Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M201193200 on March 26, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 22, 19594-19599, May 31, 2002
A Novel Intragenic Sequence Enhances
Initiator-dependent Transcription in Human Embryonic Kidney
293 Cells*
Chiara
Abrescia
,
Eliana
De Gregorio
,
Mattia
Frontini§,
Roberto
Mantovani§, and
Pierpaolo
Di Nocera
¶
From the
Dipartimento di Biologia e Patologia
Cellulare e Molecolare, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico
II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Napoli, and the
§ Dipartimento di Biologia Animale, Università di
Modena e Reggio, Via Campi 213/d, 41100 Modena, Italy
Received for publication, February 5, 2002, and in revised form, March 25, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
In a variety of Drosophila TATA-less
promoters, transcription is directed by initiator (Inr) sequences,
which are faithfully and efficiently recognized only when flanked 3' by
the downstream promoter element (DPE). This motif, which is conserved
at ~30 bp from the RNA start site, is viewed as a downstream
counterpart to the TATA box, and is recognized by the general
transcription factor (TF) IID. By transient expression assays in human
embryonic kidney 293 cells, we show that DE1 (distal element 1), a DNA
motif located at residues +23 to +29, sustains faithful
Inr-dependent transcription as efficiently as the DPE.
Transcription significantly increased when DE1 and DPE sequences were
adjacently placed on the same template. Results emerging from in
vivo RNA analyses matched electrophoretic mobility shift assay
data. In agarose-electrophoretic mobility shift assays, retarded
DNA-protein complexes resulting from the interaction of human
holo-TFIID with either Inr+/DPE+ or
Inr+/DE1+ promoters were formed at comparable
levels, whereas binding of TFIID to both DE1 and DPE motifs was 2-fold
increased. The strict requirement for spacing between the Inr and DPE
was not observed for DE1, as locating the motif 4 bp away from the +1
site did not impair transcriptional enhancement. DE1 sequences
may be common to many promoters and be overlooked because of their poor
sequence homology.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
A key step in the formation of functional transcription initiation
complexes is the recognition of promoter sequences by components of the
general transcription machinery. The core promoter sequence context has
a significant influence on both the overall efficiency of gene
transcription and the ability of individual genes to respond to
transcription activators (1). In pol
II1-dependent transcriptional units, distinct
DNA elements have been found to be involved in core promoter function.
The TATA box, a sequence located 25-30 bp upstream of the RNA start
site, is the key positioning DNA element in many pol II genes (1, 2). The TATA box is recognized by the TATA-binding protein (TBP) subunit of
the TFIID complex, a general pol II transcription factor endowed with
the ability to recognize promoter DNA (2, 3). In some promoters, the
TATA box is immediately preceded by the TFIIB recognition element,
fitting the consensus 5'-(G/C)-(G/C)-(G/A)-C-G-C-C-3'. The
transcription factor TFIIB plays a central role in preinitiation complex assembly, providing a bridge between promoter-bound TFIID and
RNA polymerase II, and TFIIB recognition element increases the affinity
of TFIIB for the promoter (4). In many promoters, the TATA element is
missing, and is functionally replaced by the initiator (Inr), a stretch
of 5-7 residues spanning the RNA start site (5, 6). The Inr is also
recognized by TFIID, but physical interactions are mediated by some of
the TBP-associated factors, or TAFIIs (7, 8). TATA and Inr
are functionally exchangeable modules and may coexist in the same gene.
The core promoter structure found in a given gene may reflect a
preference of the regulators of that gene, and some activators
stimulate preferentially TATA-containing or Inr-containing core
promoters (9-11).
An additional core promoter module is the downstream promoter element,
or DPE. This sequence, conserved ~30 bp downstream from the RNA start
site in a variety of Drosophila TATA-less promoters, greatly
enhances the activity of upstream Inr modules (12-17). DPE interacts
with specific components of the Drosophila TFIID complex
(dTAFII40 and dTAFII60; see Ref. 15). Regions downstream of
transcriptional start sites recognized by TFIID, but exhibiting no
sequence similarity to DPE, have been identified in a variety of
promoters (18-22).
