The LIM-only Protein DRAL/FHL2 Interacts with and Is a
Corepressor for the Promyelocytic Leukemia Zinc Finger Protein*
Patricia
McLoughlin,
Elisabeth
Ehler
,
Graeme
Carlile§,
Jonathan
D.
Licht§, and
Beat W.
Schäfer¶
From the Division of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry,
Department of Pediatrics, University of Zürich,
CH-8032 Zürich, the
Institute of Cell Biology,
ETH Hönggerberg, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland, and the
§ Department of Medicine, The Derald H. Ruttenberg Cancer
Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine,
New York, New York 10029
Received for publication, April 8, 2002, and in revised form, June 20, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
Members of the four-and-a-half-LIM domain (FHL)
protein family, which are expressed in a tissue- and stage-specific
manner, have been reported previously to function as transcriptional
coactivators. One of these is the p53-inducible protein DRAL/FHL2
(where DRAL is down-regulated in rhabdomyosarcoma LIM domain protein).
In this work, we identified potential binding partners for DRAL/FHL2 using an inducible yeast two-hybrid system. We present evidence of a
functional interaction between the promyelocytic leukemia zinc finger
protein (PLZF) and DRAL/FHL2. PLZF is a sequence-specific transcriptional repressor whose function relies on recruitment of
corepressors that form part of the histone deacetylase complex involved
in chromatin remodeling. DRAL/FHL2 interacts specifically with PLZF
in vitro and in vivo and augments
transcriptional repression mediated by PLZF. This is the first reported
incidence of a bona fide FHL protein-mediated corepression
and supports the notion of these proteins having a role as coregulators
of tissue-specific gene expression.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Many cancers occur in association with chromosomal translocations
that frequently involve genes coding for transcription factors. This
structural interference results in a downstream disruption of crucial
regulatory pathways such as may be involved in the control of growth,
differentiation, and survival of normal cells. Regulation of such
transcription factors often occurs via chromatin remodeling in that
these proteins can themselves interact with components of the
transcription complex such as the corepressors (NCoR/SMRT)1 or with histone
deacetylases (HDACs). In a variant form of acute promyelocytic
leukemia, the promyelocytic leukemia zinc finger protein (PLZF) is
fused to the retinoic acid receptor-
as a result of a chromosomal
translocation, t(11,17)(q23;q21); this form is refractory to retinoic
acid treatment as a result of the association of PLZF with HDAC and the
corepressors NCoR/SMRT (1, 2). PLZF is a sequence-specific DNA-binding
transcriptional repressor, bearing nine Krüppel-like
C2H2 zinc fingers at the C terminus. The N
terminus contains a POZ domain, which allows self-association as well
as heterodimerization with other proteins. A second repression domain,
RD2, is located downstream of the POZ domain (3, 4). PLZF is
differentially regulated during embryogenesis and in adult tissues (5),
where it is thought to function as a growth suppressor, through
transcriptional repression of target genes.
LIM domains represent a type of protein interaction domain and are
cysteine- and histidine-rich motifs of ~50 amino acids that form two
specialized zinc fingers. To date there is no evidence that LIM domains
can interact with nucleic acids despite their characteristic structure,
but rather it is patently clear that they mediate protein-protein
interactions (6-8). LIM domain proteins can homodimerize or
heterodimerize (9, 10) as well as command an ability to interact with
other protein motifs such as PDZ domains (11), ankyrin repeats (12),
and helix-loop-helix domains (13, 14). LIM-containing proteins have
variously been localized to the nucleus and cytoplasm, with many being
found in association with the cytoskeleton (12, 15, 16). Several
subclasses of LIM domain proteins are recognized and designated
according to the presence or absence of additional motifs such as
homeodomains or kinase domains (6, 7). One of these subgroups is the LIM-only family, which possess only LIM domains. A number of LIM-only proteins are clearly implicated in transcriptional regulation: LMO2,
which interacts with GATA-1 and Tal1 and plays a definitive role in
angiogenesis (17, 18); and MLP, which interacts with the myogenic
transcription factor MyoD and is required for the correct development
of cardiac cytoarchitecture (14, 19, 20).
Within this subgroup is a cohesive family of LIM-only proteins, which
are highly homologous, are characterized by a specific arrangement of
domains, bearing four complete and one N-terminal half LIM domain (FHL
family), and are expressed tissue-specifically and in distinct cellular
compartments. Recently, members of the FHL family were also shown to
behave as transcriptional coactivators. ACT functions as a coactivator
of CREM (21, 22), and DRAL/FHL2 has been reported to enhance the
transcriptional activity of the androgen receptor (23). Additionally,
an isoform of FHL1 known as KyoT2 interacts with RBP-J, a DNA-binding
transcription factor, thus negatively regulating transcription (24).
Accordingly, it is tenable that this family of FHL proteins may perform
a function in transcriptional modulation.
DRAL/FHL2, the first FHL protein described, was isolated in our
laboratory by virtue of its being down-regulated in rhabdomyosarcoma cells as compared with their non-malignant equivalent, normal human
myoblasts (25). We have since shown that DRAL/FHL2 expression is
regulated by p53 since mRNA levels are augmented by transient expression of functional p53 in rhabdomyosarcoma cells, as well as by
endogenous p53 stimulated by ionizing radiation treatment. Moreover,
overexpression of DRAL/FHL2 in both normal and tumor-derived cell lines
efficiently induces an apoptotic program (26). Therefore, it is
conceivable that DRAL/FHL2 has a role in tumor development.
In this work we present the results of a yeast two-hybrid screen with
DRAL/FHL2, performed to further delineate the molecular purpose of this
protein. It is noteworthy that DRAL/FHL2 was isolated in several
two-hybrid screens and is an interaction partner for the androgen
receptor (23), presenilin-2 (27), CDC47 (28), several
- and
-integrin cytoplasmic tails (29), hNP220 (30), and IGFBP5 (31). Here
we demonstrate a physical and functional interaction between DRAL/FHL2
and the promyelocytic leukemia zinc finger protein (PLZF). DRAL/FHL2
acts as a corepressor for PLZF-mediated transcriptional repression,
supporting the notion that DRAL/FHL2 is a tissue-specific
transcriptional modulator.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
DNA Constructs--
The full-length cDNA for human DRAL/FHL2
was cloned in-frame into the inducible yeast expression vector pGILDA
(LexA Matchmaker Two-hybrid System, CLONTECH), as a
fusion to the LexA DNA-binding domain (DNA-BD) by PCR using primers
with a 5' BamHI site and a 3' NotI site. The
following DRAL/FHL2 deletion constructs were generated by PCR also with
a 5' BamHI site and 3' NotI site, as well as
containing a Kozak consensus start and a C-terminal FLAG tag, and
cloned into pcDNA3.1 (Invitrogen): LIM(1-4) eliminating the
N-terminal half LIM domain; LIM(0.5-2) the two and a half N-terminal
LIM domains; LIM(3-4) the two C-terminal LIM domains; LIM1, LIM2,
LIM3, and LIM4, each complete single LIM domain numbered from the N to
C terminus. A similar construct was designed using the full-length
DRAL/FHL2 cDNA. The primers used to manufacture these constructs
were designed such that they were compatible with the mammalian
two-hybrid system expression vector pBIND (Checkmate, Promega Corp.,
Madison, WI) and so could be used to generate in-frame fusions of DRAL
and deletion constructs thereof, with the GAL4 DNA-BD of pBIND. The
full-length PLZF cDNA was amplified from pSG5-PLZF (32) using
BamHI 5'- and NotI 3'-modified PCR primers and
cloned into the mammalian two-hybrid system VP16-activation domain (AD)
expression plasmid pACT (Promega Checkmate). pcDNA3.1 myc/his-PLZF
and deletion constructs of PLZF, delPOZ (encoding amino acids
121-673), delRD2 (lacking amino acids 199-313), and delPOZ/delRD2
(encoding amino acids 122-199 and 314-673) were described previously
(4). pGEX-3X-DRAL was described previously (25) as were the IL3R-tk-luc
and tk-luc reporters (33). IMAGE clones corresponding to human
FHL1, FHL3, ACT, CRP2, and PINCH were obtained from the UK HGMP
Resource Centre and transferred into pcDNA3. The integrity of all
constructs was confirmed before use. Specific details of cloning and
PCR primers are available upon request.
