Differential cell type-specific transcriptional regulation of the CYP1A1 gene

Cytochrome P450 1A1 (CYP1A1) monooxygenase plays an important role in the metabolism of environmental pollutants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and halogenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (HAHs). Oxidation of these compounds converts them to the metabolites that subsequently can be conjugated to hydrophilic endogenous entities e.g. glutathione. Derivates generated in this way are water soluble and can be excreted in bile or urine, which is a defense mechanism. Besides detoxification, metabolism by CYP1A1 may lead to deleterious effects since the highly reactive intermediate metabolites are able to react with DNA and thus cause mutagenic effects, as it is in the case of benzo(a) pyrene (B[a]P). CYP1A1 is normally not expressed or expressed at a very low level in the cells but it is inducible by many PAHs and HAHs e.g. by B[a]P or 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Transcriptional activation of the CYP1A1 gene is mediated by aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR), a basic-helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factor. In the absence of a ligand AHR stays predominantly in the cytoplasm. Ligand binding causes translocation of AHR to the nuclear compartment, its heterodimerization with another bHLH protein, the aryl hydrocarbon nuclear translocator (ARNT) and binding of the AHR/ARNT heterodimer to a DNA motif designated dioxin responsive element (DRE). This process leads to the transcriptional activation of the responsive genes containing DREs in their regulatory regions, e.g. that coding for CYP1A1. TCDD is the most potent known agonist of AHR. Since it is not metabolized by the activated enzymes, exposure to this compound leads to a persisting activation of AHR resulting in diverse toxic effects in the organism. To enlighten the molecular mechanisms that mediate the toxicity of xenobiotics like TCDD and related compounds, the AHR-dependent regulation of the CYP1A1 gene was investigated in two cell lines: human cervix carcinoma (HeLa) and mouse hepatoma (Hepa). Study of AHR activation and its consequence concerning expression of the CYP1A1 enzyme confirmed the TCDD-dependent formation of the AHR/ARNT complex on DRE leading to an increase of the CYP1A1 transcription in Hepa cells. In contrast, in HeLa cells formation of the AHR/ARNT heterodimer and binding of a protein complex containing AHR and ARNT to DRE occurred naturally in the absence of TCDD. Moreover, treatment with TCDD did not affect the AHR/ARNT dimer formation and binding of these proteins to DRE in these cells. Even though the constitutive complex on DRE exists in HeLa, transcription of the CYP1A1 gene was not increased. Furthermore, the CYP1A1 level in HeLa cells remained unchanged in the presence of TCDD suggesting repressional mechanism of the AHR complex function which may hinder the TCDD-dependent mechanisms in these cells. Similar to the native, the mouse CYP1A1-driven reporter constructs containing different regulatory elements were not inducible by TCDD in HeLa cells, which supported a presence of cell type specific trans-acting factor in HeLa cells able to repress both the native CYP1A1 and CYP1A1-driven reporter genes rather than species specific differences between CYP1A1 genes of human and rodent origin. The different regulation of the AHR-mediated transcription of CYP1A1 gene in Hepa and HeLa cells was further explored in order to elucidate two aspects of the AHR function: (I) mechanism involved in the activation of AHR in the absence of exogenous ligand and (II) factor that repress function of the exogenous ligand-independent AHR/ARNT complex. Since preliminary studies revealed that the activation of PKA causes an activation of AHR in Hepa cells in the absence of TCDD, the PKA-dependent signalling pathway was the proposed endogenous mechanism leading to the TCDD-independent activation of AHR in HeLa cells. Activation of PKA by forskolin or db-cAMP as well as