Little is known about the role that intragenic sequences have in
promoter recognition and activation in human cells. In this work, we
analyzed the transient expression profile of constructs in which Inr
sequences are flanked by different types of downstream promoter
sequences in human embryonic kidney (HEK 293) cells. Inr-dependent transcription is enhanced by a core DPE
sequence located at residues +30/+33. The same holds true for a DNA
element called DE1 located at residues +23/+29. DPE and DE1 modules
synergize in stimulating transcription in vivo and are
independently capable, as revealed by agarose-EMSA, to interact with
human holo-TFIID.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Construction of Plasmids--
Plasmids described in this work
carrying artifical promoters are all derivatives of p8GAL4, a modified
pEMBL8CAT vector in which a 54-bp module containing one binding site
for the transcriptional activator Gal4 had been inserted at the
BamHI site. Sequences homologous to the Inr regions of the
Drosophila Doc and I LINE promoters (16) have been inserted
between the BamHI and SalI sites of p8GAL4 to
obtain the plasmids G3 and G1, respectively. Constructs G1M, G1X, G1K,
G3M, G3X, and G3K, which carry downstream promoter modules, have been
obtained by inserting between the SalI and
HindIII sites of either G1 or G3 suitable pairs of
complementary oligonucleotides. Plasmids G4M and G5M are derivatives of
G3M in which the interval BamHI/SalI spanning the
Inr region had been modified. Similarly, the mutant constructs analyzed
in Fig. 4 are derivatives of G3M in which the downstream promoter
region had been replaced by oligonucleotide pairs having
SalI- and HindIII-compatible termini. To obtain
derivatives in which the distance between Inr and downstream sequences
increased 4 bp, plasmids of interest were digested with
SalI, and reaction products were treated with the Klenow
enzyme to fill in gaps prior to ligation and transformation. The
control plasmid RSVdel-CAT was obtained by cloning the
ApaL-MluI fragment spanning the RSV promoter
region in pRSVCAT into the HindIII site of pEMBL8CAT, and
subsequently removing the HindIII-NcoI fragment
including most of the CAT coding region. The GAL4-Sp1 plasmid encodes a
chimeric Sp1 GAL4 protein containing residues 50-161 of the human Sp1
protein. In all cloning procedures, incompatible termini were
blunt-ended by T4 polymerase before ligation. The sequences of the
promoter regions analyzed were confirmed by nucleotide sequence analysis.
Cell Culture and DNA Transfections--
HEK 293 cells were grown
in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal
bovine serum. Transfection experiments were performed with the standard
calcium-phosphate method. Approximately 6 × 105
cells, seeded at a density of 1.2 × 105 cells/ml
24 h prior to transfection, were co-transfected with 10 µg of
the plasmid of interest, 0.1 µg of GAL4-Sp1 plasmid, 0.2 µg of
RSVdel-CAT plasmid for control of transfection efficiency. Cells were
recovered 48 h after transfection, and the activity of constructs
was assayed at the RNA level.
RNA Analyses--
Total RNA was isolated by using the acid
guanidinium thiocyanate/phenol/chloroform single-step extraction method
(23). Primer extension assay experiments were performed essentially as
described (16). Reaction products were resolved on 8% (w/v)
polyacrylamide, 8 M urea gels. Co-electrophoresed
sequencing ladders were generated by the dideoxy chain termination
method utilizing double-stranded DNA templates. The CAT primer used
both to obtain sequencing ladders and to detect transcripts directed by
the different promoters constructs has been described previously (24).
Transcripts driven by the RSV promoter in the RSVdel-CAT plasmid were
detected by using the NCO primer
(5'-AGCGGCATCAGCACCTTGTCGCCTTGCGTA-3'), a synthetic 30-mer
complementary to a distal interval of the CAT gene sense strand.
Purification of Holo-TFIID and EMSA Analysis--
Holo-TFIID was
immunopurified from HeLa cells with an anti-TBP antibody as previously
detailed (25, 26). EMSAs of TFIID in agarose gels were performed as
described in Ref. 27. Three independent preparations of purified TFIID
were used in EMSAs. The GAL4-NF-YA fusion protein (28) was obtained by
an in vitro transcription-translation coupled reticulocyte
lysate system (Promega). One µl of GAL4-NF-YA-containing extracts and
10,000 cpm of 32P-labeled fragments were mixed in 10 µl
of NF-Y buffer (20 mM Hepes, pH 7.9, 50 mM
NaCl, 5% glycerol, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM dithiothreitol) and incubated for 20 min at 30 °C.
Samples were loaded onto 4.5% polyacrylamide gels
(acrylamide/bisacrylamide, 29:1) and electrophoresed in 0.5× TBE
buffer. Gels were run at 150 V for 60 min, transferred on no. 3MM
paper, and exposed. PCR fragments tested in EMSA analysis span residues
66 to +61 of all promoters but G3, in which the amplified region
spans residues
66 to +55. Amplification was obtained by using two
synthetic oligomers, the 32P-5'-end-labeled CAT II 30-mer
(5'-TCCTTAGCTCCTGAAAATCTCGCCAAGCTT-3'), complementary to the
pEMBL8CAT sense strand, and the GT1 54-mer (5'-TCTCGAGCTGCAGCGGAGACTGTCCTCCGAGATCTCTATCACTGATAGGGATCG-3'), homologous to the -66/
12 interval spanning the binding site for the
transcriptional activator Gal4 included in each promoter.
 |
RESULTS |
Activation of Inr-dependent Transcription in HEK 293 Cells--
In several Drosophila TATA-less promoters, the
DPE promoter element fits the consensus AG(A/T)CGTGY (12, 14).