Cell Lines--
All cell lines were cultured in Dulbecco's
modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 100 units/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, and 10% FCS (all from Invitrogen), and
maintained at 37 °C, 5% CO2. 293T, NIH3T3, and HT1080
cells were obtained from ATCC. Transfections were performed using
LipofectAMINE (Invitrogen).
Yeast Two-hybrid Assay--
A human adult cardiac cDNA
library in the LexA system-inducible B42-activation domain (pB42-AD)
yeast expression vector was acquired from CLONTECH
and amplified according to the manufacturer's directives. The library
was transformed into yeast strain EGY48 to screen for interaction
partners with pGILDA-DRAL, as per the manufacturer's protocols. Yeast
plasmids were prepared from colonies sustaining growth on
leucine-deficient medium and that were positive for
-galactosidase
activity. By using primers designed to target the pB42-AD plasmid
inserts, relevant inserts were amplified and partially sequenced.
Approximately 200 putative positive clones were selected and sequenced.
Escherichia coli KC8 was then transformed with chosen yeast
plasmids, and the library plasmid was nutritionally selected. Isolation
of the correct plasmid clone was confirmed by re-sequencing. To confirm
specific two-hybrid interactions, small scale transformations were
performed and assayed as per instructions. Liquid
-galactosidase
assays were performed using O-nitrophenyl
-D-galactopyranoside (Sigma) as substrate, as
described by the manufacturer.
GST Pulldown--
Expression of full-length DRAL/FHL2 as a GST
fusion protein from pGEX-3X (Amersham Biosciences) was performed as
described previously (25). 35S-Labeled proteins were
produced using Promega's TNT coupled in vitro
transcription-translation (IVT) system, using the following constructs
all in pcDNA3.1-myc/his: full-length PLZF, delPOZ, delRD2, and
delPOZ/delRD2. 5 µl of the IVT reactions were incubated with 1 µg
of GST-DRAL bound to glutathione-Sepharose in NET-80 buffer (80 mM NaCl, 20 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA) and
mixed for 3 h at 4 °C. Beads were then washed extensively in
NET-80, resuspended in 30 µl of SDS-PAGE gel loading buffer, and
resolved on a 10% polyacrylamide gel followed by autoradiography.
Immunoprecipitations--
293T cells were transfected with 2 µg each of the following expression plasmids: pcDNA3-DRAL
together with pSG5-PLZF, or pcDNA3.1-
POZ, pcDNA3.1-
RD2,
or pcDNA3.1-
POZ/
RD2. After 48 h, cells were washed
twice, harvested in lysis buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 100 mM NaCl, 1% Triton X-100, 5 mM
-mercaptoethanol, 10 µg/ml leupeptin, 10 µg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride), and incubated on ice for
30 min. Antibodies (rabbit anti-DRAL/FHL2 (25), anti-PLZF (Calbiochem))
were covalently coupled to protein A-Sepharose beads at a ratio of 1 mg/ml. Following 30 min of incubation, beads were washed 3 times with
50 mM Tris, pH 7.5. They were then added to 0.3 ml of cell
lysates, and incubation was continued overnight at 4 °C. Beads were
washed extensively (Wash 1: 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 0.2%
Triton X-100, 500 mM NaCl; Wash 2: 50 mM Tris,
pH 8.0, 0.1% Triton X-100, 150 mM NaCl, 0.1% SDS; Wash 3:
50 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 0.1% Triton X-100) prior to eluting
the coupled proteins by boiling in 30 µl of SDS gel loading buffer,
which were then resolved on either a 10 or 12.5% SDS-polyacrylamide
gel. Resolved proteins were transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride
membranes (PALL Fluorotrans Transfer Membranes). Immunoblotting was
carried out using the Tropix Western Light kit (Applied Biosystems) and anti-PLZF at 1 µg/ml or anti-DRAL/FHL2 at 1:1000, followed by 1:7500
anti-mouse or 1:10,000 anti-rabbit alkaline phosphatase-conjugated secondary antibodies (both Sigma), as appropriate.
A U937 monocytic cell line expressing PLZF under the control of the
tetracycline repressor (34) was grown in the presence or absence of
tetracycline. These cells were harvested with phosphate-buffered saline
at 4 °C and exposed to lysis buffer (150 mM NaCl, 20 mM Tris-Cl, pH 7.4, Tween 20, plus protease inhibitors) on
ice for 15 min. This suspension was centrifuged at 6000 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was pre-cleared by exposure to beads bound
to a nonspecific rabbit IgG (Zymed Laboratories Inc.,
San Francisco) and mixed for approximately 1 h at 4 °C. The
beads were then pelleted and exposed to PLZF antibodies
(IgG2a isotype) (35) covalently bound to protein
A-Sepharose and mixed on a rotator overnight. The pellets were washed
in fresh cold lysis buffer six times, the last three times using
Nonidet P-40 instead of Tween 20 in the lysis buffer. The beads were
then placed in Laemmli buffer and the precipitated proteins released by
boiling. This was followed by electrophoresis through a 12%
SDS-polyacrylamide gel and transfer to an Immobilon-P membrane
(Millipore, Bedford, MA). The blot was incubated with a 1:1000 dilution
of rabbit anti-DRAL/FHL2 antibody followed by a 1:3000 dilution of
horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-rabbit secondary antibody (Roche
Molecular Biochemicals). Autoradiography was performed using the ECL
chemiluminescence kit (Amersham Biosciences).
Northern Analysis--
Northern blotting and hybridization were
carried out as described previously (26) on total RNA isolated from
normal human tissues from autopsy material. cDNAs of DRAL/FHL2,
PLZF, and
-actin were used as probes.
Immunohistochemistry--
Adult rat cardiomyocytes were isolated
and immunostained as described previously (36). Endogenous proteins
were localized with the monoclonal antibody to PLZF (Calbiochem) at
1:10 dilution and the polyclonal antibody to DRAL/FHL2 (25) at 1:100.
NIH3T3 cells were fixed and permeabilized as described (26), prior to
staining with anti-DRAL/FHL2 at 1:100 dilution, followed by Cy3-conjugated goat anti-rabbit (Jackson ImmunoResearch) at 1:400 dilution. Nuclei were visualized by Hoechst staining.
