Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M109912200 on November 5, 2001
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 2, 1120-1127, January 11, 2002
Alx4 Binding to LEF-1 Regulates N-CAM Promoter Activity*
Kata
Boras and
Paul A.
Hamel
From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology,
University of Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8, Canada
Received for publication, October 12, 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
During murine embryogenesis, expression of the
paired-like homeodomain protein Alx4 is restricted to tissues whose
development depends on the expression of lymphoid enhancer factor-1
(LEF-1). Given the defects seen in hair follicle development in both
LEF-1 and Alx4 knockout and mutant animals and the overlapping
expression patterns, we predicted that LEF-1 and Alx4 might form
physical complexes. We demonstrate here the interaction between LEF-1
and Alx4. This interaction is mediated through a specific proline-rich domain in the N-terminal region of Alx4 and requires the DNA-binding domain (HMG-box) of LEF-1. We also demonstrate that LEF-1 and Alx4 can
bind simultaneously to adjacent sites on the neural cell adhesion
molecule (N-CAM) promoter and that this binding alters N-CAM
promoter activity. Furthermore, when expressed in primary mammary
stromal cells, Alx4 decreases the expression of endogenous N-CAM
protein. These results reveal a potential mechanism that gives rise to
mesenchymal-specific activities of LEF-1.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The patterning of many developing tissues and organs during
embryogenesis is mediated by inductive processes between opposing epithelial and mesenchymal cell layers (1). Signaling between these
layers governs organogenesis from initiation of tissue development to
terminal differentiation of organ-specific cell types. The early stages
of organogenesis are marked by the appearance of local epithelial
thickenings followed by condensations of adjacent mesenchymal cells.
This process is driven by a series of inductive reciprocal signals
traveling between epithelial and mesenchymal cell compartments and
resulting in the stepwise determination of both tissue components and,
ultimately, formation of the adult organ.
Development of teeth, whiskers, hair follicles, and mammary glands
represent well studied examples of tissues that arise from these
reciprocal signaling processes (2-4). Despite specialized structures
and functions, common signaling cascades are required for the
generation of these distinct tissues. The cascades are initiated and/or
mediated by soluble factors such as the Wnt (5, 6), hedgehog (Hh)
(7-9), fibroblast growth factor (Fgf) (10), and bone morphogenic
protein (BMP) families (11, 12) of morphogens. In addition, development
of the tissues critically depends on the expression and activity of a
number of transcription factors associated with these signal
transduction pathways.
One critical factor, lymphoid enhancer-binding
factor (LEF-1)1
(13) is a member of the high mobility
group (HMG)-box family of proteins, which includes the
closely related factors Tcf-1, -2, -3, and -4. Although the expression
and activity of members of this family overlap, LEF-1-null
mice die shortly after birth, exhibiting (among other defects) a
conspicuous absence of hair, teeth, whiskers, and mammary glands (14,
15). Forced expression of LEF-1 in mice under the control of the
keratin-14 (K14) promoter causes abnormalities in the positioning and
orientation of hair follicles as well as ectopic development of teeth
(16). A requirement for the control of activity for other aspects of
the pathways signaling through LEF-1 was demonstrated when
K14-dependent expression of an activated version of the
LEF-1-binding protein (
-catenin) resulted in de novo hair
follicle development and, ultimately, malignant transformation of
epithelial cells in the hair follicle (17).
LEF-1 is a sequence-specific (5'-CCTTTG(A/T)(A/T)-3')
DNA-binding protein whose activity is modulated via cooperative
interactions with non-DNA-binding cofactors such as
-catenin
(18-22), AML, ALY (14, 23-26), Groucho (26-28), and CBP/p300 (29).
The N terminus of LEF-1 mediates direct binding to
-catenin, thereby
stimulating transcription in response to Wnt signaling (18, 20, 21, 30,
31). In the absence of Wnt signaling, CBP binds LEF-1, lowering its
affinity for
-catenin by acetylating a conserved lysine in the
-catenin-binding domain (29). The protein ALY interacts with the
proline-rich domain of LEF-1 and with AML-1 (another TCR-binding
protein) to stimulate the function of the T-cell receptor enhancer (23,
24, 32). Factors binding to LEF-1 (such as the co-repressor, Groucho)
result in the formation of transcriptional repressor complexes
(26-28). Thus, apart from its ability to alter the conformation of DNA
itself (33), LEF-1 plays an architectural role in the assembly of
multiprotein complexes (30, 34), thereby facilitating the integration
of multiple signal transduction pathways in the control of transcription.
Proline-rich regions mediate protein-protein interactions
between several classes of factors. We and others recently isolated a
paired-like homeodomain protein, Alx4 (35, 36), that harbors an
N-terminal proline-rich motif predicted to mediate complex formation
with other proteins. During murine embryogenesis, Alx4 expression is
restricted to mesenchymal cells in developing bones, limbs, hair,
whiskers, teeth, and mammary tissues (35, 37). The Alx4-mutant mouse
strain, Strong's luxoid (lstD),
exhibits limb defects, cranio-facial abnormalities, temporary dorsal
alopecia, and polydactyly (38, 39). Likewise, targeted deletion of Alx4
on a C57Bl/6 background resulted in mice with multiple abnormalities
including polydactyly, dorsal alopecia, cranio-facial defects, and
defects in body wall closure (36).
We demonstrated previously that Alx4 and LEF-1 expression overlap
spatially and temporally in many of these same tissues during mouse
embryogenesis (37). Because LEF-1 activity is required for the
formation of tissues expressing Alx4, we hypothesized that LEF-1
interacts with Alx4 to regulate transcription of target genes. We
demonstrate here the interaction between Alx4 and LEF-1 and show
further that these two factors bind simultaneously to adjacent sites in
the promoter region of the neural cell adhesion molecule, N-CAM.