Statistical and biochemical analyses indicate that the 4-bp core DPE
sequence G(A/T)CG is sufficient to stimulate Inr transcription (15,
17). In some Drosophila long interspersed nuclear element
(LINE) promoters, transcription is regulated by complex
intragenic regions including DPEs and additional DNA sequence elements
(16). To verify whether sequences flanking DPE in LINE promoters could
stimulate transcription in mammalian cells, transient expression assays
were carried out in HEK 293 cells. In the base plasmids G1 and G3,
promoter DNA is uniquely represented by Inr sequences (see Fig.
1). In the other plasmids, Inr sequences
are flanked by ~20-bp-long DNA segments containing, at the correct
distance, either DE1 or DPE, or both sequences (see Fig.
2). The DE1 sequence is found immediately upstream of a core DPE motif in the Drosophila I promoter
(16); DPE corresponds to the 4-bp core DPE sequence GACG found in a variety of Drosophila promoters (17). In all templates, a
GAL4 recognition sequence is centered ~30 bp upstream of the Inr
region. Because Sp1 effectively activates Inr+ promoters
(11), each construct was cotransfected with a plasmid encoding the
GAL4-Sp1 activator (28). The plasmid RSVdel-CAT was also cotransfected
along each construct to provide an internal control.

View larger version (77K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Analysis of G1 and G3 promoters. Total
RNA (30 µg) from HEK 293 cells transiently cotransfected with 0.2 µg of the internal reference template RSVdel-CAT plasmid, 0.1 µg of
GAL4-Sp1 plasmid, and 10 µg of either G1 (left
panel) or G3 (right panel) plasmid was
analyzed by primer extension. Distinct 32P-5'-end-labeled
oligomers were used to detect G1-G3 (CAT primer) and RSV (Nco primer)
transcripts. Sequencing ladders of the plasmids G1 (left
panel) and G3 (right panel) were
obtained by the dideoxy chain termination method using as primer the
CAT oligomer. Bands corresponding to major transcripts are marked by
arrows. The promoter regions of the G1 and G3 templates are
aligned at the bottom. Inrs (residues 1 to +6) are
highlighted. Numbers are relative to RNA start
sites (+1 sites) mapped in Drosophila Schneider II cells
(16). Vector sequences are in lowercase
letters.
|
|

View larger version (77K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Transcriptional reprogramming by DPE and DE1
sequences. Total RNA (30 µg) from HEK 293 cells transiently
cotransfected with 0.2 µg of RSVdel-CAT plasmid, 0.1 µg of GAL4-Sp1
plasmid, and 10 µg of the DNAs indicated at the top was
analyzed by primer extension as in Fig. 1. Co-electrophoresed
sequencing ladders of G1M (left panel) and G3M
(right panel) were obtained by using as primer
the CAT oligomer. The promoter regions of the templates assayed are
aligned at the bottom. Inr, DE1, and DPE sequences are
highlighted. Base changes altering residues found in G1M and
G3M are in lowercase letters.
|
|
Correctly initiated transcripts accounted for most of the signal
detected with the G1 construct. However, multiple bands marking the
accumulation of minor RNA species initiating within the +4 to +8
interval were also detected. By contrast, faithful +1 transcripts driven by the G3 template accumulated at nearly undetectable levels in
HEK 293 cells, the prominent signal obtained corresponding to RNAs
initiated at residues +6 and +9 (Fig. 1). This peculiar transcriptional
pattern plausibly reflects the activity of a secondary Inr module
spanning residues +6 to +13 (GGCATTCC; see Fig. 1). In
Drosophila Schneider II cells, alternative initiation from this secondary Inr is predominant over initiation from the Inr CTGATTC
spanning residues
2 to +6 in the absence of DPE (29). The profile of
expression of the G3 Inr dramatically changed upon addition of
downstream promoter sequences. The presence of either DE1 (G3K
construct), DPE (G3X construct), or both (G3M construct) allowed the
detection initiation from residue +1 (Fig. 2). Elongation products were
quantitated by PhosphorImager analyses, and the efficiency of faithful
transcription initiation evaluated as the ratio of transcripts
initiated at residues +1 and +6. Quantitative estimates revealed that
the DE1+DPE+ G3M construct directed faithful
transcription initiation ~5- and ~10-fold more efficiently than the
DE1
DPE+ G3X and the DE1+
DPE
G3K constructs, respectively.
Thus, DE1 and DPE motifs can reprogram, at comparable levels, the
pattern of transcription initiation of the G3 Inr. Moreover, the two
motifs synergize in enhancing functional recognition of the +1 site.