Mammalian Two-hybrid Assays--
The full-length cDNA for
PLZF was cloned in-frame into pACT, the mammalian two-hybrid system
VP16 activation domain expression vector (Promega Checkmate System).
293T cells were plated at a density of 3 × 105
cells/60-mm dish. The following day 1 µg each of pBIND-DRAL and pACT-PLZF were transfected, together with 1 µg of the GAL4-responsive reporter pG5luc. pRSV-
-Gal was included in all transfections at a
concentration of 100 ng/dish to correct for transfection efficiency.
After 48 h of incubation, cells were washed twice with
phosphate-buffered saline, harvested in reporter lysis buffer (Promega), and assayed for
-galactosidase activity (Promega
-Galactosidase Enzyme Assay System) and luciferase activity (Promega
Luciferase Assay System). Similar experiments were performed using the
DRAL/FHL2 and PLZF deletion constructs as described under
"Results." Results are presented as fold activation of normalized
luciferase activity in the presence of DRAL/FHL2 and/or PLZF compared
with normalized activity in the presence of empty vectors and are the
average of at least four independent experiments. Western blotting of cell extracts was performed using anti-FLAG M2 (Sigma) at 1:1500 dilution, followed by alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (Sigma), and developed using Tropix Western Light kit (Applied Biosystems).
Transcriptional Repression Assays--
A reporter construct
containing four high affinity PLZF-binding sites found in the IL3R
chain promoter was used to measure transcriptional activity
(IL3R
-tk-luc), and a tk-luc construct without the specific
PLZF-binding sites was used as negative control. 3 × 105 293T cells were seeded in 60-mm dishes and transfected
the following day. Luciferase activity was measured after 48 h.
Transfection efficiency was normalized using
-galactosidase activity
produced by pRSV-
-gal included in all transfections. Total DNA
transfected was the same for all samples using empty vector DNA.
Results are presented as fold repression of normalized luciferase
activity in the presence of PLZF and/or effectors compared with
normalized activity in the presence of empty expression vectors.
Results are the average of four individual experiments. For inhibition of histone deacetylase, cells were transfected as described in the
presence of 6 mM sodium butyrate. For repression assays in NIH3T3 cells, 6 × 105 cells were seeded in 60-mm
dishes in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, 0.5% FCS and
transfected 20 h later with pcDNA3-DRAL; post-transfection
cells were maintained in 0.5% FCS. 24 h later pSG5-PLZF and the
IL3R
-tk-luc reporter were transfected. Following this second
transfection cells were given either 10 or 0.5% FCS for 3 h as
indicated in the figure legend and were thereafter assayed for
luciferase and
-galactosidase activity. Western blotting of cell
extracts was performed using anti-FLAG M2 (Sigma) at 1:1500 dilution,
followed by alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG
(Sigma), and developed using Tropix Western Light kit (Applied Biosystems).
 |
RESULTS |
Identification of Putative Protein Interaction Partners for
DRAL/FHL2--
In order to identify potential binding
partners for DRAL/FHL2 as well as to further delineate its molecular
role, we have exploited the yeast two-hybrid system. A human adult
cardiac cDNA library was selected for screening since we and others
have shown previously (23, 25, 26, 37-40) that expression of DRAL/FHL2 is highest in heart muscle, and specifically the protein localizes to
diverse structures such as the nucleus, focal contacts, and the Z-discs
and M-bands of cardiac myofibrils (26). An inducible LexA-based
two-hybrid system was used, and ~1 × 107
independent clones were screened yielding a large number of putative positive clones upon selection for interacting transformants. Based on
its described growth-suppressive properties, one of these was selected
for further characterization, namely the promyelocytic leukemia zinc
finger protein, PLZF (41, 42). To confirm the DRAL/FHL2-PLZF
interaction, LexA-DRAL/FHL2 and B42-PLZF yeast plasmids were tested for
their in vivo interaction in a liquid
-galactosidase
assay (Table I). PLZF fused to the
B42-activation domain interacts with DRAL/FHL2 fused to the LexA
DNA-binding domain, thus increasing
-galactosidase reporter activity
to a level comparable with that of the positive control LexA DNA-BD-p53 and B42 AD-SV40 large T antigen, whereas either plasmid alone or in
combination with SV40 large T antigen or p53, respectively, did not
result in
-galactosidase activity (Table I).
The association of DRAL/FHL2 with PLZF was further corroborated using a
monoblastoid cell line, U937, expressing PLZF in a tetracycline-repressible manner (34); only when PLZF expression is
induced can DRAL/FHL2 also be precipitated by the anti-PLZF antibody
(Fig. 1, IP
tet), suggesting
an interaction between DRAL/FHL2 and PLZF both in the yeast two-hybrid
system as well as in mammalian cells.

View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Coimmunoprecipitation of PLZF and
DRAL/FHL2. U937 cells (2 × 107) were grown in
the presence or absence of tetracycline (tet) to induce the
expression of PLZF, lysed, and subjected to immunoprecipitation
(IP) with an anti-PLZF monoclonal antibody, followed by
immunoblotting (IB) with a polyclonal anti-DRAL
antibody.
|
|
Specific Domains of PLZF Are Required for the
DRAL/FHL2-PLZF Interaction--
At this juncture, having
demonstrated an interaction between the two proteins, it was
instructive to attempt to define the domains required for the
interaction. Therefore we first performed an in vitro
protein binding assay. 35S-Labeled in vitro
translated PLZF or deletion constructs thereof (Fig.
2A) were incubated with
GST-DRAL/FHL2 recombinant protein (25) immobilized on
glutathione-Sepharose beads. Bound complexes were washed extensively,
prior to elution and resolution by SDS-PAGE. This GST-pulldown assay
provided further credence to the interaction between the full-length
proteins (Fig. 2B, lane 5). Deleting the POZ
domain of PLZF does not rescind the interaction with GST-DRAL/FHL2 (Fig. 2B, lane 7), and this is also true when the
RD2 domain is deleted (Fig. 2B, lane 8); however,
deletion of both of these domains drastically reduces the ability of
the protein to complex with GST-DRAL on the glutathione beads (Fig.
2B, lane 6). This would imply that either the POZ
or RD2 domains of PLZF interact with DRAL/FHL2, and deletion of both
abrogates this interaction.

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
PLZF and DRAL/FHL2 interact in
vitro and in vivo. A,
schematic representation of PLZF and deletion constructs.