inhibition of the kinase by H89 in both HeLa and Hepa cells did not lead to alterations in the AHR interaction with ARNT in the absence of TCDD and had no effect on binding of these proteins to DRE. Moreover, the modulators of PKA did not influence the CYP1A1 activity in these cells in the presence and in the absence of TCDD. Thus, an involvement of PKA in the regulation of the CYP1A1 Gen in HeLa cells was not evaluated in the course of this study. Repression of genes by transcription factors bound to their responsive elements in the absence of ligands has been described for nuclear receptors. These receptors interact with protein complex containing histone deacetylase (HDAC), enzyme responsible for the repressional effect. Thus, a participation of histone deacetylase in the transcriptional modulation of CYP1A1 gene by the constitutively DNA-bound AHR/ARNT complex was supposed. Inhibition of the HDAC activity by trichostatin A (TSA) or sodium butyrate (NaBu) led to an increase of the CYP1A1 transcription in the presence but not in the absence of TCDD in Hepa and HeLa cells. Since amount of the AHR and ARNT proteins remained unchanged upon treatment of the cells with TSA or NaBu, the transcriptional upregulation of CYP1A1 gene was not due to an increased expression of the regulatory proteins. These findings strongly suggest an involvement of HDAC in the repression of the CYP1A1 gene. Similar to the native human CYP1A1 also the mouse CYP1A1-driven reporter gene transfected into HeLa cells was repressed by histone deacetylase since the presence of TSA or NaBu led to an increase in the reporter activity. Induction of reporter gene did not require a presence of the promoter or negative regulatory regions of the CYP1A1 gene. A promoter-distal fragment containing three DREs together with surrounding sequences was sufficient to mediate the effects of the HDAC inhibitors suggesting that the AHR/ARNT binding to its specific DNA recognition site may be important for the CYP1A1 repression. Histone deacetylase is recruited to the specific genes by corepressors, proteins that bind to the transcription factors and interact with other members of the HDAC complex. Western blot analyses revealed a presence of HDAC1 and the corepressors mSin3A (mammalian homolog of yeast Sin3) and SMRT (silencing mediator for retinoid and thyroid hormone receptor) in both cell types, while the corepressor NCoR (nuclear receptor corepressor) was expressed exclusively in HeLa cells. Thus the high inducibility of CYP1A1 in Hepa cells may be due to the absence of NCoR in these cells in contrast to the non-responsive HeLa cells, where the presence of NCoR would support repression of the gene by histone deacetylase. This hypothesis was verified in reporter gene experiments where expression constructs coding for the particular members of the HDAC complex were cotransfected in Hepa cells together with the TCDD-inducible reporter constructs containing the CYP1A1 regulatory sequences. An overexpression of NCoR however did not decrease but instead led to a slight increase of the reporter gene activity in the cells. The expected inhibition was observed solely in the case of SMRT that slightly reduced constitutive and TCDD-induced reporter gene activity. A simultaneous expression of NCoR and SMRT shown no further effects and coexpression of HDAC1 with the two corepressors did not alter this situation. Thus, additional factors that are likely involved in the repression of CYP1A1 gene by HDAC complex remained to be identified. Taking together, characterisation of an exogenous ligand independent AHR/ARNT complex on DRE in HeLa cells that repress transcription of the CYP1A1 gene creates a model system enabling investigation of endogenous processes involved in the regulation of AHR function. This study implicates HDAC-mediated repression of CYP1A1 gene that contributes to the xenobiotic-induced expression in a tissue specific manner. Elucidation of these processes gains an insight into mechanisms leading to deleterious effects of TCDD and related compounds.