Similar results were obtained by the analysis of the G1 derivatives
G1M, G1K, and G1X (Fig. 2). Comparisons of the autoradiograms shown in
Figs. 1 and 2 reveal that initiation at minor sites detected with the
parental G1 template was largely inhibited in the three G1 derivatives,
each template directing predominantly, if not exclusively, the
synthesis of +1 transcripts. To evaluate relative template
efficiencies, transcripts directed by the G1 Inr were normalized to
transcripts directed by the reference RSVdel-CAT construct. The
DE1+DPE+G1M template directed faithful
transcription initiation ~2- and ~4-fold more efficiently than the
DPE+ G1X and the DE1+ G1K templates,
respectively. Differences in the degree of stimulation by the same
sequence elements in the G1 and G3 derivatives correlate to differences
in the strength of the G1 and G3 Inrs. The G1 Inr, which better fits
the optimal Inr consensus (6) and efficiently directs faithful
transcription initiation as single module (Fig. 1) is less sensitive to
enhancement by downstream promoter sequences. For this reason, we
measured the fidelity of initiation as the ratio of transcripts
originating from the same template, and subsequent analyses were all
carried out with the G3 Inr.
In G3M, both the Inr and the downstream sequences are required to
measure efficient transcriptional levels, as shown from the analysis of
G4M and G5M, two derivatives in which the Inr was variously
mutated (Fig. 3). In HEK 293 cells
transfected with either plasmid, transcripts initiated at residues +6
and +9 account for most of the detectable signal. Interestingly,
transcription initiation at or near residue +1 could still be measured,
albeit at very low levels (see bands marked by gray
arrows in Fig. 3). Heterogeneity in the start sites around
position +1 between G4M and G5M may correlate to alternative base
selection dictated by the different DNA contexts replacing genuine Inr
sequences. These data indicate that, albeit inefficiently, downstream
promoter elements contribute to correctly position the transcriptional apparatus even in the absence of a functional Inr.

View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Analysis of
Inr templates. The template
proficiency of G3M, G5M, and G4M in HEK 293 cells was analyzed by
primer extension as described in Figs. 1 and 2. Samples were
electrophoresed along with a G3M sequence ladder obtained as in Fig. 2.
Black arrows mark major reaction products, and
gray arrows minor transcripts driven by the G5M
promoter. The G3M, G4M, and G5M start regions are aligned at the
bottom. Base changes altering the Inr are in
lowercase letters.
|
|
Functional Dissection of the DE1-DPE Region--
To characterize
the functional interplay between DE1 and DPE, we next transfected HEK
293 cells with derivatives of G3M, in which base changes were
introduced within the +23/+33 interval to selectively alter either DNA
motif. The base changes and transcriptional proficiencies of the
constructs analyzed are reported in Fig. 4. The levels of correct transcription
initiation directed by each construct were evaluated by calculating, as
in Fig. 2, the +1 versus +6 transcript ratio. By looking at
templates carrying base changes in the DE1 sequence, mutating positions
+25 and +26 (plasmids 34B and 34C) lowered ~2-fold the levels of
transcription initiation at +1. By contrast, substituting either
residues +23 and +24 (construct 12A), or residues +27 (constructs 5A
and 5B), +28 (construct 67B), and +29 (constructs 67E and 67K) had no
major effect. However, when residues +28 and +29 were both changed, the
levels of transcription initiation at +1 dropped 2-3-fold (constructs
67A, 67I, 67H, and 67G), except for the 67D. Thus, crucial residues are
located both in the middle of DE1 and at the DE1/DPE boundary.
Constructs carrying a mutated DPE motif could be broadly sorted in two
main groups. The templates in which the first three DPE residues were
preserved (constructs 71A and 71C, Fig. 4), resulted only ~2-fold
less efficient than G3M, suggesting that DE1 can still efficiently
cooperate with a partial DPE core. When only two adjacent residues of
DPE were preserved, functional cooperation between DE1 and DPE was
significantly reduced (constructs 710, 70A, 70T, and 701; Fig. 4),, yet
three of these constructs, 710, 70A, and 70T, still directed initiation
at +1 ~2-fold more efficiently than the DPE
G3K
plasmid. Values are plausibly higher, as in all DPE mutants, the
adenine at +29 was replaced by a thymine. The modification, which
reduces only slightly the level of +1 transcripts (compare G3M and 67K
constructs in Fig. 4), was introduced to enhance the effect of
mutations hitting DPE without severely altering the DNA context.

View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Base changes within the downstream promoter
region of G3M and transcriptional proficiency. The downstream
promoter regions (residues +20/+35) of the constructs analyzed are
aligned to the parental G3M sequence. Dashes denote sequence
identities. DE1 and DPE motifs are highlighted.
