Regulation of chromatin structure, Smad binding and AFP expression by the Forkhead box transcription factor: Foxa1

Transcription factors must be able to access their DNA binding sites to either activate or repress transcription. However, DNA wrapping and compaction into chromatin occludes most binding sites from ready access by proteins. Pioneer transcription factors are capable of binding their DNA elements within a condensed chromatin context and then reducing the level of nucleosome occupancy so that the chromatin structure is more accessible. This altered accessibility increases the probability of other transcription factors binding to their own DNA binding elements. My hypothesis is that Foxa1, a ‘pioneer’ transcription factor, activates alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) expression by binding DNA in a chromatinized environment, reducing the nucleosome occupancy and facilitating binding of additional transcription factors.^ Using retinoic-acid differentiated mouse embryonic stem cells, we illustrate a mechanism for activation of the tumor marker AFP by the pioneer transcription factor Foxa1 and TGF-β downstream effector transcription factors Smad2 and Smad4. In differentiating embryonic stem cells, binding of the Foxa1 forkhead box transcription factor to chromatin reduces nucleosome occupancy and levels of linker histone H1 at the AFP distal promoter. The more accessible DNA is subsequently bound by the Smad2 and Smad4 transcription factors, concurrent with activation of transcription. Chromatin immunoprecipitation analyses combined with siRNA-mediated knockdown indicate that Smad protein binding and the reduction of nucleosome occupancy at the AFP distal promoter is dependent on Foxa1. In addition to facilitating transcription factor binding, Foxa1 is also associated with histone modifications related to active gene expression. Acetylation of lysine 9 on histone H3, a mark that is associated active transcription, is dependent on Foxa1, while methylation of H3K4, also associated with active transcription, is independent of Foxa1. I propose that Foxa1 potentiates a region of chromatin to respond to Smad proteins, leading to active expression of AFP.^ These studies demonstrate one mechanism whereby a transcription factor can alter the accessibility of additional transcription factors to chromatin, by altering nucleosome positions. Specifically, Foxa1 exposes DNA so that Smad4 can bind to its regulatory element and activate transcription of the tumor-marker gene AFP.^

Understanding treatment-related symptoms, symptom management techniques, and symptom management self-efficacy in a sample of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients

The current literature available on bladder cancer symptom management from the perspective of the patients themselves is limited. There is also limited psychosocial research specific to bladder cancer patients and no previous studies have developed and validated measures for bladder cancer patients’ symptom management self-efficacy. The purpose of this study was to investigate non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients’ health related quality of life through two main study objectives: (1) to describe the treatment related symptoms, reported effectiveness of symptom-management techniques, and the advice a sample of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients would convey to physicians and future patients; and (2) to evaluate Lepore’s symptom management self-efficacy measure on a sample of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients. Methods. A total of twelve (n=12) non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients participated in an in-depth interview and a sample of 46 (n=4) non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients participated in the symptom-management self-efficacy survey. Results. A total of five symptom categories emerged for the participants’ 59 reported symptoms. Four symptom management categories emerged out of the 71 reported techniques. A total of 62% of the participants’ treatment related symptom-management techniques were reported as effective in managing their treatment-related symptoms. Five advice categories emerged out of the in-depth interviews: service delivery; medical advice; physician-patient communication; encouragement; and no advice. An exploratory factor analysis indicated a single-factor structure for the total population and a multiple factor structure for three subgroups: all males, married males, and all married participants. Conclusion. These findings can inform physicians and patients of effective symptom-management techniques thus improving patients’ health-related quality of life. The advice these patients’ impart can improve service-delivery and patient education.^

