Transcriptional repression by the Drosophila giant protein: cis element positioning provides an alternative means of interpreting an effector gradient.

Early developmental patterning of the Drosophila embryo is driven by the activities of a diverse set of maternally and zygotically derived transcription factors, including repressors encoded by gap genes such as Krüppel, knirps, giant and the mesoderm-specific snail. The mechanism of repression by gap transcription factors is not well understood at a molecular level. Initial characterization of these transcription factors suggests that they act as short-range repressors, interfering with the activity of enhancer or promoter elements 50 to 100 bp away. To better understand the molecular mechanism of short-range repression, we have investigated the properties of the Giant gap protein. We tested the ability of endogenous Giant to repress when bound close to the transcriptional initiation site and found that Giant effectively represses a heterologous promoter when binding sites are located at -55 bp with respect to the start of transcription. Consistent with its role as a short-range repressor, as the binding sites are moved to more distal locations, repression is diminished. Rather than exhibiting a sharp 'step-function' drop-off in activity, however, repression is progressively restricted to areas of highest Giant concentration. Less than a two-fold difference in Giant protein concentration is sufficient to determine a change in transcriptional status of a target gene. This effect demonstrates that Giant protein gradients can be differentially interpreted by target promoters, depending on the exact location of the Giant binding sites within the gene. Thus, in addition to binding site affinity and number, cis element positioning within a promoter can affect the response of a gene to a repressor gradient. We also demonstrate that a chimeric Gal4-Giant protein lacking the basic/zipper domain can specifically repress reporter genes, suggesting that the Giant effector domain is an autonomous repression domain.

[1]  C. Nüsslein-Volhard,et al.  Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila , 1980, Nature.

[2]  C. Nüsslein-Volhard,et al.  Genes affecting the segmental subdivision of the Drosophila embryo. , 1985, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[3]  N. Perrimon,et al.  Region-specific defects in l(1)giant embryos of Drosophila melanogaster. , 1987, Developmental biology.

[4]  R. Lehmann,et al.  Determination of anteroposterior polarity in Drosophila. , 1987, Science.

[5]  C. Nüsslein-Volhard,et al.  The bicoid protein determines position in the Drosophila embryo in a concentration-dependent manner , 1988, Cell.

[6]  Wolfgang Driever,et al.  Determination of spatial domains of zygotic gene expression in the Drosophila embryo by the affinity of binding sites for the bicoid morphogen , 1989, Nature.

[7]  L. Wolpert.  Positional information revisited. , 1989, Development.

[8]  K. Struhl,et al.  The gradient morphogen bicoid is a concentration-dependent transcriptional activator , 1989, Cell.

[9]  S. McKnight,et al.  Scissors-grip model for DNA recognition by a family of leucine zipper proteins. , 1989, Science.

[10]  S. Carroll,et al.  The zygotic control of Drosophila pair-rule gene expression. I. A search for new pair-rule regulatory loci. , 1989, Development.

[11]  V. Pirrotta,et al.  Interactions of the Drosophila gap gene giant with maternal and zygotic pattern-forming genes. , 1991, Development.

[12]  D Kosman,et al.  The dorsal morphogen gradient regulates the mesoderm determinant twist in early Drosophila embryos. , 1991, Genes & development.

[13]  M. Levine,et al.  Regulation of a segmentation stripe by overlapping activators and repressors in the Drosophila embryo. , 1991, Science.

[14]  M. Levine,et al.  Mutually repressive interactions between the gap genes giant and Krüppel define middle body regions of the Drosophila embryo. , 1991, Development.

[15]  H. Jäckle,et al.  Concentration-dependent transcriptional activation or repression by Krüppel from a single binding site , 1991, Nature.

[16]  M. Levine,et al.  Transcriptional regulation of a pair-rule stripe in Drosophila. , 1991, Genes & development.

[17]  A. Courey,et al.  The same dorsal binding site mediates both activation and repression in a context‐dependent manner. , 1992, The EMBO journal.

[18]  V. Pirrotta,et al.  The giant gene of Drosophila encodes a b-ZIP DNA-binding protein that regulates the expression of other segmentation gap genes. , 1992, Development.

[19]  M. Levine,et al.  Regulation of even‐skipped stripe 2 in the Drosophila embryo. , 1992, The EMBO journal.

[20]  M. Levine,et al.  The bicoid and dorsal morphogens use a similar strategy to make stripes in the Drosophila embryo , 1992, Journal of Cell Science.

[21]  B. Thisse,et al.  Dorsoventral development of the Drosophila embryo is controlled by a cascade of transcriptional regulators. , 1992, Development (Cambridge, England). Supplement.

[22]  M. Levine,et al.  Individual dorsal morphogen binding sites mediate activation and repression in the Drosophila embryo. , 1992, The EMBO journal.

[23]  Alexander D. Johnson,et al.  Ssn6-Tup1 is a general repressor of transcription in yeast , 1992, Cell.

[24]  Michael Levine,et al.  Binding affinities and cooperative interactions with bHLH activators delimit threshold responses to the dorsal gradient morphogen , 1993, Cell.

[25]  Stephen T. Crews,et al.  CNS midline enhancers of the Drosophila slit and Toll genes , 1993, Mechanisms of Development.

[26]  M. Levine,et al.  Spacing ensures autonomous expression of different stripe enhancers in the even-skipped promoter. , 1993, Development.