Bars to the right denote the efficiency of each
template to drive faithful RNA initiation from the +1 site. Data
represent the average values obtained in three to five independent
transfections. Standard deviations are reported. Values were obtained
by calculating first for each template, by PhosphorImager analyses, the
+1/+6 transcript ratio, and subsequently by dividing such value by the
level of +1/+6 transcripts driven by G3M.
|
|
On the whole, our data indicate that correct positioning of the
transcriptional pol II machinery could be impaired at comparable levels
by mutations affecting either DE1, DPE, or bases between the two
motifs. Thus, DE1 and DPE appear to be part of a relatively large DNA
region capable of multiple interactions with basal transcriptional factors, and it is therefore not surprising that most of the templates analyzed drive correct transcription initiation efficiently.
DPE, but Not DE1, Functions in a Strict
Distance-dependent Fashion--
There is a strict
requirement for spacing between the Inr and DPE motifs, as an increase,
or decrease, of a few nucleotides in the distance between the Inr and
DPE causes a severe reduction in transcription. This suggests a
specific and somewhat rigid interaction of TFIID with the Inr and DPE
sequences (15-17). Interestingly, cooperation between Inr and DE1 is
not strictly space-dependent. A pairwise comparison of the
template activity of the four constructs G3M, G3X, G3K, and 710 with
derivatives in which the distance separating Inr and downstream
promoter sequences was increased by 4 bp, is reported in Fig.
5. In all constructs, the efficiency of
Inr-dependent transcription was quantitated by
comparing the levels of transcripts directed by the G3 Inr and the
cotransfected RSVdel-CAT construct. Relatively to the parental G3M and
G3X DPE+ templates, faithful transcription initiation was
reduced 12-and 4-fold in G3M+4 and G3X+4, respectively. By contrast,
G3K and G3K+4, as the templates pair 710 and 710+4, all carrying DE1, directed the synthesis of faithfully initiated transcripts with the
same efficiency (Fig. 5). An 8-bp increase in the distance between
Inr and the downstream region abolished detectable
initiation at +1 in all of the templates analyzed (data not shown).

View larger version (103K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Space changes in the promoter region
differently influence DPE and DE1 action. Primer extension
analysis of the transcripts directed in HEK 293 cells by the constructs
indicated on top of the gel, and the G3M sequencing ladder,
were obtained as described in the legends to the previous figures.
Black and gray arrows within
lanes mark +1 transcripts directed by parental and +4
derivative constructs, respectively. The G3M+4, 710+4, G3K+4, and G3X+4
promoter regions are shown at the bottom. Inr, DPE, and DE1
sequences are highlighted as in Fig. 2. The 4 bp inserted in
each construct are underlined. Base changes altering
residues found in G3M+4 are in lowercase
letters.
|
|
TFIID-Promoter Interactions--
To assess whether
DE1+ promoters interact with TFIID, the promoter regions of
G3, G3M, G5M, G3K, and G3X plasmids were challenged with immunopurified
holo-TFIID, and the formation of protein-promoter complexes assessed by
electrophoretic mobility shift assays in agarose. In TFIID
dose-response experiments, retarded complexes were detected with all
the promoter regions assayed (Fig. 6,
panel A). Each probe contains a GAL4 recognition sequence.
The same amount of radiolabeled PCR product was separately incubated
with a GAL4-NF-YA fusion protein (28), and retarded GAL4-NFYA/DNA complexes detected on 4.5% polyacrylamide gels (Fig. 6, panel B). Quantitative estimates were obtained by PhosphorImager
analyses, and relative binding efficiencies were calculated by
normalizing probe counts detected in retarded TFIID complexes to probe
counts detected in GAL4 retarded complexes (Fig 6, panel C).
By setting to 100% DNA/TFIID interactions detected with the
DE1+DPE+G3M probe, we found that interactions
of TFIID were 2-fold less efficient in the G3K template, in which the
Inr is flanked by DE1 (36%), and in the G3X template, in which the Inr
is flanked by DPE (51%). The efficiency of TFIID binding dropped
~5-fold in the absence of downstream promoter sequences (G3, 18% of
binding). In accord to the transfection data shown in Fig. 5, DE1 and
DPE are capable to interact with TFIID also in the absence of Inr sequences (G5M probe, 65% of binding).

View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Representative agarose-EMSA analyses of
TFIID-promoter complexes. A, the
32P-5'-end-labeled CAT II oligomer and the cold GT1
oligomer were used to amplify by PCR the -66/+61 region of the
analyzed templates. Approximately 10,000 cpm of each purified PCR
product was incubated with either 0.5 or 1.5 µl of an immunopurified
human holo-TFIID fraction (see "Materials and Methods"), and
samples were loaded onto a 1.2% agarose gel. Bands corresponding to
TFIID-DNA retarded complexes are marked by an arrow.
B, the same amount of radiolabeled PCR product was incubated
with a GAL4-NF-YA fusion protein. Samples were loaded onto a 4.5%
polyacrylamide gel, and GAL4-DNA retarded complexes are shown.