Structure-function analysis of human Integrator subunit-4

Structure-function analysis of human Integrator subunit 4 Anupama Sataluri Advisor: Eric. J. Wagner, Ph.D. Uridine-rich small nuclear RNAs (U snRNA) are RNA Polymerase-II (RNAPII) transcripts that are ubiquitously expressed and are known to be essential for gene expression. snRNAs play a key role in mRNA splicing and in histone mRNA expression. Inaccurate snRNA biosynthesis can lead to diseases related to defective splicing and histone mRNA expression. Although the 3′ end formation mechanism and processing machinery of other RNAPII transcripts such as mRNA has been well studied, the mechanism of snRNA 3′ end processing has remained a mystery until the recent discovery of the machinery that mediates this process. In 2005, a complex of 14 subunits (the Integrator complex) associated with RNA Polymerase-II was discovered. The 14subunits were annotated Integrator 1-14 based on their size. The subunits of this complex together were found to facilitate 3′ end processing of snRNA. Identification of the Integrator complex propelled research in the direction of understanding the events of snRNA 3’end processing. Recent studies from our lab confirmed that Integrator subunit (IntS) 9 and 11 together perform the endonucleolytic cleavage of the nascent snRNA 3′ end to generate mature snRNA. However, the role of other members of the Integrator complex remains elusive. Current research in our lab is focused on deciphering the role of each subunit within the Integrator complex This work specifically focuses on elucidating the role of human Integrator subunit 4 (IntS4) and understanding how it facilitates the overall function of the complex. IntS4 has structural similarity with a protein called “Symplekin”, which is part of the mRNA 3’end processing machinery. Symplekin has been thoroughly researched in recent years and structure-function correlation studies in the context of mRNA 3’end processing have reported a scaffold function for Symplekin due to the presence of HEAT repeat motifs in its N-terminus. Based upon the structural similarity between IntS4 and Symplekin, we hypothesized that Integrator subunit 4 may be behaving as a Symplekin-like scaffold molecule that facilitates the interaction between other members of the Integrator Complex. To answer this question, the two important goals of this study were to: 1) identify the region of IntS4, which is important for snRNA 3′ end processing and 2) determine binding partners of IntS4 which promote its function as a scaffold. IntS4 structurally consists of a highly conserved N-terminus with 8 HEAT repeats, followed by a nonconserved C- terminus. A series of siRNA resistant N and C-terminus deletion constructs as well as specific point mutants within its N-terminal HEAT repeats were generated for human IntS4 and, utilizing a snRNA transcriptional readthrough GFP-reporter assay, we tested their ability to rescue misprocessing. This assay revealed a possible scaffold like property of IntS4. To probe IntS4 for interaction partners, we performed co-immunoprecipitation on nuclear extracts of IntS4 expressing stable cell lines and identified IntS3 and IntS5 among other Integrator subunits to be binding partners which facilitate the scaffold like function of hIntS4. These findings have established a critical role for IntS4 in snRNA 3′ end processing, identified that both its N and C termini are essential for its function, and mapped putative interaction domains with other Integrator subunits.

Heregulin -beta 1 directly associates with RhoA via the immunoglobulin -like domain thereby modulating breast cancer metastasis-related properties

Heregulins constitute a family of growth factors belonging to the epidermal growth factor (EGF) family. Breast cancers that overexpress specific members of the EGF receptor family (EGFR, ErbB2, ErbB3, ErbB4) have increased metastatic potential, and Heregulin-β1 (HRGβ1), a ligand for ErbB3 and ErbB4, has also been shown to induce metastasis-related properties in breast cancer cells in vitro. The secreted form of the HRGβ1 is composed of five distinct structural domains, including the N-terminal domain, an immunoglobulin-like domain (IgG-like), a glycosylation domain, an EGF-like domain, and a β1-specific domain. Of these, the EGF-like domain is well characterized for its function in metastasis-related properties as well as its structure. However, the contributions of the other HRGβ1 domains in breast cancer metastasis remains unclear. ^ To investigate this, HRGβ1 proteins with targeted domain deletions were purified and subjected to assays for metastasis-related properties, including aggregation, invasion, activation of EGFR family members, and motility of breast cancer cells. These assays showed that retaining the EGF-like domain of HRGβ1 is important for activation of EGFRs. Interestingly, the HRGβ1 protein lacking the IgG-like domain (NGEB) led to a decrease in breast cancer cell motility, indicating the IgG-like domain modulates cell motility, an important step in cancer metastasis. ^ To understand the underlying mechanisms, I performed protein sequence and structural analysis of HRGβ1 and identified that the IgG-like domain of HRGβ1 shares sequence homology and three-dimensional structural similarity with the IgG-like domain of TRIO. TRIO is a cytoplasmic protein that directly associates with RhoA, a GTPase involved in cell reorganization and cell motility. Therefore, I hypothesized that HRGβ1 may translocate inside the breast cancer cells through receptor mediated endocytosis and bind to RhoA via its IgG-like domain. I show wild type HRGβ1 but not NGEB binds RhoA in vitro and in vivo, leading to RhoA activation. Inhibition of HRG-β1 internalization via endocytosis disrupted HRGβ1 binding to RhoA. Additionally, breast cancer cell motility induced by HRG-β1 is reduced after treatment with inhibitors to both endocytosis and RhoA function, similar to levels seen with NGEB treatment. ^ Thus, in addition to the well-known role of HRGβ1 as an extracellular stimulator of the EGFR family members, HRGβ1 also functions within the cell as a binding partner and activator of RhoA to modulate cancer cell motility. ^