
10,
423-431
51.
Jaishankar, S.,
Zhang, J.,
Roussel, M. F.,
and Baker, S. J.
(1999)
Oncogene
18,
5592-5597
52.
Bentley, D.
(1999)
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
11,
347-351
53.
Stickeler, E.,
Kittrell, F.,
Medina, D.,
and Berget, S. M.
(1999)
Oncogene
18,
3574-3582
54.
Ghigna, C.,
Moroni, M.,
Porta, C.,
Riva, S.,
and Biamonti, G.
(1998)
Cancer Res.
58,
5818-5824
55.
Chow, V. T.,
Quek, H. H.,
and Tock, E. P.
(1993)
Cancer Lett.
73,
141-148
56.
Hosokawa, Y.,
Gadd, M.,
Smith, A. P.,
Koerner, F. C.,
Schmidt, E. V.,
and Arnold, A.
(1997)
Cancer Lett.
113,
123-130
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:
![]() |
E. C. Torchia, K. Boyd, J. E. Rehg, C. Qu, and S. J. Baker EWS/FLI-1 Induces Rapid Onset of Myeloid/Erythroid Leukemia in Mice Mol. Cell. Biol., November 15, 2007; 27(22): 7918 - 7934. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Toretsky, V. Erkizan, A. Levenson, O. D. Abaan, J. D. Parvin, T. P. Cripe, A. M. Rice, S. B. Lee, and A. Uren Oncoprotein EWS-FLI1 Activity Is Enhanced by RNA Helicase A Cancer Res., June 1, 2006; 66(11): 5574 - 5581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Lee, B. K. Rhee, G.-Y. Bae, Y.-M. Han, and J. Kim Stimulation of Oct-4 Activity by Ewing's Sarcoma Protein Stem Cells, June 1, 2005; 23(6): 738 - 751. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Alex and K. A. W. Lee RGG-boxes of the EWS oncoprotein repress a range of transcriptional activation domains Nucleic Acids Res., March 2, 2005; 33(4): 1323 - 1331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Ano, R. Pereira, M. Pironin, I. Lesault, C. Milley, I. Lebigot, C. T. Quang, and J. Ghysdael Erythroblast Transformation by FLI-1 Depends upon Its Specific DNA Binding and Transcriptional Activation Properties J. Biol. Chem., January 23, 2004; 279(4): 2993 - 3002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Araya, K. Hirota, Y. Shimamoto, M. Miyagishi, E. Yoshida, J. Ishida, S. Kaneko, M. Kaneko, T. Nakajima, and A. Fukamizu Cooperative Interaction of EWS with CREB-binding Protein Selectively Activates Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 4-mediated Transcription J. Biol. Chem., February 7, 2003; 278(7): 5427 - 5432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Tian Combinatorial Selection of RNA Ligands for Complex Cellular Targets : The RNA Liagands-Based Proteomics Mol. Cell. Proteomics, February 1, 2002; 1(2): 99 - 103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Ohkura, H. Yaguchi, T. Tsukada, and K. Yamaguchi The EWS/NOR1 Fusion Gene Product Gains a Novel Activity Affecting Pre-mRNA Splicing J. Biol. Chem., January 4, 2002; 277(1): 535 - 543. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
S. M. Welford, S. P. Hebert, B. Deneen, A. Arvand, and C. T. Denny DNA Binding Domain-independent Pathways Are Involved in EWS/FLI1-mediated Oncogenesis J. Biol. Chem., November 2, 2001; 276(45): 41977 - 41984. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Kovar, G. Jug, C. Hattinger, L. Spahn, D. N. T. Aryee, P. F. Ambros, A. Zoubek, and H. Gadner The EWS Protein Is Dispensable for Ewing Tumor Growth Cancer Res., August 1, 2001; 61(16): 5992 - 5997. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Yang, H. A. Chansky, and D. D. Hickstein EWS{middle dot}Fli-1 Fusion Protein Interacts with Hyperphosphorylated RNA Polymerase II and Interferes with Serine-Arginine Protein-mediated RNA Splicing J. Biol. Chem., November 22, 2000; 275(48): 37612 - 37618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. L. Knoop and S. J. Baker EWS/FLI Alters 5'-Splice Site Selection J. Biol. Chem., June 15, 2001; 276(25): 22317 - 22322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||