C, relative TFIID binding efficiencies. Values result from
the ratio of TFIID-DNA/GAL4-DNA complexes formed by each template at
high TFIID input divided by the TFIID-DNA/GAL4-DNA complex ratio
obtained with the G3M probe. Data represent the average values obtained
in three to four independent experiments. Standard deviations are
reported.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Downstream promoter elements, often found in
Inr-dependent promoters, function in part by increasing
TFIID-promoter complex formation and/or stability through direct
interactions with TAFIIs. A widely recognized downstream
promoter element is DPE, a conserved motif found between residues +28
and +34 in many Drosophila transcriptional units. In the
fruit fly, this DNA sequence is approximately as common as the TATA box
(17). By contrast, inspection of the eukaryotic promoter data base (30)
reveals that DPE-like sequences are rarely found, either at the
described position or at alternative intragenic windows downstream of
the site of RNA initiation, in mammalian promoters. Not surprisingly,
DPE modules have been so far identified by functional analyses only in
the human TATA-less promoters of the IRF-1 (15) and CD30 receptor (31) genes.
We thought it of interest to examine whether intragenic DNA sequences
alternative to DPE, both in terms of sequence content and location
relative to the RNA start site, could influence
Inr-dependent transcription in a human cellular milieu. DE1
modules flank DPE in some Drosophila LINE promoters (16). In
this work we showed that, in HEK 293 cells, the DE1 sequence GAGATAA
spanning residues +23 to +29 stimulated transcription initiation from
upstream Inr sequences nearly as efficiently as a core GACG DPE motif
located at residues +30 to +33 (Figs. 2 and 4). Transcriptional
enhancement significantly increased when the two motifs were adjacently
located on the same template (Figs. 2 and 4). The stimulation,
relatively mild on the strong G1 Inr, was magnified when the
derivatives of the G3 plasmid were analyzed. In the absence of
downstream activating modules, Inr sequences located at the same
position of the G1 Inr sequences were not functional in G3 DNA, and
transcription initiated preferentially from a secondary Inr (+6 and +9
transcripts, Fig. 1). By contrast, the primary G3 Inr was selectively
stimulated by DPE as by DE1 (Fig. 2). Functional interactions between
DPE and Inrs located at a specific distance are widely documented (12-16). The finding that DE1 mimics DPE in the activation of the same
Inr is novel, and adds knowledge on the range of core promoter elements
interacting with the pol II transcriptional machinery.
Results emerging from in vivo RNA analyses matched EMSA
data, showing that DE1, as well as DPE, increased the stability of the
TFIID-DNA complexes (Fig. 6). Qualitatively, the TFIID complexes were
not grossly different among the templates used, suggesting that
identical, or similar, TBP-containing complexes are involved. Quantitation of agarose-EMSAs revealed that retarded DNA-protein complexes resulting from the interaction with either
Inr+/DPE+ or Inr+/DE1+
promoters were formed at comparable levels. TFIID-DNA complexes formed
by promoter probes including both DE1 and DPE motifs were 2-fold more
abundant (Fig. 6). These results are largely in agreement with the
footprinting data previously reported on DPE-containing promoters (14,
15). On the whole, both transfection and biochemical data support the
notion that DE1 is an intragenic signal analogous to DPE. Derivatives
of the DE1+/DPE+ G3M promoter carrying
alterations of DE1 directed faithfully initiated transcripts at least
2-fold more efficiently than the DE1
/DPE+ G3X
promoter. Similar results were obtained by analyzing derivatives of the
G3M promoter carrying mutated DPE motifs (Fig. 4). The observation that
sequence contexts in which either DE1, DPE, or residues at the boundary
of the two motifs are changed could sustain transcription with
comparable efficiencies, supports the notion that multiple residues
within the +23 to +33 region interact with TFIID. A key feature of
DPE-driven core promoters is a precise spacing between the Inr and DPE.
Noteworthy, functional Inr/DE1 interactions are not as strictly
space-dependent as Inr/DPE interactions (Fig. 5). This
observation leads us to hypothesize that DE1 and DPE, which cannot be
exposed on the same side of the DNA double helix, may interact with
different surfaces of TFIID, and possibly contact different
TAFIIs. DPE is bound by
TAFII60-TAFII40 heterotetramers (15). DE1 may
stimulate transcription by contacting either TAFII250 orTAFII150, the two TFIID components involved in
recognition of the Inr and sequences further downstream (8, 20),
although at present a role in promoter recognition for some of the
other TAFIIs cannot be excluded.