B, recombinant DRAL/FHL2 as a fusion to GST was
produced in E. coli and conjugated to glutathione-agarose
beads. Beads were then incubated with
[35S]methionine-labeled in vitro translated
(IVT) full-length PLZF as well as deletion constructs of PLZF. Bound
complexes were washed, eluted into Laemmli buffer, resolved on 12%
SDS-PAGE, and analyzed by autoradiography. Lane 1, 20%
input IVT PLZF; lane 2, 20% input IVT delPOZ/delRD2;
lane 3, 20% input IVT delPOZ; lane 4,
20% input IVT delRD2; lane 5, GST-DRAL incubated with
full-length IVT PLZF; lane 6, GST-DRAL plus IVT
delPOZ/delRD2; lane 7, GST-DRAL plus IVT delPOZ;
lane 8, GST-DRAL plus IVT delRD2. C,
immunoprecipitation of DRAL/FHL2 by truncated forms of PLZF. Transient
transfections of full-length DRAL/FHL2 together with full-length PLZF
construct (lanes 1 and 2), the deletion
constructs delPOZ (lanes 3 and 4), delRD2
(lanes 5 and 6), or delPOZ/delRD2 (lanes
7 and 8) were performed in 293T cells as described
under "Experimental Procedures." Immunoprecipitation
(IP) was done with anti-PLZF antibody and immunoblotting
(IB) with anti-DRAL/FHL2-specific antibody (lanes
1, 3, 5, and 7) or preimmune
serum (lanes 2, 4, 6, and
8). Lanes 9-12 represent the input lysate
control of lanes 1, 3, 5, and
7.
|
|
Association of the two proteins in vivo was further
supported by coimmunoprecipitation experiments. Human kidney carcinoma cells were transfected with full-length PLZF and DRAL/FHL2
expression constructs; the cell lysates were then immunoprecipitated
with a monoclonal PLZF antibody and immunoblotted with a polyclonal DRAL/FHL2 antibody. DRAL/FHL2 was immunoprecipitated by the
full-length PLZF protein only when both specific antibodies were used
(Fig. 2C, lane 1) but not with preimmune serum
(Fig. 2C, lane 2). We then performed additional
coimmunoprecipitation experiments with lysates from 293T cells
transfected with the different PLZF constructs. As shown in Fig.
2C, DRAL/FHL2 can also be immunoprecipitated by the PLZF
constructs del-POZ and del-RD2 (Fig. 2C, lanes 3 and 5, respectively). The band shown in Fig. 2C,
lane 3, is faint but clearly visible upon longer
exposure (data not shown). In concurrence with the GST pulldown assay,
deleting both the POZ and RD2 domains from PLZF abrogates binding by
DRAL/FHL2 (Fig. 2C, lane 7).
DRAL/FHL2 Interaction with PLZF in Vivo Requires an
Intact Protein--
In order to probe further the integrity of the
putative DRAL/FHL2-PLZF interaction in vivo, a mammalian
two-hybrid system was utilized. 293T cells were transfected with the
full-length DRAL/FHL2 bait construct as a fusion to the GAL4 DNA
binding domain, and this activated the reporter up to 9.25-fold when in
the presence of the full-length PLZF prey construct, fused to the VP16
activation domain (Fig. 3B,
lane 4), whereas the positive control consisting of Id and MyoD,
exploiting two known interacting transcription factors, showed
approximately a 16-fold increase of reporter activity (Fig.
3B, lane 1). The autoactivation control for DRAL/FHL2
shows a negligible level of reporter activation at 1.4-fold (Fig.
3B, lane 3), whereas PLZF does not show any
intrinsic activity (Fig. 3B, lane 2). The same
results were also obtained in a different cellular background with
HT1080 cells suggesting that the interaction observed in this assay is
independent of other tissue-specific cofactors (data not shown).

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
The DRAL/FHL2 protein associates with PLZF in
mammalian cells. A, schematic representation of full-length
DRAL/FHL2 and deletion constructs, all bearing a C-terminal FLAG tag,
used in the two-hybrid assays. B, lysates from transient
transfections in 293T cells with 1 µg of each plasmid were assayed
for luciferase activity from the GAL4-responsive luciferase reporter
pG5luc that was included in all transfected samples. pBind contains a
GAL4 DNA-BD and pAct a VP16-AD. Lane 1, pBind-Id and
pAct-MyoD as positive control; lane 2, pBind and pAct-PLZF
to assay for autoactivation by the prey construct; lane 3,
pBind-DRAL and pAct to assay for autoactivation by the bait construct;
lane 4, pBind-DRAL and pAct-PLZF to assay the test
interaction. C, mammalian two-hybrid assays were performed
as before in 293T cells. Lane 1, pBind-Id with pAct-MyoD as
positive control; lane 2, pBind-DRAL and pAct-PLZF to assay
the interaction between the full-length clones; lane
3, pBind-LIM(1-4) with pAct-PLZF; lane 4,
pBind-LIM(0.5-2) with pAct-PLZF; lane 5, pBind-LIM(3-4)
with pAct-PLZF. D, mammalian two-hybrid assays were
performed as before in 293T cells. Lane 1, pBind-Id with
pAct-MyoD as positive control; lane 2, pBind-DRAL and
pAct-PLZF (both full-length); lane 3, pBind-LIM1 with
pAct-PLZF; lane 4, pBind-LIM2 with pAct-PLZF; lane
5, pBind-LIM3 with pAct-PLZF; lane 6,
pBind-LIM4 with pAct-PLZF. E, Western blot of lysates used
in C and D probed with anti-FLAG. Upper
panel, 1st lane, pBIND-DRAL; 2nd lane,
pBIND-LIM(1-4); 3rd lane, pBIND-LIM(0.5-2); 4th
lane, pBIND-LIM(3-4). Lower panel, 1st
lane, pBIND-LIM1; 2nd lane, pBIND-LIM2; 3rd
lane, pBIND-LIM3; 4th lane, pBIND-LIM4.
|
|
In order to reveal the functional domains of DRAL/FHL2 that mediate the
interaction with PLZF, the same mammalian two-hybrid assay was used
with various deletion constructs of DRAL/FHL2 (Fig. 3A). As
shown in Fig. 3C, it is apparent that removing the
N-terminal half LIM domain of DRAL/FHL2 has minimal effect on the
avidity of the binding between DRAL/FHL2 and PLZF, reducing the
activity from 14- to 9.7-fold (Fig. 3C, lanes 2 versus 3). However, the constructs LIM(0.5-2)
and LIM(3-4) show a very reduced activity when cotransfected with
full-length PLZF, namely only 3.6- and 1.1-fold, respectively (Fig.
3C, lanes 4 and 5), which is not related to differences in expression levels (Fig. 3E,
upper panel). This would suggest that either the relevant
LIM domain or domains required to mediate the interaction are internal
or, alternatively, that any manipulation of the protein in any
permutation eliminates the possibility of a full interaction. To
examine these hypotheses, we explored the effect of single LIM domain
constructs transfected together with the full-length PLZF fusion
protein. No activity is observed with these single LIM constructs (Fig.
3D, lanes 3-6), despite their being expressed at
similar levels (Fig. 3E, lower panel), suggesting
that no single LIM domain can mediate the interaction, but instead the
integrity of the complete protein seems to be required.
PLZF-mediated Transcriptional Repression Is Enhanced by
DRAL/FHL2--
Next we wanted to examine the possible
functional significance of the observed interaction. As PLZF is a known
transcriptional repressor (3, 33, 42), and since other proteins that
interact with PLZF have proven to function in the manner of a
corepressor (4), we determined if DRAL/FHL2 might have an analogous
function. A reporter system composed of four high affinity PLZF-binding sites from the IL3R
chain promoter upstream of a minimal promoter and a luciferase cassette has been described previously (4) (see Fig.
4A); when this construct is
expressed in 293T cells, a particular level of luciferase activity is
observed, which can be transcriptionally repressed by inclusion of a
PLZF expression construct in the system, as shown in Fig.