In addition, LEF-1 and Alx4 alter transcription from the N-CAM
promoter, and Alx4 inhibits the expression of N-CAM protein when
expressed in primary mammary mesenchymal cells.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Plasmids, Constructs, and Antibodies--
Murine LEF-1-HA
cDNA and
-LEF-1 rabbit polyclonal antiserum were kindly provided
by Dr. R. Grosschedl (Gene Center and Institute of Biochemistry,
University of Munich, Germany). Myc-tagged LEF-1 was generated
by inserting a Myc oligo
(5'-CTCGAGCAGAAACTCATCTCTGAAGAGGATCTGTAGGTACC-3') in place of the HA
tag. LEF-1 mutant plasmids (
HMG and 
cat) were a kind gift from
Dr. L. Attisano (Department of Medical Biophysics, University of
Toronto, Canada) (40). Expression vectors for HA-tagged Alx4 were
subcloned into pcDNA3 (37). The GST fusion construct of Alx4
was generated by restriction digest of pcDNA3-HA-Alx4 (BamHI/SmaI) and subsequently cloned into
BamHI/SmaI sites of the pGEX-2T vector (41). The
mutant Alx4lstD expression plasmid was a gift from Dr. R. Wisdom (Departments of Biochemistry and Medicine, Vanderbilt University
School of Medicine, Nashville, TN). The
1003 and
645 bp N-CAM-CAT
reporter constructs were a kind gift of C. Goridis (Center
d'Immunologie Institut National de la Sante, Marseille-Luminy,
France). Additional deletion constructs were made by cutting at
specified restriction sites and religating the vector. Sheep
-LEF-1 antiserum was obtained from Bionostics, Inc. (Toronto,
Ontario). Monoclonal antibodies against Alx4 were described previously
(37). Two monoclonal antibodies, the mouse hybridoma (12CA5) and the
rat anti-HA (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) were used to
detect the HA tag. The monoclonal antibody to N-CAM (5B8),
developed by Thomas M. Jessel and Jane Dodd, was obtained from the
Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank (maintained by the University of
Iowa, Department of Biological Sciences, Iowa City, IA). The hybridoma
9E10 was used to generate antisera against the Myc epitope. The Alx4
adenovirus was constructed using the bacterial recombination system
described by He et al. (42). Briefly, HA-tagged Alx4 was
ligated into the multiple cloning site of pCMV-AdTrack, and
recombination with the pAdEasy vector was facilitated in BJ5183 cells.
The recombinant adenoviral genome was then transfected into 293 cells,
and it recovered viral particles used for subsequent rounds of
amplification in 293 cells.
GST Binding Assay--
GST fusion proteins were expressed in
bacteria and purified on glutathione-Sepharose 4B beads (Amersham
Biosciences) according to the manufacturer's instructions as we have
described previously (41). An equivalent amount (1 µg) of purified
GST or GST-Alx4Bam-Sma fusion protein bound to glutathione
beads was incubated with COS-1 nuclear lysates containing LEF-1-HA
protein and was rocked for 2 h at 4 °C. The glutathione beads
were washed five times in a Nonidet P-40 lysis buffer (0.5% Nonidet
P-40, 120 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0), and
bound proteins were eluted by boiling in 2× SDS buffer for 5 min
before loading onto 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gels.
Immunoprecipitation and Western Blot--
COS-1 cells were
transfected with various expression constructs using the DEAE-dextran
method. Cells were lysed 48-h post-transfection, and lysates were
prepared in a Nonidet P-40 lysis buffer (0.5% Nonidet P-40, 120 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0) and
immunoprecipitated with sheep anti-LEF-1 antiserum. 20 µl of protein
G-Sepharose beads were then added and incubated for a further 2 h.
Immunocomplexes were washed five times with ice-cold Nonidet P-40 lysis
buffer and separated on 8% reducing SDS-PAGE gels. Following transfer to nitrocellulose, membrane blots were blocked overnight at 4 °C in
phosphate-buffered saline/0.1% Tween 20 containing 5% skim milk
powder. Blots were incubated at room temperature for 2 h in a
1:1000 dilution of primary antibody followed by a 1-h incubation with a
1:8000 dilution of the appropriate secondary horseradish peroxidase
antibody. Blots were developed with the ECL fluorescent detection kit
according to the manufacturer's instructions (Amersham Biosciences).
Cell Culture, DNA Transfections, CAT, and
-galactosidase
Assays--
Human C33A cells were maintained in Dulbecco's minimal
essential medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Sigma) as well as penicillin and streptomycin (Invitrogen). For CAT assays, C33A
cells were transfected by the calcium phosphate method. Cells were
harvested after 48 h, and CAT assays were performed as described previously (37). CAT activity was normalized relative to the internal
control
-galactosidase. In all experiments, the total amount of
transfected DNA was kept constant by including the appropriate empty
expression vector. Data shown are from representative experiments that
were done in triplicate, and the error bars indicate the standard error
of the mean.
Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays (EMSAs)--
Nuclear
lysates were prepared as described previously (43). Gel shift reactions
contained 15 mM Tris (pH 7.5), 75 mM NaCl, 1.5 mM EDTA, 0.3% Nonidet P-40, 0.8 µg of poly(dI-dC), 4 mM spermidine, 4 mM spermine, 1.5 mM dithiothreitol, and 7.5% glycerol. After incubation at
room temperature for 5 min, 32P-labeled probe was added,
the mixture was incubated at room temperature for 20 min, and then
antibodies were added and incubated for an additional 10 min. Samples
were separated on 4% polyacrylamide gels that contained 0.5×
Tris borate/EDTA. The sequence of the gel shift probes are as
follows (top strand): LEF1 site,
5'-GTGTCCACAACTTTGAAAATCGAACCGAAT-3'; P1 site,
5'-CTTTTTCCCCCTAATTATTAAAAACGTTCAA-3'; N-CAM probe:
LEF-1 and P1 sites,
5'-CCACAACTTTGAAAATCGAACCGAATCTAAAATTCTTTTTCCCCCTAATTATTAAAAACG-3'.
Immunohistochemistry--
Immunohistochemistry was performed on
paraffin-embedded sections (6 µm) of paraformaldehyde-fixed embryos
(E15.5). Rabbit antiserum against LEF-1 was used at 1:400 dilution.