TFIID binds to core promoters through interactions that are apparently
multiple, in that the TATA, Inr, and DPE elements have all been clearly
shown to be associated with distinct subunits of the complex (TBP,
TAFII150-TAFII250, and
TAFII60-TAFII40, respectively). This
combination of elements serves to maximize TFIID stability on the
promoter, thereby contributing to promoter strength (see Ref. 22). It
is not, therefore, surprising that both DE1 and DPE may cooperate with
Inr to sustain transcription, although the precise rules allowing one
element to work in some promoters in the apparent absence of additional
contacts are poorly understood. One possibility is that additional
factors potentially binding to TFIID, such as TFIIA and NC2, will help
in fine-tuning the interactions with core promoter elements, both in a
positive and negative way. Intragenic core promoter elements distinct
from DPEs have been described in a few promoters. In the human
TATA+ megalin/low density lipoprotein receptor-related
protein 2 gene, promoter sequences located between positions +5 and +11
(5'-TTTTGGC-3') interact with TFIID. Downstream contacts do not
significantly affect the overall affinity of TFIID binding, but induce
dramatic qualitative changes in TFIID interactions in the lipoprotein
receptor-related protein 2 TATA box region (21). The human
TATA+Inr+
-globin promoter contains a large
downstream region interacting with TFIID called DCE. Functional DCE
subelements map at positions +13/+15, +22/+24, and +31/+33 (see Ref.
22). In the Drosophila hsp70 promoter, four regions interact
with TFIID: the TATA element, the initiator, and two regions located
~18 and 28 nucleotides downstream of the transcription start site
(19). In transgenic flies, Inr and downstream sequences serve
overlapping functions, making rather modest contributions to the level
of expression of the hsp70 promoter (32). The contributions of
individual core sequences could have significant physiological impact
in other promoters, and mutations in the
-globin gene DCE
subelements II and III are the basis for two kinds of human thalassemia
(22). The finding that sequences capable to interact with TFIID found at the same gene coordinates may differently contribute to promoter strength in vivo illustrates the difficulties in predicting
the functional architecture of core promoters.
Plausibly, DE1-like sequences are not restricted to LINE promoters.
This is supported both by statistical and biochemical analyses,
indicating that a G nucleotide located 4 bp upstream of the DPE core
contributes to transcription from DPE-containing promoters (17).
Interestingly, in the G3M promoter, the central G of DE1 is at 4 bp
distance from DPE (residue +25, Fig. 2), and is important for DE1
activity (Fig. 4). Notably, a DE1-like motif (5'-GAGGCAA-3')
immediately flanks DPE in the human IRF-1 gene and may account for the
residual activity of the IRF-1 promoter upon removal of DPE (15).
Finally, a purine-rich sequence partly resembling DE1 (5'-GAGACG-3') is
located at residues +23 to +28 in the middle of the downstream region
of the human gfa (glial fibrillary acid) promoter, also
interacting with TFIID (18). Presumably, DE1 sequences are common to
many promoters, but are overlooked because of their poor homology. The
consensus resulting from the alignments of three DE1+
Drosophila LINE promoters is relatively loose
(5'-GRG(A/T)(G/T)AA-3'; see Ref. 16), and different sequences may have
DE1 activity, as emerging from the analysis of mutagenized templates in
Fig. 4. Sequence flexibility has been similarly observed for DPEs, because the range of sequences that can function as a DPE extend well
beyond the GA/TCG motif (17). The analysis of randomized promoter
libraries may help to determine the range of functional DE1 sequences
and derive position weight matrices used to predict the occurrence of
analogous modules in natural promoters as done for TATA and Inr
elements (2, 6).
Future analyses may reveal whether DE1 sequences are predominantly
found in isolation, or associated to DPE motifs. Transcriptional enhancers that are specific for promoters that contain either DPE or
TATA box elements have been elegantly identified by P-mediated transformation analyses in Drosophila (33), and it has been shown that the transcriptional repressor NC2 activates DPE-driven promoters and represses TATA-driven promoters in vitro (34). In light of these findings, it would be of interest to ascertain whether DE1+DPE+ and DPE+ promoters
may functionally differ in some of these properties in
vivo.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT |
We thank Valerio Orlando for suggestions and
critical reading of the manuscript.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by grants from Ministero
dell'Università e Ricerca Scientifica, Project "Dinamica della
Cromatina nella Espressione Genica" (to P. P. D. N. and R. M.), and Associazione Italiana della Ricerca sul Cancro (to
R. M.).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.:
39-81-7462059; Fax: 39-81-7703285; E-mail: dinocera@cds.unina.it.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 26, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M201193200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
pol II, RNA
polymerase II;
CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase;
DCE, downstream
core element;
DE1, distal element 1;
DPE, downstream promoter element;
EMSA, electrophoretic mobility shift assay;
HEK, human embryonic
kidney;
hsp70, heat shock protein 70;
Inr, initiator;
IRF-1, interferon
regulatory factor 1;
LINE, long interspersed nuclear element;
RSV, Rous
sarcoma virus;
TAFII, TATA-binding protein-associated
factor;
TBP, TATA-binding protein;
TF, transcription factor.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Roeder, R. G.