4B, lane 3 (~2.9-fold repression). Addition of
DRAL/FHL2 expressed from a cytomegalovirus promoter results in an
enhancement of this repression up to 5.6-fold (Fig. 4B,
lane 4), whereas use of DRAL/FHL2 alone has no effect on
reporter activity (data not shown). This potentiation of repression was
not observed when a reporter lacking the PLZF-specific binding sites
was used (Fig. 4C), indicating that the effect is specific and dependent on PLZF binding. However, titration experiments revealed
that a higher concentration of DRAL/FHL2 with a constant amount of PLZF
results in a lower level of repression, with a peak repression level of
5.7-fold using 400 ng of DRAL/FHL2 DNA (Fig. 4D, lanes
4-7). Expression of DRAL/FHL2 in the absence of PLZF has no
effect on reporter activity (Fig. 4D, lane
10).

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
DRAL/FHL2 acts as a corepressor for
PLZF-mediated transcriptional repression. A, schematic
representation of the PLZF-responsive luciferase reporter containing
four high affinity PLZF-binding sites from the IL3R chain promoter.
B, 293T cells were transfected with the luciferase
reporter and the following plasmids as indicated: lane
1, 100 ng of IL3R-tkluc; lane 2, 100 ng of
IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5 and 400 ng of pcDNA3; lane
3, 100 ng of IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF; lane
4, 100 ng of IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF and 400 ng
of pcDNA-DRAL. C, repression assays were carried
out in 293T cells as described, but using a reporter without the
PLZF-specific binding sites from the IL3R promoter. Lane
1, 100 ng of tk-luc; lane 2, 100 ng of tk-luc
with 300 ng of pSG5; lane 3, 100 ng of tk-luc with 400 ng of pcDNA3; lane 4, 100 ng of tk-luc with 300 ng
of pSG5-PLZF; lane 5, 100 ng of tk-luc with 400 ng of
pcDNA3-DRAL. D, repression assays were carried out
in 293T cells as described. Lane 1, 100 ng of
IL3R-tkluc; lane 2, 100 ng of IL3R-tkluc with 400 ng of
pSG5 and 400 ng of pcDNA3; lane 3, 100 ng of
IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF; lane 4, 100 ng of
IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF and 200 ng of pcDNA-DRAL;
lane 5, 100 ng of IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF
and 400 ng of pcDNA-DRAL; lane 6, 100 ng of
IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF and 600 ng of pcDNA-DRAL;
lane 7, 100 ng of IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF
and 800 ng of pcDNA-DRAL; lane 8, 100 ng of
IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF in the presence of 6 mM
sodium butyrate; lane 9, 100 ng of IL3R-tkluc with 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF, 400 ng of pcDNA3-DRAL in the presence of 6 mM sodium butyrate; lane 10, 100 ng of
IL3R-tkluc with 400 ng of pcDNA-DRAL. E, repression
assays were carried out in 293T cells as described using 100 ng of
IL3R-tkluc and 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF (lane 1), 300 ng of
pSG5-PLZF with 400 ng of pcDNA3-DRAL (lane 2), 300 ng of
pSG5-PLZF with 400 ng of pcDNA3-LIM(1-4) (lane 3), 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF with 400 ng of pcDNA3-LIM(0.5-2) (lane
4), and 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF with 400 ng of pcDNA3-LIM(3-4)
(lane 5). For B-E, results shown are
representative of at least four individual experiments and normalized
as described under "Experimental Procedures." F,
Western blot of 293T lysates used in the repression assay and probed
with anti-FLAG. Lane 1, full-length DRAL/FHL2;
lane 2, LIM(1-4); lane 3, LIM(0.5-2);
and lane 4, LIM(3-4).
|
|
It has been established that PLZF mediates transcriptional repression
through its ability to recruit corepressors such as the NCoR, which in
turn can then recruit the HDAC complex; furthermore, PLZF itself can
interact with HDAC1 and -2 (42, 43). To test for the specificity of the
observed repression, we included an HDAC inhibitor, namely sodium
butyrate, throughout the transfection period. As expected, this
eliminated PLZF-mediated repression regardless of the addition of
DRAL/FHL2 (Fig. 4D, lanes 8 and 9),
suggesting that augmented repression mediated by DRAL/FHL2 is also
depending on the formation of a HDAC complex. To exclude any potential
effects of cell background, all results have been duplicated in human
fibrosarcoma cells, HT1080 (data not shown).
To investigate domains of DRAL/FHL2 required to mediate the observed
corepression activity, deletion constructs were coexpressed with PLZF
in the repression assay. This revealed that deleting the N-terminal LIM
domain has no effect on the corepressor function of DRAL/FHL2 (Fig.
4E, lanes 2 and 3). However, the two
constructs LIM(0.5-2) and LIM(3-4) do not significantly enhance PLZF
repressor activity (Fig. 4E, lanes 4 and
5), despite showing comparable expression levels (Fig.
4F, lanes 3 and 4). Hence, corepressor activity of DRAL/FHL2 requires an intact protein, supporting the conclusion from the interaction assay. In both experimental settings, however, the N-terminal half LIM domain is dispensable for activity.
DRAL/FHL2 can be localized to various structures in the cytoplasm such
as focal adhesions as well as the nucleus (26). Recently it has been
shown that nuclear accumulation can be enhanced through serum
stimulation (47). Therefore, we wanted to investigate whether
transcriptional corepression by DRAL/FHL2 can be further enhanced when
DRAL/FHL2 is predominantly localized in the nucleus. Accordingly, we
transfected NIH3T3 cells with the IL3R
-tk-luc reporter, full-length
PLZF, and full-length DRAL. After transfection and serum starvation,
cells were treated for 3 h with serum and transcriptional
repression analyzed. While no repression was observed without PLZF
(Fig. 5A, lanes 1 and 2), serum stimulation also had no effect on PLZF
repression (Fig. 5A, lanes 3 and 4).
In contrast, a marked increase in corepression by DRAL/FHL2 (Fig. 5A, lanes 5 and 6; 7.7- versus 3.3-fold) was observed which was indeed paralleled by
nuclear accumulation of DRAL/FHL2 (Fig. 5B). These
experiments further support the corepressor activity of nuclear
DRAL/FHL2.

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Activation of DRAL by extracellular stimulus
enhances corepression. A, repression assays were
carried out as described in NIH3T3 cells using 500 ng of IL3R-tk-luc
reporter and 1 µg of pcDNA3-DRAL or 1 µg of pSG5-PLZF, or both
as shown. Cells were serum-starved (0.5% FCS) 20 h prior to
transfection. Serum was added to those samples indicated for 3 h
post-transfection to a final concentration of 10%, prior to assaying
for luciferase and -galactosidase activity. B,
immunostaining of NIH3T3 cells for DRAL/FHL2 expression. Panel
a, unstimulated cells, anti-DRAL; panel b,
unstimulated cells, Hoechst-stained; panel c,
serum-stimulated cells, anti-DRAL; and panel d,
serum-stimulated cells, Hoechst-stained.
|
|
Specificity of DRAL/FHL2 as a Cofactor for PLZF-mediated
Repression--
DRAL/FHL2 belongs to a subset of the family of
LIM-only proteins, which are structurally related in that they possess
four complete and one N-terminal half LIM domain (FHL proteins). Within this family of five proteins there exists a high degree of homology that is particularly evident within individual LIM domains (22). Thus
we examined other FHL proteins, namely FHL1, FHL3, and ACT, for their
ability to act as cofactors in PLZF-mediated repression. Cotransfection
of FHL3 with PLZF also stimulates repression of the reporter to a level
comparable with that obtained with DRAL/FHL2 (Fig.