Regulation of the {\it neu\/} oncogene by the GTG element binding proteins

A previous study in our lab has shown that the transforming neu oncogene ($neu\sp\*$) was able to initiate signals that lead to repression of the neu promoter activity. Further deletion mapping of the neu promoter identified that the GTG element (GGTGGGGGGG), located between $-$243 and $-$234 relative to the translation initiation codon, mediates such a repression effect. I have characterized the four major protein complexes that interact with this GTG element. In situ UV-crosslinking indicated that each complex contains proteins of different molecular weights. The slowest migrating complex (S) contain Sp1 or Sp1-related proteins, as indicated by the data that both have similar molecular weights, similar properties in two affinity chromatographies, and both are antigenically related in gel shift analysis. Methylation protection and interference experiments demonstrated these complexes bind to overlapping regions of the GTG element. Mutations within the GTG element that either abrogate or enhance complex S binding conferred on the neu promoter with lower activity, indicating that positive factors other than Sp1 family proteins also contribute to neu promoter activity. A mutated version (mutant 4) of the GTG element, which binds mainly the fastest migrating complex that contains a very small protein of 26-kDa, can repress transcription when fused to a heterologous promoter. Further deletion and mutation studies suggested that this GTG mutant and its binding protein(s) may cooperate with some DNA element within a heterologous promoter to lock the basal transcription machinery; such a repressor might also repress neu transcription by interfering with the DNA binding of other transactivators. Our results suggest that both positive and negative trans-acting factors converge their binding sites on the GTG element and confer combinatorial control on the neu gene expression. ^

Evolution of cis-regulatory elements in a repetitive sequence adjacent to a sea urchin aboral ectoderm -specific gene

The creation, preservation, and degeneration of cis-regulatory elements controlling developmental gene expression are fundamental genome-level evolutionary processes about which little is known. In this study, critical differences in cis-regulatory elements controlling the expression of the sea urchin aboral ectoderm-specific spec genes were identified and explored. In genomes of species within the Strongylocentrotidae family, multiple copies of a repetitive sequence element termed RSR were present, but RSRs were not detected in genomes of species outside Strongylocentrotidae. RSRs are invariably associated with spec genes, and in Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, the spec2a RSR functioned as a transcriptional enhancer displaying greater activity than RSRs from the spec1 or spec2c paralogs. Single base-pair differences at two cis-regulatory elements within the spec2a RSR greatly increased the binding affinities of four transcription factors: SpCCAAT-binding factor at one element and SpOtx, SpGoosecoid, and SpGATA-E at another. The cis-regulatory elements to which SpCCAAT-binding factor, SpOtx, SpGoosecoid, and SpGATA-E bound were recent evolutionary acquisitions that could act either to activate or repress transcription, depending on the cell type. These elements were found in the spec2a RSR ortholog in Strongylocentrotus pallidus but not in the RSR orthologs of Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis or Hemicentrotus pulcherrimus. These results indicate that spec genes exhibit a dynamic pattern of cis-regulatory element evolution while stabilizing selection preserves their aboral ectoderm expression domain. ^

The inv(16) encodes an acute myeloid leukemia 1 transcriptional corepressor

The inv(16) is one of the most frequent chromosomal translocations associated with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The inv(16) fusion protein acts by dominantly interfering with AML-1/core binding factor β-dependent transcriptional regulation. Here we demonstrate that the inv(16) fusion protein cooperates with AML-1B to repress transcription. This cooperativity requires the ability of the translocation fusion protein to bind to AML-1B. Mutational analysis and cell fractionation experiments indicated that the inv(16) fusion protein acts in the nucleus and that repression occurs when the complex is bound to DNA. We also found that the inv(16) fusion protein binds to AML-1B when it is associated with the mSin3A corepressor. An AML-1B mutant that fails to bind mSin3A was impaired in cooperative repression, suggesting that the inv(16) fusion protein acts through mSin3 and possibly other corepressors. Finally, we demonstrate that the C-terminal portion of the inv(16) fusion protein contains a repression domain, suggesting a molecular mechanism for AML-1-mediated repression.