(1996)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
21,
327-335[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Bucher, P.
(1990)
J. Mol. Biol.
212,
563-578[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Zawel, L.,
and Reinberg, D.
(1995)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
64,
533-561[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 4.
|
Lagrange, T.,
Kapanidis, A. N.,
Tang, H.,
Reinberg, D.,
and Ebright, R. H.
(1998)
Genes Dev.
12,
34-44[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
Smale, S. T.
(1997)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1351,
73-88[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Kraus, R. J.,
Murray, E. E.,
Wiley, S. R.,
Zink, N. M.,
Loritz, K.,
Gelembiuk, G. W.,
and Mertz, J. E.
(1996)
Nucleic Acids Res.
24,
1531-1539[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Kaufmann, J.,
and Smale, S. T.
(1994)
Genes Dev.
8,
821-829[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Chalkley, G. E.,
and Verrijzer, C. P.
(1999)
EMBO J.
18,
4835-4845[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Kollmar, R.,
Sukow, K. A.,
Sponagle, S. K.,
and Farnham, P. J.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
2252-2257
|
| 10.
|
Colgan, J.,
and Manley, J. L.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
1955-1959[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 11.
|
Emami, K. H.,
Navarre, W. W.,
and Smale, S. T.
(1995)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15,
5906-5916[Abstract]
|
| 12.
|
Minchiotti, G.,
and Di Nocera, P. P.
(1991)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
11,
5171[Abstract/Free Full Text] 5180
|
| 13.
|
Contursi, C.,
Minchiotti, G.,
and Di Nocera, P. P.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
26570-26576[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
Burke, T. W.,
and Kadonaga, J. T.
(1996)
Genes Dev.
10,
711-724[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Burke, T. W.,
and Kadonaga, J. T.
(1997)
Genes Dev.
11,
3020-3031[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Minchiotti, G.,
Contursi, C.,
and Di Nocera, P. P.
(1997)
J. Mol. Biol.
267,
37-46[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 17.
|
Kutach, A. K.,
and Kadonaga, J. T.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
4754-4764[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
Nakatani, Y.,
Horikoshi, M.,
Brenner, M.,
Yamamoto, T.,
Besnard, F.,
Roeder, R. G.,
and Freese, E.
(1990)
Nature
348,
86-88[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 19.
|
Purnell, B. A.,
Emanuel, P. A.,
and Gilmour, D. S.
(1994)
Genes Dev.
8,
830-842[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Verrijzer, C. P.,
Yokomori, K.,
Chen, J. L.,
and Tjian, R.
(1994)
Science
264,
933-941[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 21.
|
Knutson, A.,
Castaño, E.,
Oelgeschläger, T.,
Roeder, R. G.,
and Westin, G.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
14190-14197[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 22.
|
Lewis, B. A.,
Kim, T. K.,
and Orkin, S. H.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
7172-7177[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Chomczynski, P.,
and Sacchi, N.
(1987)
Anal. Biochem.
162,
156-159[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Grimaldi, G.,
and Di Nocera, P. P.
(1988)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
85,
5502-5506[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 25.
|
Jacq, X.,
Brou, C.,
Lutz, Y.,
Davidson, I.,
Chambon, P.,
and Tora, L.
(1994)
Cell
79,
107-117[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Wieczorek, E.,
Brand, M.,
Jacq, X.,
and Tora, L.
(1998)
Nature
393,
187-191[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Frontini, M.,
Imbriano, C.,
di Silvio, A.,
Bell, B.,
Bogni, A.,
Romier, C.,
Moras, D.,
Tora, L.,
Davidson, I.,
and Mantovani, R.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
5841-5848[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 28.
|
Liberati, C.,
di Silvio, A.,
Ottolenghi, S.,
and Mantovani, R.
(1999)
J. Mol. Biol.
285,
1441-1455[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Minchiotti, G.,
and Di Nocera, P. P.
(1997)
FEBS Lett.
411,
189-194[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Perier, R. C.,
Junier, T.,
Bonnard, C.,
and Bucher, P.
(1999)
Nucleic Acids Res.
27,
307-309[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 31.
|
Croager, E. J.,
Gout, A. M.,
and Abraham, L. J.
(2000)
Am. J. Pathol.
156,
1723-1731[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 32.
|
Wu, C. H.,
Madabusi, L.,
Nishioka, H.,
Emanuel, P.,
Sypes, M.,
Arkhipova, I.,
and Gilmour, D. S.
(2001)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
21,
1593-1602[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 33.
|
Butler, J. E.,
and Kadonaga, J. T.
(2001)
Genes Dev.
15,
2515-2519[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 34.
|
Willy, P. J.,
Kobayashi, R.,
and Kadonaga, J. T.
(2000)
Science
290,
982-985[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
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:

|
 |

|
 |
 
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]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.