6A, lane 3 versus 2), increasing repression from 1.7-fold with PLZF alone to 2.6-fold with the combination. No corepression was
seen when ACT was cotransfected with PLZF (Fig. 6A,
lane 4) nor when FHL1 was included in the assay (Fig.
6A, lane 5). Consequently, this suggests that
corepression is specific to some members of the FHL family, namely
DRAL/FHL2 and FHL3.

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Corepression is specific to FHL proteins.
A, repression assays were carried out as described
using 100 ng of the IL3R reporter and 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF
(lane 1), 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF together with 400 ng of
pcDNA3-DRAL (lane 2), 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF with 400 ng
of pcDNA3-FHL3 (lane 3), 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF with 400 ng
of pcDNA3-ACT (lane 4), 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF with 400 ng
of pcDNA3-FHL1 (lane 5). B, repression
assays were carried out as for A. Lane 1,
300 ng of pSG5-PLZF; lane 2, 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF with
400 ng of pcDNA3-DRAL; lane 3, 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF
with 400 ng of pEGFP-MLP; lane 4, 300 ng of pSG5-PLZF
with 400 ng of pcDNA3-CRP2; lane 5, 300 ng of
pSG5-PLZF with 400 ng of pcDNA3-PINCH.
|
|
Having established that only FHL3 may substitute for the corepressor
function of the DRAL/FHL2, we wanted to test other LIM-only proteins in
order to further demarcate specificity. Three LMOs were chosen: MLP,
which is involved in myogenesis (14, 19, 20); CRP2, which is related to
MLP but expressed in smooth muscle (45); and PINCH, which interacts
with integrin-linked kinase (12). When each of these were cotransfected
with PLZF, no additional repression of the reporter was detected (Fig.
6B, lanes 3-5, respectively). Accordingly,
we concluded that significant functional repression of PLZF targets is
restricted to DRAL/FHL2 and FHL3 only.
Coexpression of DRAL and PLZF--
Specific expression of
DRAL/FHL2 has been assigned previously to cardiac muscle in terms of
both mRNA and protein (23, 26, 39), and PLZF also presents
expression in mouse heart (5). To corroborate these findings as well as
demonstrate endogenous coexpression of DRAL/FHL2 and PLZF, we analyzed
expression of these proteins in a small panel of human tissues with a
Northern blot (Fig.
7A) and immunostaining of
adult rat cardiomyocytes (Fig. 7B). Northern blotting indeed
shows expression of both DRAL and PLZF in both skeletal muscle and
heart (Fig. 7A). Immunohistochemical analysis of adult rat
cardiomyocytes shows nuclear expression of PLZF (Fig. 7B,
panel a), whereas DRAL is found both in the same nuclei, as
well as at the Z-discs and M-bands of the cardiomyofibrils (26) (Fig.
7B, panel b), suggesting that coexpression does
in fact occur, at least in cardiomyocytes.

View larger version (72K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Endogenous DRAL/FHL2 and PLZF are
colocalized. A, 5 µg of total RNA isolated from human
tissues was probed in a Northern blot for expression of DRAL, PLZF, and
-actin. Lane 1, skeletal muscle; lane
2, lung; lane 3, liver; and lane
4, heart. B, localization of endogenous PLZF
and DRAL in adult rat cardiomyocytes. Panel a,
anti-PLZF; and panel b, anti-DRAL/FHL2.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
While many of the primary components involved in chromatin
remodeling have been recognized, there remain additional cofactors that
must work in concert with transcription factors to achieve spatio-temporal variations in and control of gene expression. Here we
present evidence of a functional interaction between DRAL/FHL2 and
PLZF, a transcriptional repressor with a role in the control of
cellular proliferation and Hox gene regulation (41, 42, 46).
The interaction has been validated by a number of in vitro and in vivo assays, including yeast two-hybrid, mammalian
two-hybrid, in vitro protein binding, and
coimmunoprecipitation. More importantly, we can demonstrate that
DRAL/FHL2 functionally enhances PLZF-mediated repression, thus
propounding the notion that it may represent a novel class of
tissue-specific corepressor.
From the yeast two-hybrid screen using DRAL/FHL2 as bait, one clone was
selected that upon partial sequencing was found to correspond to PLZF.
Analysis of the incomplete cDNA clone revealed that it began at
amino acid 100, which eliminates the POZ/BTB domain of this protein.
More detailed analyses suggest that either the POZ and/or RD2 domain of
PLZF is important for this interaction, since deletion of either domain
alone does not affect the interaction with DRAL/FHL2 (Fig. 2,
B and C), whereas deletion of both domains simultaneously abrogates binding of recombinant DRAL/FHL2 in
vitro (Fig. 2B) as well as preventing precipitation of
DRAL/FHL2 by the PLZF antibody in vivo (Fig. 2C).
On the other hand, it appears that the full complement of LIM domains
of DRAL/FHL2 is necessary for an interaction, as implied by the
mammalian two-hybrid experiments (Fig. 3). The only small domain that
could be deleted without affecting the interaction was the N-terminal
half LIM domain. This domain is also not required for the assayed
DRAL/FHL2 function and therefore remains uncharacterized. It has,
however, recently been shown that the N-terminal half LIM domain is
involved in Rho signaling (47).
PLZF is a known transcriptional repressor by reason of its ability to
recruit corepressors such as NCoR/SMRT, Sin3A, and histone deacetylases
that together form part of the Sin3A/B complex involved in chromatin
rearrangement. It binds to target gene promoters, such as that of the
IL3R
chain (33) and cyclin A (42) by means of its C-terminal zinc
fingers. Here we have shown that DRAL/FHL2 can enhance transcriptional
repression mediated by PLZF (Fig. 4) and thus can also be considered as
a corepressor.
Recently, it was shown that transcriptional activation by DRAL/FHL2
occurs concomitantly with its translocation to the nucleus as a result
of stimulation of the Rho signaling pathway (47). Serum stimulation of
NIH3T3 cells results in an augmentation of DRAL/FHL2-enhanced
corepression of PLZF target genes (Fig. 5A), which is
associated with nuclear translocation (Fig. 5B), and thus
may also involve a similar signaling mechanism.
In order to examine the specificity of DRAL/FHL2-governed corepression
of PLZF target genes, we employed other members of the FHL family of
LIM-only proteins in the IL3R
functional assay. To our surprise,
corepression was not entirely specific to DRAL/FHL2 but was in fact
shared by FHL3, which displayed a similar level of activity (Fig.
6A). Other FHL proteins assayed, ACT and FHL1, did not
manifest any corepressor activity (Fig. 6A) nor did other LIM-only proteins such as MLP, CRP2, and PINCH (Fig. 6B).
Thus, the ability to corepress transcription is exclusive to a
tissue-specifically expressed subset of FHL proteins. Interestingly,
FHL3, apart from being structurally related to DRAL/FHL2, also shares a
similar pattern of expression, being expressed predominantly in
skeletal muscle and in heart (48), tissues which both also express PLZF (Fig. 7). Functional redundancy might therefore explain the lack of an
obvious phenotype in DRAL/FHL2 knockout mice (49), a notion that is
supported by the fact that DRAL/FHL2 and FHL3 are able to interact with
each other (40); DRAL/FHL2 can also interact with ACT at lower affinity
(22). However, cotransfection of combinations of FHL3, ACT, and
DRAL/FHL2 together with PLZF did not result in a cooperative
augmentation of repression (data not shown).