Supernatants of monoclonal antibodies against Alx4 and N-CAM were used
undiluted. Secondary antibodies,
-rabbit-Texas Red and
-mouse-FITC (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, Inc.), were used
at 1:1000 dilution. Immunofluorescence confocal microscopy was carried
out as described previously (44) on a Bio-Rad MRC-600 confocal
fluorescence microscope.
 |
RESULTS |
Alx4 Stably Interacts with LEF-1--
We determined previously
that expression of the paired-like homeodomain protein Alx4 is
restricted to mesenchymal cells in a number of tissues whose
development is critically dependent on the expression of the HMG-box
protein, LEF-1 (37). The presence of a proline-rich SH3-protein binding
motif2 in the
N-terminal region of Alx4 and the ability of LEF-1 to directly bind
other transcription factors on DNA further suggested that LEF-1 and
Alx4 might form co-complexes. This hypothesis was initially tested
in vitro using GST pull-down assays (Fig.
1). As illustrated, transiently expressed
full-length HA-tagged LEF-1 in COS-1 cells binds specifically to
GST-Alx4 but not to GST alone.

View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Alx4 interacts with LEF-1 in
vitro. COS-1 nuclear lysates containing HA-tagged LEF-1 were
incubated with purified GST-Alx4Bam-Sma fusion protein (see
Fig. 2) or GST protein bound to glutathione beads, washed, eluted in
SDS buffer, and separated on a 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel. The
expression and binding of LEF-1 is shown by Western blot analysis with
-HA antibody.
|
|
Binding of LEF-1 to Alx4 was further characterized in
co-immunoprecipitation experiments (Fig.
2). COS-1 cells were transiently co-transfected with the expression plasmids for HA-tagged Alx4 and
HA-tagged LEF-1. LEF-1 was immunoprecipitated from nuclear lysates
using an
-LEF-1 antibody, and co-immunoprecipitated HA-Alx4 was
detected by Western analysis using the
-HA antibody, 12CA5 (Fig.
2B, lane 2). When co-expressed, LEF-1 mediates
co-immunoprecipitation of Alx4, confirming the results of the in
vitro pull-down assay.

View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Co-immunoprecipitation of LEF-1 with
Alx4. A, schematic representation of Alx4 domains and
Alx4 deletional mutants and nuclear localization of Alx4 and Alx4
mutants with LEF-1. Nuclear cell lysates were prepared as described and
analyzed by Western blotting with a rat -HA antibody (top
panel) and the -Myc monoclonal antibody, 9E10 (bottom
panel), indicating that all Alx4 mutants are localized to the
nucleus where LEF-1 resides. B, specific interaction of Alx4
with LEF-1. COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with Myc-tagged
LEF-1 and/or HA-tagged Alx4 plasmids. Cell lysates were
immunoprecipitated with sheep LEF-1 antiserum, and the resulting
complexes were analyzed by Western blotting with a rat -HA antibody
(top panel). The expression levels of Alx4 mutants and LEF-1
are shown by Western blot with -HA antibody (middle
panel) and -Myc antibody, 9E10 (bottom panel).
C, Alx4 binding to LEF-1 requires the HMG-box of LEF-1.
Expression vectors for wild-type LEF-1 or LEF-1 mutants that lack the
 catenin binding site ( cat) or the DNA-binding HMG-box
( HMG) were co-transfected with the Alx4 expression vector. Whole
cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with a sheep -LEF-1 polyclonal
antibody, and the associated Alx4 was detected using an -Alx4
antibody (top panel). Immunoprecipitated LEF-1 was
visualized by reprobing the blot in the top panel with a
rabbit -LEF-1 antibody (second panel). The expression
levels of Alx4 (third panel) and LEF-1 mutants (bottom
panel) were determined by Western analysis. Alx4
co-immunoprecipitated with wild-type LEF-1 and the  cat mutant but
failed to associate with the HMG mutant. WB, Western
blot; IP, immunoprecipitation.
|
|
The polyproline motif in the N-terminal region of Alx4
(PQPPTPQPPPAPPAPP, amino acids 92-107) bears a striking similarity to
motifs in factors that mediate protein-protein interactions (46). This
region was examined for its possible role in Alx4 interaction with
LEF-1 (Fig. 2). Constructs expressing various deletions of Alx4 (Fig.
2A) were co-transfected with the LEF-1-myc expression
vector. All mutants of Alx4 are co-expressed with LEF-1 in the nucleus
(Fig. 2A). LEF-1 was immunoprecipitated using sheep polyclonal antisera directed against full-length LEF-1 and
co-immunoprecipitated Alx4 detected by Western analysis using a rat
-HA monoclonal antibody (Fig. 2B). All mutants of Alx4
that retain the SH3 protein-binding motif co-immunoprecipitate with
LEF-1. However, Alx4
WW, which harbors a deletion between
amino acids 87 and 115, did not co-immunoprecipitate LEF-1 despite
being expressed at slightly higher levels than the other Alx4 mutant
proteins (Fig. 2B, middle panel). Thus, the SH3
protein-binding motif of Alx4 is required for its interaction with
LEF-1. The C-terminal proline-rich domain (amino acids 294-327), the
highly conserved paired-tail motif (amino acids 375-391) (47), as well
as the sequence N-terminal to the SH3 protein-binding motif in Alx4 are
not required for strong association with LEF-1.
Fig. 2C reveals further that, distinct from
-catenin,
Alx4 appears to bind to the domain responsible for LEF-1 binding to DNA, the HMG-box. Specifically, wild-type LEF-1 or LEF-1 that lacks the
-catenin binding site (
cat) or the HMG-box (
HMG) were
co-transfected with Alx4. Immunoprecipitation of wild-type LEF-1 or the

cat mutant co-immunoprecipitated Alx4. However, the
HMG
mutant, which was expressed at levels similar to wild-type LEF-1,
failed to immunoprecipitate Alx4.
Alx4 and LEF-1 Regulate N-CAM Promoter Activity--
Mice that are
mutant for either Alx4 or LEF-1 exhibit a number of similar
developmental defects, including that of hair follicles (15, 38).