Corepressor SMRT binds the BTB/POZ repressing domain of the LAZ3/BCL6 oncoprotein

The LAZ3/BCL6 (lymphoma-associated zinc finger 3/B cell lymphomas 6) gene frequently is altered in non-Hodgkin lymphomas. It encodes a sequence-specific DNA binding transcriptional repressor that contains a conserved N-terminal domain, termed BTB/POZ (bric-à-brac tramtrack broad complex/pox viruses and zinc fingers). Using a yeast two-hybrid screen, we show here that the LAZ3/BCL6 BTB/POZ domain interacts with the SMRT (silencing mediator of retinoid and thyroid receptor) protein. SMRT originally was identified as a corepressor of unliganded retinoic acid and thyroid receptors and forms a repressive complex with a mammalian homolog of the yeast transcriptional repressor SIN3 and the HDAC-1 histone deacetylase. Protein binding assays demonstrate that the LAZ3/BCL6 BTB/POZ domain directly interacts with SMRT in vitro. Furthermore, DNA-bound LAZ3/BCL6 recruits SMRT in vivo, and both overexpressed proteins completely colocalize in nuclear dots. Finally, overexpression of SMRT enhances the LAZ3/BCL6-mediated repression. These results define SMRT as a corepressor of LAZ3/BCL6 and suggest that LAZ3/BCL6 and nuclear hormone receptors repress transcription through shared mechanisms involving SMRT recruitment and histone deacetylation.

Silencer elements controlling the B29 (Igβ) promoter are neither promoter- nor cell-type-specific

The murine B29 (Igβ) promoter is B cell specific and contains essential SP1, ETS, OCT, and Ikaros motifs. Flanking 5′ DNA sequences inhibit B29 promoter activity, suggesting this region contains silencer elements. Two adjacent 5′ DNA segments repress transcription by the murine B29 promoter in a position- and orientation-independent manner, analogous to known silencers. Both these 5′ segments also inhibit transcription by several heterologous promoters in B cells, including mb-1, c-fos, and human B29. These 5′ segments also inhibit transcription by the c-fos promoter in T cells suggesting they are not B cell-specific elements. DNase I footprint analyses show an approximately 70-bp protected region overlapping the boundary between the two negative regulatory DNA segments and corresponding to binding sites for at least two different DNA-binding proteins. Within this footprint, two unrelated 30-bp cis-acting DNA motifs (designated TOAD and FROG) function as position- and orientation-independent silencers when located directly 5′ of the murine B29 promoter. These two silencer motifs act cooperatively to restrict the transcriptional activity of the B29 promoter. Neither of these motifs resembles any known silencers. Mutagenesis of the TOAD and FROG motifs in their respective 5′ DNA segments eliminates the silencing activity of these upstream regions, indicating these two motifs as the principal B29 silencer elements within these regions.

Conserved interaction between distinct Krüppel-associated box domains and the transcriptional intermediary factor 1 β

The Krüppel-associated box (KRAB) domain, originally identified as a 75-aa sequence present in numerous Krüppel-type zinc-finger proteins, is a potent DNA-binding-dependent transcriptional repression domain that is believed to function through interaction with the transcriptional intermediary factor 1 (TIF1) β. On the basis of sequence comparison and phylogenetic analysis, we have recently defined three distinct subfamilies of KRAB domains. In the present study, individual members of each subfamily were tested for transcriptional repression and interaction with TIF1β and two other closely related family members (TIF1α and TIF1γ). All KRAB variants were shown, (i) to repress transcription when targeted to DNA through fusion to a heterologous DNA-binding domain in mammalian cells, and (ii) to interact specifically with TIF1β, but not with TIF1α or TIF1γ. Taken together, these results implicate TIF1β as a common transcriptional corepressor for the three distinct subfamilies of KRAB zinc-finger proteins and suggest a high degree of conservation in the molecular mechanism underlying their transcriptional repression activity.

A transcriptional corepressor of Stat1 with an essential LXXLL signature motif

Interferon (IFN) treatment induces tyrosine phosphorylation and nuclear translocation of Stat1 (signal transducer and activator of transcription) to activate or repress transcription. We report here that a member of the protein inhibitor of activated STAT family, PIASy, is a transcriptional corepressor of Stat1. IFN treatment triggers the in vivo interaction of Stat1 with PIASy, which represses Stat1-mediated gene activation without blocking the DNA binding activity of Stat1. An LXXLL coregulator signature motif located near the NH2 terminus of PIASy, although not involved in the PIASy–Stat1 interaction, is required for the transrepression activity of PIASy. Our studies identify PIASy as a transcriptional corepressor of Stat1 and suggest that different PIAS proteins may repress STAT-mediated gene activation through distinct mechanisms.