Previous work suggests that FHL proteins can act as activators or
coactivators of transcription: ACT, which is expressed specifically in
testis (21), serves as a coactivator of CREM, and DRAL/FHL2 is a known
coactivator of the androgen receptor (23). Here we observed an
additional repressive function of DRAL/FHL2, suggesting that these
proteins can have a dual role depending on the promoter context. There
are other examples of transcription factors possessing a dual
activator-repressor function, like PML which associates with
CREB-binding protein to activate transcription (50) and also
interacts with several corepressors and HDAC1 (51). Recently FKHR, a
member of the hepatocyte nuclear factor 3/forkhead homeotic gene family
(HNF3/FKH), has been described to interact with nuclear receptors,
exhibiting corepressor activity on steroid receptors and coactivator
activity on non-steroid receptors (52). Moreover, a splicing isoform of
FHL1 bearing only the first two and a half LIM domains can interact
with and negatively regulate the activity of RBP-J, a transcription
factor involved in the Notch signaling pathway (24). One possible
explanation for the dual role of FHL proteins in transcription might be
that they act to stabilize the transcriptional complexes as a type of
bridging factor. This interpretation is supported by the fact that, in
addition to PLZF, we found an interaction between DRAL/FHL2 and the
corepressor NCoR in our two-hybrid screen (data not shown). Three
clones were isolated, all of which corresponded to the region upstream
of the second receptor interaction domain (IDII) of NCoR. The POZ domain of PLZF is known to be the interface mediating the interaction with NCoR (53, 54), whereas the putative DRAL/FHL2 interacting domain
would appear to be downstream of this domain (Fig. 2, B and
C).
It has been reported that DRAL/FHL2 might be an interaction partner of
myocyte nuclear factor, a winged-helix/forkhead protein that forms a
corepressor complex with Sin3B (49, 55) which in turn can also recruit
NCoR (56). Hence, it remains to be seen if DRAL/FHL2 might also take
part in this transcriptional complex, making it likely that additional
repressing or activating complexes containing FHL proteins will be
identified in the future.
Expression of both DRAL/FHL2 and PLZF has been described previously (5,
23, 25, 26, 37-39) in cardiac tissue. This has again been
substantiated by examination of mRNA expression from various
tissues (Fig. 7A, lane 4). Furthermore,
immunohistochemical analysis of adult rat cardiomyocytes finds both
proteins endogenously coexpressed, PLZF presenting its typical
nuclear-speckled pattern (Fig. 7B, panel a),
corresponding to nuclear bodies where it colocalizes with LAZ3/BCL6
(57), and DRAL/FHL2 with expression both in nucleus and along the
Z-discs and M-bands of the myofibrils (Fig. 7B, panel
b) (26), suggesting endogenous colocalization of these proteins in
the nucleus.
Up to now, a possible implication for PLZF in heart function has not
been discussed. However, PLZF is also known to effect an increase in
growth arrest and/or apoptosis upon overexpression in myeloid cells
(41). Because another putative interaction partner of DRAL/FHL2 in
myocyte nuclei, myocyte nuclear factor, can also negatively regulate
cell growth (55) and suppress oncogenic transformation, one might
speculate that DRAL/FHL2 participates in cellular growth control. This
is supported by the initial observation that DRAL/FHL2 is
down-regulated in myogenic tumor cells compared with their normal
counterparts (25) and that its expression can be stimulated by p53
(26). However, definitive assessment of such a function will require
analysis of mutant animals that lack expression of all FHL proteins
within a given expression domain.
FHL proteins appear to participate in transcriptional complexes where
they can modulate tissue-specific activity of activators or repressors.
It remains to be seen whether their presence is also required for the
regulation of specific downstream target genes.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We are grateful to R. Schüle for
helpful discussions, and we thank C. W. Heizmann and J. C. Perriard for continuing support.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by grants from the Krebsforschung
Schweiz, the Krebsliga of Kt. Zug, Swiss National Science Foundation Grant 31-56869.99 (to B. W. S.), National Institutes of Health Grant
R01 CA59936, and American Cancer Society Award DHP 160 (to J. D. L.).The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
¶
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.:
41-1-266-7553; Fax: 41-1-266-7169; E-mail:
schafer@kispi.unizh.ch.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, July 26, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M203336200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
NCoR, nuclear
receptor corepressor;
HDAC, histone deacetylase;
FHL, four-and-a-half-LIM domain protein;
PLZF, promyelocytic leukemia zinc
finger protein;
DRAL, down-regulated in rhabdomyosarcoma LIM domain
protein;
ACT, activator of CREM in testis;
GST, glutathione
S-transferase;
DNA-BD, DNA-binding domain;
FCS, fetal calf
serum;
AD, activation domain;
IVT, in vitro translated;
CREM, cAMP-responsive element modulator.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Grignani, F., De,
Matteis, S.,
Nervi, C.,
Tomassoni, L.,
Gelmetti, V.,
Cioce, M.,
Fanelli, M.,
Ruthardt, M.,
Ferrara, F. F.,
Zamir, I.,
Seiser, C.,
Lazar, M. A.,
Minucci, S.,
and Pelicci, P. G.
(1998)
Nature
391,
815-818[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Lin, R. J.,
Nagy, L.,
Inoue, S.,
Shao, W.,
Miller, W. H., Jr.,
and Evans, R. M.
(1998)
Nature
391,
811-814[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Li, J. Y.,
English, M. A.,
Ball, H. J.,
Yeyati, P. L.,
Waxman, S.,
and Licht, J. D.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
22447-22455[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Melnick, A. M.,
Westendorf, J. J.,
Polinger, A.,
Carlile, G. W.,
Arai, S.,
Ball, H. J.,
Lutterbach, B.,
Hiebert, S. W.,
and Licht, J. D.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
2075-2086[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
Reid, A.,
Gould, A.,
Brand, N.,
Cook, M.,
Strutt, P., Li, J.,
Licht, J.,
Waxman, S.,
Krumlauf, R.,
and Zelent, A.
(1995)
Blood
86,
4544-4552[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Bach, I.
(2000)
Mech. Dev.
91,
5-17[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
Dawid, I. B.,
Breen, J. J.,
and Toyama, R.
(1998)
Trends Genet.
14,
156-162[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 8.
|
Brown, S.,
McGrath, M. J.,
Ooms, L. M.,
Gurung, R.,
Maimone, M. M.,
and Mitchell, C. A.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
27083-27091[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 9.
|
Feuerstein, R.,
Wang, X.,
Song, D.,
Cooke, N. E.,
and Liebhaber, S. A.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
10655-10659[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 10.
|
Schmeichel, K. L.,
and Beckerle, M. C.
(1994)
Cell
79,
211-219[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Cuppen, E.,
Gerrits, H.,
Pepers, B.,
Wieringa, B.,
and Hendriks, W.