[27]  C. Rushlow,et al.  Conversion of a silencer into an enhancer: evidence for a co‐repressor in dorsal‐mediated repression in Drosophila. , 1993, The EMBO journal.

[28]  M. Levine,et al.  Short-range repression permits multiple enhancers to function autonomously within a complex promoter. , 1994, Genes & development.

[29]  Raman Nambudripad,et al.  The ancient regulatory-protein family of WD-repeat proteins , 1994, Nature.

[30]  S. Roth,et al.  The global transcriptional regulators, SSN6 and TUP1, play distinct roles in the establishment of a repressive chromatin structure. , 1994, Genes & development.

[31]  R. Brent,et al.  Specific DNA recognition and intersite spacing are critical for action of the bicoid morphogen , 1994, Molecular and cellular biology.

[32]  M. Levine,et al.  Multiple modes of dorsal‐bHLH transcriptional synergy in the Drosophila embryo. , 1995, The EMBO journal.

[33]  홀덴 데이비드윌리암,et al.  Identification of genes , 1995 .

[34]  T. Maniatis,et al.  Virus induction of human IFNβ gene expression requires the assembly of an enhanceosome , 1995, Cell.

[35]  M. Wahi,et al.  Identification of genes required for alpha 2 repression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 1995, Genetics.

[36]  The activation domain of GAL4 protein mediates cooperative promoter binding with general transcription factors in vivo. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  Paul Lieberman,et al.  A general mechanism for transcriptional synergy by eukaryotic activators , 1995, Nature.

[38]  M. Wahi,et al.  Identification of Genes Required for a2 Repression in Saccharomyces cereviSiae , 1995 .

[39]  J. M. Boyd,et al.  Molecular cloning and characterization of a cellular phosphoprotein that interacts with a conserved C-terminal domain of adenovirus E1A involved in negative modulation of oncogenic transformation. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  M. Levine,et al.  The gap protein knirps mediates both quenching and direct repression in the Drosophila embryo. , 1996, The EMBO journal.

[41]  H. Jäckle,et al.  From gradients to stripes in Drosophila embryogenesis: filling in the gaps. , 1996, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[42]  M. Levine,et al.  The eve stripe 2 enhancer employs multiple modes of transcriptional synergy. , 1996, Development.

[43]  M. Levine,et al.  Short-range transcriptional repressors mediate both quenching and direct repression within complex loci in Drosophila. , 1996, Genes & development.

[44]  D. Edmondson,et al.  Repression domain of the yeast global repressor Tup1 interacts directly with histones H3 and H4. , 1996, Genes & development.

[45]  M. Levine,et al.  Long-range repression in the Drosophila embryo. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[46]  M. Tanaka,et al.  Modulation of promoter occupancy by cooperative DNA binding and activation-domain function is a major determinant of transcriptional regulation by activators in vivo. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[47]  M. Levine,et al.  Transcriptional repression in development. , 1996, Current opinion in cell biology.

[48]  N. Perrimon,et al.  Zygotic lethal mutations with maternal effect phenotypes in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Loci on the second and third chromosomes identified by P-element-induced mutations. , 1996, Genetics.

[49]  M. Levine,et al.  hairy mediates dominant repression in the Drosophila embryo , 1997, The EMBO journal.

[50]  D Kosman,et al.  Concentration-dependent patterning by an ectopic expression domain of the Drosophila gap gene knirps. , 1997, Development.

[51]  M. Redd,et al.  A Complex Composed of Tup1 and Ssn6 Represses Transcription in Vitro* , 1997, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[52]  Z. Paroush,et al.  Conversion of dorsal from an activator to a repressor by the global corepressor Groucho. , 1997, Genes & development.

[53]  M. Levine,et al.  Interaction of short-range repressors with Drosophila CtBP in the embryo. , 1998, Science.

[54]  N. Patel,et al.  Functional analysis of eve stripe 2 enhancer evolution in Drosophila: rules governing conservation and change. , 1998, Development.

[55]  M. Grunstein,et al.  Transcriptional repression by UME6 involves deacetylation of lysine 5 of histone H4 by RPD3 , 1998, Nature.

[56]  S. Parkhurst.  Groucho: making its Marx as a transcriptional co-repressor. , 1998, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[57]  S. Parkhurst,et al.  Drosophila CtBP: a Hairy‐interacting protein required for embryonic segmentation and Hairy‐mediated transcriptional repression , 1998, The EMBO journal.

[58]  S. Small,et al.  Two distinct mechanisms for differential positioning of gene expression borders involving the Drosophila gap protein giant. , 1998, Development.

[59]  M. Levine,et al.  dCtBP mediates transcriptional repression by Knirps, Krüppel and Snail in the Drosophila embryo , 1998, The EMBO journal.

[60]  J. Manley,et al.  Even-skipped Represses Transcription by Binding TATA Binding Protein and Blocking the TFIID-TATA Box Interaction , 1998, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[61]  Masatomo Kobayashi,et al.  Two Distinct Types of Repression Domain in Engrailed: One Interacts with the Groucho Corepressor and Is Preferentially Active on Integrated Target Genes , 1998, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[62]  J. Reinitz,et al.  Rapid preparation of a panel of polyclonal antibodies to Drosophila segmentation proteins , 1998, Development Genes and Evolution.

[63]  J. Turner,et al.  Cloning and characterization of mCtBP2, a co‐repressor that associates with basic Krüppel‐like factor and other mammalian transcriptional regulators , 1998, The EMBO journal.