Furthermore, we showed previously that expression of message for these
two factors overlaps significantly (37). N-CAM expression during hair
follicle development has been shown previously to be very dynamic,
being detectable in mesenchymal cells and/or epithelial cells at
distinct stages of the hair follicle cycle (48, 49). As we demonstrate
in Fig. 3, N-CAM is expressed in an
overlapping pattern with LEF-1 in the invaginating epithelial cells and
is excluded from the dermal papilla where Alx4 is expressed. Regulation
of N-CAM expression by these factors is further supported by the
observation that noggin-dependent induction of LEF-1
coincidentally increases N-CAM expression (50). Furthermore, our
inspection of the promoter region of N-CAM revealed two putative LEF-1
consensus binding sequences (CTTTG(A/T)(A/T) (14, 33, 34); see Fig. 4A), one of which (position
589) is adjacent to an AT-rich sequence encoding the palindromic P1
paired-like homeodomain binding sequence, TAATtATTA (51, 52). Alx4
monomers have been shown to bind with high affinity to a portion of
this site, specifically TAATt (53).

View larger version (79K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Alx4, LEF-1, and N-CAM expression in
embryonic hair follicles. Paraffin-embedded sections of day E15.5
(5 µm) mice embryos were immunostained with mouse -N-CAM
monoclonal (top panel), mouse -Alx4 monoclonal
(middle panel), and rabbit -LEF-1 polyclonal
(bottom panel) antibodies. For these follicles, Alx4
expression is confined to mesenchymal condensations that will form the
dermal papilla (single arrow head), whereas LEF-1 is
expressed in both the mesenchymal condensations as well as in the
adjacent epithelial cells (double arrow head). N-CAM
expression at this stage is expressed at high levels in a manner
reciprocal to Alx4, being confined primarily to epithelial cells.
|
|

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Alx4 and LEF-1 regulate N-CAM promoter
activity. A, schematic representation of the mouse
N-CAM promoter. Nucleotides are numbered relative to the transcription
start site. Filled boxes indicate putative LEF-1 and Alx4
binding sites. B, LEF-1-dependent activation of
the N-CAM promoter. C33A were transiently transfected with a series of
5'-deletion N-CAM promoter constructs (50 ng) with or without
Myc-tagged LEF-1 (2 µg). C, C33A were transiently
transfected with the N-CAM Nde-CAT reporter construct, together with
LEF-1 (0.5 µg) and/or LEF-1 HMG and/or
LEF-1 cat (0.5, 2 µg). D, Alx4 regulates
LEF-1 activation of the N-CAM promoter. C33A cells were transiently
transfected with the N-CAM Nde-CAT reporter construct, together with
increasing amounts of Alx4 and/or LEF-1 expression plasmids (0.1, 0.5, 2 µg). E, Alx4 regulates LEF-1 activity by DNA binding and
its interaction with LEF-1. C33A cells were transiently transfected
with the N-CAM Nde-CAT reporter construct, together with Alx4 or
Alx4lstD (2 µg) and/or LEF-1 (0.5 µg) expression
plasmids. Cell lysates in B, C, D, and
E were assayed for CAT activity and normalized to
-galactosidase activity 48 h after transfection. Experiments
were repeated five times in triplicate. Error bars indicate
the standard error of the mean.
|
|
Thus, using a series of 5'-deletion N-CAM promoter constructs, we
determined the effect of LEF-1 expression on N-CAM promoter activity
(Fig. 4B). In the absence of LEF-1, N-CAM promoter activity increased when the sequence between
647 and
1003 bp
(
NdeI) was deleted. When an additional 58 bp were removed
(
Hinf) the region encoding the distal LEF-1 consensus sequence,
promoter activity decreased to half of the activity seen for the
SspI construct. Further deletion decreased activity to
levels that approach background. Co-transfection of the
Ssp N-CAM
promoter-CAT construct with 2.0 µg of the LEF-1 expression vector
increased N-CAM promoter activity by 2-fold. This increase was also
evident for the
Nde mutant where both LEF-1 binding sites were
intact. However, further deletion of 58 bp (
Hinf) to just upstream
of the putative P1 binding site (with the deletion of the distal LEF-1
consensus binding site) prevented LEF-1 from activating the N-CAM
promoter, indicating that the upstream sequence was the principal site
for LEF-1-dependent N-CAM promoter activation. Furthermore,
transfection with the LEF-1 DNA-binding mutant (
HMG) and a
dominant-negative LEF-1 mutant unable to bind
-catenin (
cat)
did not activate the N-CAM promoter (Fig. 4C).
We next examined the effect of N-CAM promoter activity in the presence
of expressed LEF-1 and Alx4 (Fig. 4D). Cells were
transiently transfected with the N-CAM
Nde-CAT reporter construct
together with increasing amounts of Alx4 or LEF-1 expression plasmids. Expression of LEF-1 strongly activated the N-CAM promoter up to 12-fold
over basal activity. Alx4 weakly stimulated promoter activity in a
dose-dependent manner. When the two expression plasmids
were co-transfected, low levels of Alx4 reproducibly enhanced
LEF-1-dependent N-CAM promoter activation. However, as
higher levels of Alx4 were expressed, LEF-1-dependent
activation was repressed (Fig. 4D). Transfection of the DNA
binding-deficient mutant derived from lstD mice
(Alx4lstD) failed to alter
LEF-1-dependent N-CAM activity (Fig. 4E).
Alx4 and LEF-1 Bind Simultaneously to the N-CAM
Promoter--
Given the proximity of the LEF-1 and Alx4 binding site
consensus sequences and the ability of these proteins to interact with one another, we examined whether the two proteins bind these sites on
the N-CAM promoter simultaneously (Fig.
5). EMSAs were performed using a labeled
double-stranded oligonucleotide probe encoding the sequence between
595 and
535 of the N-CAM promoter (Fig. 5A). As the
lower panel of Fig. 5A demonstrates, nuclear
lysates containing exogenous Myc-tagged LEF-1 produced a novel complex (lane 1, C4), which was specifically supershifted
with the
-Myc monoclonal antibody, 9E10 (lane 2,
C2). Competition with 200-fold excess cold N-CAM oligo
abrogated the LEF1-DNA complexes (lanes 3 and 4).