(1998)
Mol. Biol. Cell
9,
671-683[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 12.
|
Tu, Y., Li, F.,
Goicoechea, S.,
and Wu, C.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
2425-2434[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Larson, R. C.,
Lavenir, I.,
Larson, T. A.,
Baer, R.,
Warren, A. J.,
Wadman, I.,
Nottage, K.,
and Rabbitts, T. H.
(1996)
EMBO J.
15,
1021-1027[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 14.
|
Kong, Y.,
Flick, M. J.,
Kudla, A. J.,
and Konieczny, S. F.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
4750-4760[Abstract]
|
| 15.
|
Reinhard, M.,
Zumbrunn, J.,
Jaquemar, D.,
Kuhn, M.,
Walter, U.,
and Trueb, B.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
13410-13418[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Louis, H. A.,
Pino, J. D.,
Schmeichel, K. L.,
Pomies, P.,
and Beckerle, M. C.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
27484-27491[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Yamada, Y.,
Pannell, R.,
Forster, A.,
and Rabbitts, T. H.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
320-324[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
Wadman, I. A.,
Osada, H.,
Grutz, G. G.,
Agulnick, A. D.,
Westphal, H.,
Forster, A.,
and Rabbitts, T. H.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
3145-3157[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 19.
|
Arber, S.,
Halder, G.,
and Caroni, P.
(1994)
Cell
79,
221-231[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 20.
|
Arber, S.,
Hunter, J. J.,
Ross, J., Jr.,
Hongo, M.,
Sansig, G.,
Borg, J.,
Perriard, J. C.,
Chien, K. R.,
and Caroni, P.
(1997)
Cell
88,
393-403[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
Fimia, G. M., De,
Cesare, D.,
and Sassone-Corsi, P.
(1999)
Nature
398,
165-169[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Fimia, G. M., De,
Cesare, D.,
and Sassone-Corsi, P.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
8613-8622[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Muller, J. M.,
Isele, U.,
Metzger, E.,
Rempel, A.,
Moser, M.,
Pscherer, A.,
Breyer, T.,
Holubarsch, C.,
Buettner, R.,
and Schule, R.
(2000)
EMBO J.
19,
359-369[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Taniguchi, Y.,
Furukawa, T.,
Tun, T.,
Han, H.,
and Honjo, T.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18,
644-654[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 25.
|
Genini, M.,
Schwalbe, P.,
Scholl, F. A.,
Remppis, A.,
Mattei, M. G.,
and Schafer, B. W.
(1997)
DNA Cell Biol.
16,
433-442[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Scholl, F. A.,
McLoughlin, P.,
Ehler, E.,
de Giovanni, C.,
and Schafer, B. W.
(2000)
J. Cell Biol.
151,
495-506[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 27.
|
Tanahashi, H.,
and Tabira, T.
(2000)
Hum. Mol. Genet.
9,
2281-2289[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 28.
|
Chan, K. K.,
Tsui, S. K.,
Ngai, S. M.,
Lee, S. M.,
Kotaka, M.,
Waye, M. M.,
Lee, C. Y.,
and Fung, K. P.
(2000)
J. Cell. Biochem.
76,
499-508[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Wixler, V.,
Geerts, D.,
Laplantine, E.,
Westhoff, D.,
Smyth, N.,
Aumailley, M.,
Sonnenberg, A.,
and Paulsson, M.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
33669-33678[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 30.
|
Ng, E. K. O.,
Chan, K. K.,
Wong, C. H.,
Tsui, S. K. W.,
Ngai, S. M.,
Lee, S. M. Y.,
Kotaka, M.,
Lee, C. Y.,
Waye, M. M. Y.,
and Fung, K. P.
(2002)
J. Cell. Biochem.
84,
556-566[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 31.
|
Amaar, Y. G.,
Thompson, G. R.,
Linkhart, T. A.,
Chen, S. T.,
Baylink, D. J.,
and Mohan, S.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
12053-12060[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 32.
|
Chen, Z.,
Guidez, F.,
Rousselot, P.,
Agadir, A.,
Chen, S. J.,
Wang, Z. Y.,
Degos, L.,
Zelent, A.,
Waxman, S.,
and Chomienne, C.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
1178-1182[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 33.
|
Ball, H. J.,
Melnick, A.,
Shaknovich, R.,
Kohanski, R. A.,
and Licht, J. D.
(1999)
Nucleic Acids Res.
27,
4106-4113[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 34.
|
Ward, J. O.,
McConnell, M. J.,
Carlile, G. W.,
Pandolfi, P. P.,
Licht, J. D.,
and Freedman, L. P.
(2001)
Blood
98,
3290-3300[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 35.
|
Licht, J. D.,
Shaknovich, R.,
English, M. A.,
Melnick, A., Li, J. Y.,
Reddy, J. C.,
Dong, S.,
Chen, S. J.,
Zelent, A.,
and Waxman, S.
(1996)
Oncogene
12,
323-336[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
Auerbach, D.,
Bantle, S.,
Keller, S.,
Hinderling, V.,
Leu, M.,
Ehler, E.,
and Perriard, J. C.
(1999)
Mol. Biol. Cell
10,
1297-1308[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 37.
|
Chan, K. K.,
Tsui, S. K.,
Lee, S. M.,
Luk, S. C.,
Liew, C. C.,
Fung, K. P.,
Waye, M. M.,
and Lee, C. Y.
(1998)
Gene (Amst.)
210,
345-350[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 38.
|
Chu, P. H.,
Bardwell, W. M., Gu, Y.,
Ross, J., Jr.,
and Chen, J.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
7460-7462[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 39.
|
Li, H. Y.,
Kotaka, M.,
Kostin, S.,
Lee, S. M.,
Kok, L. D.,
Chan, K. K.,
Tsui, S. K.,
Schaper, J.,
Zimmermann, R.,
Lee, C. Y.,
Fung, K. P.,
and Waye, M. M.
(2001)
Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton
48,
11-23[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 40.
|
Li, H. Y., Ng, E. K.,
Lee, S. M.,
Kotaka, M.,
Tsui, S. K.,
Lee, C. Y.,
Fung, K. P.,
and Waye, M. M.
(2001)
J. Cell. Biochem.
80,
293-303[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Shaknovich, R.,
Yeyati, P. L.,
Ivins, S.,
Melnick, A.,
Lempert, C.,
Waxman, S.,
Zelent, A.,
and Licht, J. D.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18,
5533-5545[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 42.
|
Yeyati, P. L.,
Shaknovich, R.,
Boterashvili, S., Li, J.,
Ball, H. J.,
Waxman, S.,
Nason-Burchenal, K.,
Dmitrovsky, E.,
Zelent, A.,
and Licht, J. D.
(1999)
Oncogene
18,
925-934[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 43.
|
Wong, C. W.,
and Privalsky, M. L.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
27695-27702[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 44.
|
David, G.,
Alland, L.,
Hong, S. H.,
Wong, C. W.,
DePinho, R. A.,
and Dejean, A.
(1998)
Oncogene
16,
2549-2556[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 45.
|
Huber, A.,
Neuhuber, W. L.,
Klugbauer, N.,
Ruth, P.,
and Allescher, H. D.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
5504-5511[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 46.
|
Barna, M.,
Hawe, N.,
Niswander, L.,
and Pandolfi, P. P.
(2000)
Nat. Genet.
25,
166-172[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 47.
|
Muller, |