Corepressor-induced organization and assembly of the biotin repressor: A model for allosteric activation of a transcriptional regulator

The Escherichia coli biotin repressor binds to the biotin operator to repress transcription of the biotin biosynthetic operon. In this work, a structure determined by x-ray crystallography of a complex of the repressor bound to biotin, which also functions as an activator of DNA binding by the biotin repressor (BirA), is described. In contrast to the monomeric aporepressor, the complex is dimeric with an interface composed in part of an extended β-sheet. Model building, coupled with biochemical data, suggests that this is the dimeric form of BirA that binds DNA. Segments of three surface loops that are disordered in the aporepressor structure are located in the interface region of the dimer and exhibit greater order than was observed in the aporepressor structure. The results suggest that the corepressor of BirA causes a disorder-to-order transition that is a prerequisite to repressor dimerization and DNA binding.

Histone deacetylase-dependent transcriptional repression by pRB in yeast occurs independently of interaction through the LXCXE binding cleft

We have developed a yeast model system to address transcriptional repression by the retinoblastoma protein (pRB). When fused to the DNA-binding domain of Gal4p (DB-pRB), pRB can repress transcription of reporter genes containing Gal4p binding sites; the histone deacetylase activity encoded by yeast RPD3 is required for DB-pRB repression. Mutation of the LXCXE binding cleft in pRB, a region reported to be required for histone deacetylase recruitment, does not interfere with pRB-mediated repression. From these findings based on yeast experiments, we surmise that the small pocket region of pRB must contain an additional domain that confers histone deacetylase-dependent transcriptional repression. This hypothesis was verified by experiments examining pRB-dependent histone deacetylase association in mammalian cells. In addition to RPD3, repression by pRB in yeast requires MSI1, an ortholog of RbAp48, but not SIN3 or SAP30. By comparing the genetic requirements of DB-pRB repression in yeast to those of other DB-repressor fusions, we can suggest a mechanism by which pRB recruits histone deacetylase activity.

BCL-6, a POZ/zinc-finger protein, is a sequence-specific transcriptional repressor.

Approximately 40% of diffuse large cell lymphoma are associated with chromosomal translocations that deregulate the expression of the BCL6 gene by juxtaposing heterologous promoters to the BCL-6 coding domain. The BCL6 gene encodes a 95-kDa protein containing six C-terminal zinc-finger motifs and an N-terminal POZ domain, suggesting that it may function as a transcription factor. By using a DNA sequence selected for its ability to bind recombinant BCL-6 in vitro, we show here that BCL-6 is present in DNA-binding complexes in nuclear extracts from various B-cell lines. In transient transfectin experiments, BCL6 can repress transcription from promoters linked to its DNA target sequence and this activity is dependent upon specific DNA-binding and the presence of an intact N-terminal half of the protein. We demonstrate that this part of the BCL6 molecule contains an autonomous transrepressor domain and that two noncontiguous regions, including the POZ motif, mediate maximum transrepressive activity. These results indicate that the BCL-6 protein can function as a sequence-specific transcriptional repressor and have implications for the role of BCL6 in normal lymphoid development and lymphomagenesis.

A potent transrepression domain in the retinoblastoma protein induces a cell cycle arrest when bound to E2F sites.