As we and others have shown previously (36, 37), Alx4 binds only weakly
to DNA encoding a paired-like homeodomain consensus sequence
(lane 5). However, stabilization of Alx4 on DNA was apparent
with the addition of the
-Alx4 antibody (lane 6,
C3). As with LEF-1, competition with cold N-CAM oligo
abrogated all Alx4-DNA complexes (lanes 7 and 8).
Mutation of either the LEF-1 or P1 DNA sites also abrogated shifts seen
in Fig. 5A (data not shown). These data demonstrate that an
intact LEF-1 binding site is required for LEF-1 binding and that an
intact Alx4 binding site is required for Alx4 binding. Control lysates
did not bind to the radiolabeled N-CAM oligo (lanes
9-15).

View larger version (67K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Alx4 and LEF-1 bind the N-CAM promoter.
A, Alx4 and LEF-1 bind the N-CAM promoter. Electrophoretic
mobility shift assays were performed using an N-CAM promoter fragment
containing the upstream LEF-1 binding site and the P1 site. COS-1
nuclear lysates containing LEF-1 or Alx4 were incubated with
radiolabeled double-stranded N-CAM probe. Supershifts were performed
using -Myc or -Alx4 monoclonal antibodies (lanes
2 and 3 and lanes 6 and 7,
respectively). Competition with a 200-fold cold N-CAM probe was
performed (lanes 3, 4, 7,
8, 11, 13, and 14).
B, Alx4 and LEF-1 bind the N-CAM promoter simultaneously.
COS-1 nuclear lysates containing both LEF-1 and Alx4 were incubated
with radiolabeled double-stranded N-CAM probe. Supershifts were
performed using -Myc and -Alx4 monoclonal antibodies (lanes
2-4). Competition with either 200-fold cold LEF-1 site oligo
(lane 3) or cold P1 site oligo (lane 4) was
performed. C, complex.
|
|
In the presence of LEF-1, enhanced binding of Alx4 to DNA was observed.
Specifically, novel complexes are seen when Alx4 and LEF-1 are
co-expressed (Fig. 5B, lane 1). Supershifts with
-Myc and
-Alx4 antibodies (lane 2) verified the
presence of both factors in these complexes. Additional supershifted
complexes (Fig. 5B, lane 2, C1) were
generated relative to supershifted lysates where LEF-1 or Alx4 were
expressed alone (Fig. 5A, lanes 2,
C3 and C4; lane 6, C2). To
determine which complexes contained Alx4 and/or LEF-1, competition with
cold oligo from either the LEF-1 site (Fig. 5B, lane
3) or the P1 site (Fig. 5B, lane 4) were performed. Competition with the LEF-1 site abrogates LEF-1-DNA (C3,
C4) and LEF-1/Alx4-DNA (C1) complexes, whereas
competition with the P1 site abrogates Alx4-DNA (C2) and
Alx4/LEF-1-DNA (C1) complexes. Only Alx4 complexes remain in
lane 3 (C2) and LEF-1 complexes in lane 4 (C3,
C4). Both cold oligos abrogate C1 verifying the presence of
both Alx4 and LEF-1 simultaneously on the N-CAM promoter oligonucleotide. Similarly, competition with the N-CAM probe abrogates all four complexes (data not shown). Thus, we find that Alx4 binds very
weakly to a P1 paired-like homeodomain consensus sequence in the N-CAM
promoter region. In the presence of LEF-1, which binds to an adjacent
LEF-1 site, Alx4 binding is sufficiently enhanced to detect its
presence in DNA-binding complexes using EMSA.
These data demonstrate the specificity of the complexes containing both
Alx4 and LEF-1 observed using the wild-type N-CAM probe. Furthermore,
they demonstrate that LEF-1 enhances Alx4 binding to the promoter
region of N-CAM (34, 54).
Alx4 Overexpression Represses Endogenous N-CAM Expression--
We
next assessed the effect of Alx4 overexpression on endogenous N-CAM
levels in cultures of primary mouse mammary stromal cells. We have
shown previously the expression of Alx4 exclusively in the mesenchymal
cells adjacent to ductal epithelia in the mouse mammary gland (35).
Furthermore, the specific requirement of LEF-1 activity for the
development of this tissue has also been demonstrated (15). Thus,
primary mammary stromal cells were infected with a control adenovirus
or a virus expressing Alx4 under the control of the CMV promoter. As
Fig. 6 demonstrates, infection with the
control virus had no effect on expression of the 140-kDa form of N-CAM
whereas expression of Alx4 significantly reduced endogenous N-CAM
levels. Thus, in agreement with the promoter assays in which high
levels of Alx4 (relative to LEF-1) inhibited transcription from the
N-CAM promoter, adenovirus-mediated expression of Alx4 can repress
expression of endogenous N-CAM protein in primary mouse mammary stromal
cells.

View larger version (54K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Alx4 regulates endogenous N-CAM protein in
mammary stromal cells. Primary mesenchymal cells were infected
with either 1 × 1011 plaque-forming units Alx4
adenovirus or control CMV adenovirus. Cell lysates were then analyzed
for Alx4 expression and endogenous N-CAM levels by Western blot
analysis using -HA antibody (middle panel) and -N-CAM
antibody, 5B8 (upper panel), respectively. Cyclin D1
expression was analyzed as a control for equivalent amounts of lysate
using -cyclin D1 antibody (bottom panel).
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
While binding to and altering the structure of DNA (34, 54), LEF-1
alters gene transcription through direct association with additional
transcription factors (14, 18-29). By virtue of many distinct
protein-binding domains throughout the protein, LEF-1 integrates
signals from a number of distinct developmental pathways. For the
development of hair, whiskers, teeth, and breast tissue, integration of
these signals by LEF-1 is an essential requirement for development
(15).