An intact T/E1A-binding domain (the pocket) is necessary, but not sufficient, for the retinoblastoma protein (RB) to bind to DNA-protein complexes containing E2F and for RB to induce a G1/S block. Indirect evidence suggests that the binding of RB to E2F may, in addition to inhibiting E2F transactivation function, generate a complex capable of functioning as a transrepressor. Here we show that a chimera in which the E2F1 transactivation domain was replaced with the RB pocket could, in a DNA-binding and pocket-dependent manner, mimic the ability of RB to repress transcription and induce a cell cycle arrest. In contrast, a transdominant negative E2F1 mutant that is capable of blocking E2F-dependent transactivation did not. Fusion of the RB pocket to a heterologous DNA-binding domain unrelated to E2F likewise generated a transrepressor protein when scored against a suitable reporter. These results suggest that growth suppression by RB is due, at least in part, to transrepression mediated by the pocket domain bound to certain promoters via E2F.

Repression by SSN6-TUP1 is directed by MIG1, a repressor/activator protein.

The SSN6-TUP1 protein complex represses transcription of diversely regulated genes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Here we present evidence that MIG1, a zinc-finger protein in the EGR1/Zif268 family, recruits SSN6-TUP1 to glucose-repressed promoters. DNA-bound LexA-MIG1 represses transcription of a target gene in glucose-grown cells, and repression requires SSN6 and TUP1. We also show that MIG1 and SSN6 fusion proteins interact in the two-hybrid system. Unexpectedly, we found that LexA-MIG1 activates transcription strongly in an ssn6 mutant and weakly in a tup1 mutant. Finally, LexA-MIG1 does not repress transcription in glucose-deprived cells, and MIG1 is differentially phosphorylated in response to glucose availability. We suggest a role for phosphorylation in regulating repression.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors repress macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) expression by targeting MIF gene transcription through a local chromatin deacetylation.

The cytokine macrophage migration inhibitory factor plays a central role in inflammation, cell proliferation and tumorigenesis. Moreover, macrophage migration inhibitory factor levels correlate with tumor aggressiveness and metastatic potential. Histone deacetylase inhibitors are potent antitumor agents recently introduced in the clinic. Therefore, we hypothesized that macrophage migration inhibitory factor would represent a target of histone deacetylase inhibitors. Confirming our hypothesis, we report that histone deacetylase inhibitors of various chemical classes strongly inhibited macrophage migration inhibitory factor expression in a broad range of cell lines, in primary cells and in vivo. Nuclear run on, transient transfection with macrophage migration inhibitory factor promoter reporter constructs and transduction with macrophage migration inhibitory factor expressing adenovirus demonstrated that trichostatin A (a prototypical histone deacetylase inhibitor) inhibited endogenous, but not episomal, MIF gene transcription. Interestingly, trichostatin A induced a local and specific deacetylation of macrophage migration inhibitory factor promoter-associated H3 and H4 histones which did not affect chromatin accessibility but was associated with an impaired recruitment of RNA polymerase II and Sp1 and CREB transcription factors required for basal MIF gene transcription. Altogether, this study describes a new molecular mechanism by which histone deacetylase inhibitors inhibit MIF gene expression, and suggests that macrophage migration inhibitory factor inhibition by histone deacetylase inhibitors may contribute to the antitumorigenic effects of histone deacetylase inhibitors.

EWS-FLI1 Utilizes Divergent Chromatin Remodeling Mechanisms to Directly Activate or Repress Enhancer Elements in Ewing Sarcoma.

The aberrant transcription factor EWS-FLI1 drives Ewing sarcoma, but its molecular function is not completely understood. We find that EWS-FLI1 reprograms gene regulatory circuits in Ewing sarcoma by directly inducing or repressing enhancers. At GGAA repeat elements, which lack evolutionary conservation and regulatory potential in other cell types, EWS-FLI1 multimers induce chromatin opening and create de novo enhancers that physically interact with target promoters. Conversely, EWS-FLI1 inactivates conserved enhancers containing canonical ETS motifs by displacing wild-type ETS transcription factors. These divergent chromatin-remodeling patterns repress tumor suppressors and mesenchymal lineage regulators while activating oncogenes and potential therapeutic targets, such as the kinase VRK1. Our findings demonstrate how EWS-FLI1 establishes an oncogenic regulatory program governing both tumor survival and differentiation.