Homeobox genes have been shown to regulate genes encoding several cell
adhesion molecules that mediate interactions leading to morphogenesis
(55). Specifically, the neural cell adhesion molecule (N-CAM) contains
homeodomain binding sites that are composed of a conserved ATTA core
motif but vary with respect to base pairs flanking this motif. The
sequence composition of the homeodomain binding sites determines which
homeodomain proteins can interact with these regulatory sequences. The
present study identifies Alx4 as a potential modifier of N-CAM
expression both in promoter assays and cultures of primary mammary
stromal cells. In order for Alx4 to repress the N-CAM promoter it must
affect the function of activators, specifically LEF-1, bound to other
sites within the promoter.
Because in developing hair follicles, expression of LEF-1 occurs in
both mesenchymal and epithelial compartments, differences in
LEF-1-mediated expression of genes would be expected to occur through
the binding of factors that are expressed uniquely in these distinct
compartments. Alx4 is an example of a factor whose expression is
restricted to condensing mesenchymal cells adjacent to the invaginating
epithelia in the developing embryonic hair follicle. Alx4, like LEF-1,
has an important role in the development of a number of tissues
including hair follicles (36, 38). We also have observed Alx4
expression exclusively in mesenchymal cells in a number of tissues
whose development is influenced by LEF-1 activity (37). In the context
of hair follicle development, the absence of Alx4 in mice results in a
significant decrease in dermal thickness, a reduction in the number of
melanocytes, little or no adipose tissue development, and a decrease in
the size of the dermal papilla (38). Thus, based on the overlapping expression (37), primary amino acid sequence, and defects that arise
during hair follicle development, we hypothesized that Alx4 might
impart some mesenchymal cell-specific activities to LEF-1. In agreement
with our hypothesis, we have demonstrated that the interaction between
these two factors alters the promoter activity and endogenous levels of
the cell adhesion molecule, N-CAM. Regulation of the N-CAM promoter
appears to be mediated through adjacent but distinct LEF-1 and Alx-4
binding sites in the N-CAM promoter. Our results indicate that the
effects of Alx4 on LEF-1 activity are dependent on levels of Alx4 and
LEF-1 expression. In addition, the promoter assays demonstrate that the
Alx4lstD mutant, which is unable to bind DNA but can bind
LEF-1, has no effect on LEF-1 activity, suggesting that DNA binding of
Alx4 is required for Alx4 repressor activity. However, as demonstrated in EMSAs, LEF-1 enhances Alx4 binding to DNA, suggesting that both
interaction with LEF-1 and DNA binding are required to mediate its
effects on the N-CAM promoter.
As shown in the EMSAs, nuclear extracts with LEF-1 and Alx4 show that
both specifically bind to the N-CAM promoter. In addition, complexes
containing both factors are also apparent, demonstrating that both Alx4
and LEF-1 bind simultaneously to the N-CAM promoter. The relatively
lower levels of LEF-1/Alx4 co-complexes may reflect the weak binding of
Alx4 for paired-like homeodomain binding sites observed in EMSAs (36,
53, 56). In fact, our data suggest that the presence of LEF-1
influences Alx4 DNA binding activity because weak complexes containing
Alx4 are seen in the presence of LEF-1 (see arrows in Fig.
5B, lane 1) but are absent when LEF-1 is not
present (Fig. 5A, lane 5). Homeodomain proteins
can interact with DNA as monomers and recruit other factors to these
sites (52, 58). Previous studies have demonstrated that some
paired-like homeodomain proteins can also mediate transcriptional
effects through P1/2 sites. For example, Phox1 binding to a P1/2 site is enhanced by interactions with serum response factor, which binds an
adjacent site (59). Likewise, Alx4 acts on half-sites that are
juxtaposed to target sites of other DNA binding partners (53).
It is clear, however, that additional developmental signals also
impinge on Alx4 because the effects seen for Alx4 mutant mice are
evident primarily on the dorsal side of the animals, the ventral having
a greater resemblance to wild-type animals (35). This dorsal effect is
not caused by differences in the apparent expression patterns of Alx4
in the dorsal-ventral axis. Rather, the defect appears to be due to the
influence of a dorsal signal whose integration requires the presence of
Alx4. Presumably, this signal is genetically upstream of LEF-1 because
no hair follicle development occurs in its absence.
The expression of N-CAM has been observed in a variety of sites of
mesenchymal morphogenesis, including feather and hair dermal condensations and precartilaginous condensations (48, 57, 60, 61). In
these cases, there are sites where both Alx4 and LEF-1 expression
intersect. N-CAM is expressed in the hair placode and mesenchyme during
hair follicle development (48) and is important for the formation of
dermal condensation during feather bud morphogenesis (60). When N-CAM
is blocked via antibodies, dermal condensations required for feather
condensations do not form. In mice deficient in LEF-1, these
condensations also fail to form, as do hair follicles. Consistent with
our observation that expression of exogenous LEF-1 causes
transactivation of the N-CAM promoter, a recent study demonstrated that
noggin-dependent induction of LEF-1 coincidentally
increased N-CAM expression (50). Ectopic noggin added to skin cultures
up-regulates LEF-1 expression and stimulates hair induction. Based on
promoter assays and EMSAs, our results further support the notion
that N-CAM is a direct target of LEF-1. The data presented here, in
conjunction with studies of the various mutant mouse models, suggest
that Alx4 binding to LEF-1 generates a complex that can regulate
promoter activity. Our results reveal a further complexity in
regulation by Alx4 and LEF-1 of target genes. Specifically, the
stoichiometry between these factors appears to determine whether
activation or repression of promoter activity occurs. Because the
levels of Alx4 appear to change in specific tissues over the course of time, the regulation of target genes by Alx4 and LEF-1 may in fact be
very dynamic. We expect to address this hypothesis employing Alx4-mutant heterozygous and homozygous animals.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated a direct and functional interaction
between the HMG-box transcription factor (LEF-1) and the paired-like
homeodomain protein (Alx4). These two factors bind simultaneously to
adjacent sites in the N-CAM promoter and modulate its transcriptional activity.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by a grant from the National Cancer
Institute of Canada with support from the Canadian Cancer Society (to
P. A. H.).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: Rm. 6318, Medical
Sciences Bldg., University of Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8, Canada. Tel.:
416-978-8741; Fax: 416-978-5959; E-mail: paul.hamel@utoronto.ca.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, November 5, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M109912200
2
K. Boras, unpublished data.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
LEF-1, lymphoid
enhancer factor-1;
CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase;
HMG, high
mobility group;
N-CAM, neural cell adhesion molecule;
GST, glutathione
S-transferase;
HA, hemagglutinin;
EMSA, electrophoretic
mobility shift assay.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Thesleff, I.,
Vaahtokari, A.,
and Partanen, A. M.
(1995)
Int. J. Dev. Biol.
39,
35-50
|
| 2.
|
Hardy, M. H.
(1992)
Trends Genet.
8,
55-61
|
| 3.
|
Thesleff, I.,
and Nieminen, P.
(1996)
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
8,
844-850
|
| 4.
|
Cunha, G. R.
(1994)
Cancer
74,
1030-1044
|
| 5.
|
Cadigan, K. M.,
and Nusse, R.
(1996)
Genes Dev.
11,
3286-3305
|
| 6.
|
Millar, S. E.,
Willert, K.,
Salinas, P. C.,
Roelink, H.,
Nusse, R.,
Sussman, D. J.,
and Barsh, G. S.
(1999)
Dev. Biol.
207,
133-149
|
| 7.
|
Iseki, S.,
Araga, A.,
Ohuchi, H.,
Nohno, T.,
Yoshioka, H.,
Hayashi, F.,
and Noji, S.
(1996)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
218,
688-693
|
| 8.
|
Chiang, C.,
Swan, R. Z.,
Grachtchouk, M.,
Bolinger, M.,
Litingtung, Y.,
Robertson, E. K.,
Cooper, M. K.,
Gaffield, W.,
Westphal, H.,
Beachy, P. A.,
and Dlugosz, A. A.
(1999)
Dev. Biol.
205,
1-9
|
| 9.
|
Chan, D. C.,
Laufer, E.,
Tabin, C.,
and Leder, P.
(1995)
Development
121,
1971-1978
|
| 10.
|
Rosenquist, T. A.,
and Martin, G. R.
(1996)
Dev. Dyn.
205,
379-386
|
| 11.
|
Hogan, B. L. M.
(1996)
Genes Dev.
10,
1580-1594
|
| 12.
|
Hogan, B. L. M.
(1996)
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
6,
432-438
|
| 13.
|
Milatovich, A.,
Travis, A.,
Grosschedl, R.,
and Francke, U.
(1991)
Genomics
11,
1040-1048
|
| 14.
|
Travis, A.,
Amsterdam, A.,
Belanger, C.,
and Grosschedl, R.
(1991)
Genes Dev.
5,
880-894
|
| 15.
|
van Genderen, C.,
Okamura, R. M.,
Farinas, I.,
Quo, R. G.,
Parslow, T. G.,
Bruhn, L.,
and Grosschedl, R.
(1994)
Genes Dev.
8,
2691-2703
|
| 16.
|
Zhou, P.,
Byrne, C.,
Jacobs, J.,
and Fuchs, E.
(1995)
Genes Dev.
9,
700-713
|
| 17.
|
Gat, U.,
DasGupta, R.,
Degenstein, L.,
and Fuchs, E.
(1998)
Cell
95,
605-614
|
| 18.
|
van de Wetering, M.,
Cavallo, R.,
Dooijes, D.,
van Beest, M.,
van Es, J.,
Loureiro, J.,
Ypma, A.,
Hursh, D.,
Jones, T.,
Bejsovec, A.,
Peifer, M.,
Mortin, M.,
and Clevers, H.
(1997)
Cell
88,
789-799
|
| 19.
|
Riese, J., Yu, X.,
Munnerlyn, A.,
Eresh, S.,
Hsu, S. C.,
Grosschedl, R.,
and Bienz, M.
(1997)
Cell
88,
777-787
|
| 20.
|
Huber, O.,
Korn, R.,
McLaughlin, J.,
Ohsugi, M.,
Herrmann, B. G.,
and Kemler, R.
(1996)
Mech Dev
59,
3-10
|
| 21.
|
Behrens, J.,
von Kries, J. P.,
Kuhl, M.,
Bruhn, L.,
Wedlich, D.,
Grosschedl, R.,
and Birchmeier, W.
(1996)
Nature
382,
638-642
|
| 22.
|
Cavallo, R.,
Rubenstein, D.,
and Peifer, M.
(1997)
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
7,
459-466
|
| 23.
|
Bruhn, L.,
Munnerlyn, A.,
and Grosschedl, R.
(1997)
Genes Dev.
11,
640-653
|
| 24.
|
Giese, K.,
Kingsley, C.,
Kirshner, J. R.,
and Grosschedl, R.
(1995)
Genes Dev.
9,
995-1008
|
| 25.
|
Giese, K.,
and Grosschedl, R.
(1993)
EMBO J.
12,
4667-4676
|
| 26.
|
Levanon, D.,
Goldstein, R. E.,
Bernstein, Y.,
Tang, H.,
Goldenberg, D.,
Stifani, S.,
Paroush, Z.,
and Groner, Y.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
11590-11595
|
| 27.
|
Cavallo, R. A.,
Cox, R. T.,
Moline, M. M.,
Roose, J.,
Polevoy, G. A.,
Clevers, H.,
Peifer, M.,
and Bejsovec, A.
(1998)
Nature
395,
604-608
|
| 28.
|
Roose, J.,
Molenaar, M.,
Peterson, J.,
Hurenkamp, J.,
Brantjes, H.,
Moerer, P.,
van de Wetering, M.,
Destree, O.,
and Clevers, H.
(1998)
Nature
395,
608-612
|
| 29.
|
Waltzer, L.,
and Bienz, M.
(1998)
Nature
395,
521-525
|
| 30.
|
Hsu, S. C.,
Galceran, J.,
and Grosschedl, R.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18,
4807-4818
|
| 31.
|
Molenaar, M.,
van de Wetering, M.,
Oosterwegel, M.,
Peterson-Maduro, J.,
Godsave, S.,
Korinek, V.,
Roose, J.,
Destree, O.,
and Clevers, H.
(1996)
Cell
86,
391-399
|
| 32.
|
Okamura, R. M.,
Sigvardsson, M.,
Galceran, J.,
Verbeek, S.,
Clevers, H.,
and Grosschedl, R.
(1998)
Immunity
8,
11-20
|
| 33.
|
Giese, K.,
Amsterdam, A.,
and Grosschedl, R.
(1991)
Genes Dev.
5,
2567-2578
|
| 34.
|
Giese, K.,
Cox, J.,
and Grosschedl, R.
(1992)
Cell
69,
185-195
|
| 35.
|
Qu, S.,
Niswender, K. D., Ji, Q.,
van der Meer, R.,
Keeney, D.,
Magnuson, M. A.,
and Wisdom, R.
(1997)
Development
124,
3999-4008
|
| 36.
|
Qu, S.,
Tucker, S. C.,
Ehrlich, J. S.,
Levorse, J. M.,
Flaherty, L. A.,
Wisdom, R.,
and Vogt, T. F.
(1998)
Development
125,
2711-2721
|
| 37.
|
Hudson, R.,
Taniguchi-Sidle, A.,
Boras, K.,
Wiggan, O.,
and Hamel, P. A.
(1998)
Dev. Dyn.
213,
159-169
|
| 38.
|
Forsthoefel, P. F.,
Fritts, M. L.,
and Hatzenbeler, L. J.
(1966)
J. Morphol.
118,
565-580
|
| 39.
|
Forsthoefel, P. F.
(1972)
Teratology
6,
5-17
|
| 40.
|
Labbe, E.,
Letamendia, A.,
and Attisano, L.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
8358-8363
|
| 41.
|
Wiggan, O.,
Taniguchi-Sidle, A.,
and Hamel, P. A.
(1998)
Oncogene
16,
227-236
|
| 42.
|
He, T. C.,
Zhou, S.,
da Costa, L. T., Yu, J.,
Kinzler, K. W.,
and Vogelstein, B.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
2509-2514
|
| 43.
|
Schreiber, E.,
Matthias, P.,
Müller, M. M.,
and Schaffner, W.
(1989)
Nucleic Acids Res.
17,
6419
|
| 44.
|
Fadel, M. P.,
Szewczenko-Pawlikowski, M.,
Leclerc, P.,
Dziak, E.,
Symonds, J. M.,
Blaschuk, O.,
Michalak, M.,
and Opas, M.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
27083-27089
|
| 45.
| Deleted in proof
|
| 46.
|
Sudol, M.
(1998)
Oncogene
17,
1469-1474
|
| 47.
|
Mathers, P. H.,
Grinberg, A.,
Mahon, K. A.,
and Jamrich, M.
(1997)
Nature
387,
603-607
|
| 48.
|
Muller-Rover, S.,
Peters, E. J.,
Botchkarev, V. A.,
Panteleyev, A.,
and Paus, R.
(1998)
J. Histochem. Cytochem.
46,
1401-1410
|
| 49.
|
Hardy, M. H.,
and Vielkind, U.
(1996)
Acta Anat.
157,
169-182
|
| 50.
|
Botchkarev, V. A.,
Botchkareva, N. V. N. V.,
Roth, W.,
Nakamura, M.,
Chen, L. H.,
Herzog, W.,
Lindner, G.,
McMahon, J. A.,
Peters, C.,
Lauster, R.,
McMahon, A. P.,
and Paus, R.
(1999)
Nat. Cell Biol.
1,
158-164
|
| 51.
|
Wilson, D.,
Sheng, G.,
Lecuit, T.,
Dostatni, N.,
and Desplan, C.
(1993)
Genes Dev.
7,
2120-2134
|
| 52.
|
Wilson, D. S.,
Guenther, B.,
Desplan, C.,
and Kuriyan, J.
(1995)
Cell
82,
709-719
|
| 53.
|
Tucker, S. C.,
and Wisdom, R.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
32325-32332
|
| 54.
|
Love, J. J., Li, X.,
Case, D. A.,
Giese, K.,
Grosschedl, R.,
and Wright, P. E.
(1995)
Nature
376,
791-795
|
| 55.
|
Wang, Y.,
Jones, F. S.,
Krushel, L. A.,
and Edelman, G. M.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
1892-1896
|
| 56.
|
Qu, S.,
Tucker, S. C.,
Zhao, Q.,
deCrombrugghe, B.,
and Wisdom, R.
(1999)
Development
126,
359-369
|
| 57.
|
Chuong, C. M.,
Widelitz, R. B.,
Ting-Berreth, S.,
and Jiang, T. X.
(1996)
J. Invest. Dermatol.
107,
639-646
|
| 58.
|
Wilson, D. S.,
and Desplan, C.
(1995)
Curr. Biol.
5,
32-34
|
| 59.
|
Grueneberg, D. A.,
Natesan, S.,
Alexandre, C.,
and Gilman, M. Z.
(1992)
Science
257,
1089-1095
|
| 60.
|
Jiang, T.,
Jung, H.,
Widelitz, R. B.,
and Chuong, C.
(1999)
Development
126,
4997-5009
|
| 61.
|
Combates, N. J.,
Chuong, C. M.,
Stenn, K. S.,
and Prouty, S. M.
(1997)
J. Invest. Dermatol.
109,
672-678
|
Copyright © 2002 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:

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. W. Fondon III and H. R. Garner
Molecular origins of rapid and continuous morphological evolution
PNAS,
December 28, 2004;
101(52):
18058 - 18063.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. Perez-Villamil, M. Mirasierra, and M. Vallejo
The Homeoprotein Alx3 Contains Discrete Functional Domains and Exhibits Cell-specific and Selective Monomeric Binding and Transactivation
J. Biol. Chem.,
September 3, 2004;
279(36):
38062 - 38071.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Beland, N. Pilon, M. Houle, K. Oh, J.-R. Sylvestre, P. Prinos, and D. Lohnes
Cdx1 Autoregulation Is Governed by a Novel Cdx1-LEF1 Transcription Complex
Mol. Cell. Biol.,
June 1, 2004;
24(11):
5028 - 5038.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|