This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lutterbach, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hiebert, S. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lutterbach, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hiebert, S. W.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Mol Cell Biol, June 1998, p. 3604-3611, Vol. 18, No. 6
0270-7306/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

The MYND Motif Is Required for Repression of Basal Transcription from the Multidrug Resistance 1 Promoter by the t(8;21) Fusion Protein

Bart Lutterbach,1 Daxi Sun,2 John Schuetz,2 and Scott W. Hiebert1,*

Department of Biochemistry and the Vanderbilt Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee 37027,1 and Department of Pharmaceutical Science, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee 381052

Received 2 December 1997/Returned for modification 20 February 1998/Accepted 24 March 1998

    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Chromosomal translocations in acute leukemia that affect the AML-1/CBFbeta transcription factor complex create dominant inhibitory proteins. However, the mechanisms by which these proteins act remain obscure. Here we demonstrate that the multidrug resistance 1 (MDR-1) promoter is a target for AML/ETO transcriptional repression. This repression is of basal, not activated, expression from the MDR-1 promoter and thus represents a new mechanism for AML/ETO function. We have defined two domains in AML/ETO that are required for repression of basal transcription from the MDR-1 promoter: a hydrophobic heptad repeat (HHR) motif and a conserved zinc finger (ZnF) domain termed the MYND domain. The HHR mediates formation of AML/ETO homodimers and AML/ETO-ETO heterodimers. Single serine substitutions at conserved cysteine residues within the predicted ZnFs also abrogate transcriptional repression. Finally, we observe that AML/ETO can also inhibit Ets-1 activation of the MDR-1 promoter, indicating that AML/ETO can disrupt both basal and Ets-1-dependent transcription. The fortuitous inhibition of MDR-1 expression in t(8;21)-containing leukemias may contribute to the favorable response of these patients to chemotherapeutic drugs.

    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

AML-1 is the direct or indirect target of multiple chromosomal translocations in acute B-cell and myeloid leukemia. t(8;21) and inv(16) disrupt AML-1 and its heterodimeric partner, CBFbeta , respectively, and are the most frequent translocations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). These translocations are found in the leukemic blasts of up to 30% of patients with AML with discernable translocations (28, 37). t(12;21) also disrupts AML-1 in B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemias of children (43). Thus, AML-1 is one of the most frequently mutated genes in human leukemia. Interestingly, patients containing these translocations uniformly respond better to chemotherapy, with an increased 5-year survival rate (3, 9, 21, 42).

t(8;21)(q22;q22) fuses the N-terminal 177 amino acids (aa) of AML-1 to the C-terminal 575 aa of ETO to form the chimeric AML/ETO protein (36). An analysis of the structure of AML/ETO reveals that the DNA binding runt domain of AML-1 is not altered but that the transactivation domain of AML-1 has been replaced by ETO. This led to the hypothesis that the fusion protein acts as a dominant inhibitor of AML-1B function (32, 34). AML/ETO interfered with AML-1B-activated transcription of the T-cell receptor beta  (TCRbeta ) enhancer, and the interleukin 3 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) promoters, but did not affect the basal expression of these promoters (13, 32, 45). The dominant inhibitory action of the t(8;21) and the inv(16) fusion proteins has been confirmed biologically by expressing these fusion proteins during murine development (4, 48). These mice display the same phenotype as that displayed by AML-1 (and CBFbeta -)-deficient mice (39, 46).

Multiple mechanisms have been proposed for transcriptional repression, including competition for binding sites and interaction with surrounding factors, with corepressors, or with the basal transcriptional machinery (7, 18). Because AML/ETO acts at substoichiometric levels, AML/ETO interference with AML-1B-mediated transactivation is unlikely to be due to competition for DNA binding sites (34). Moreover, the fusion protein failed to repress basal expression from the TCRbeta enhancer-simian virus 40 early chimeric promoter, suggesting that the fusion protein does not interact with the basal machinery to globally repress transcription (34). C-terminal ETO sequences are required for function, suggesting that the fusion protein may contact other factors that mediate transcriptional interference (26, 34).

ETO contains four domains that have homology to the Drosophila protein nervy (12). Overall, ETO and nervy are 30% identical, but these four regions display 50 to 55% identity. Two of these domains are putative protein interaction domains, an amphipathic helix that contains a hydrophobic heptad repeat (HHR) (33) and the MYND domain that contains two putative zinc fingers (ZnFs) (17). In AML/ETO, deletion of the C-terminal 283 aa, including the ZnFs, the HHR, and a third domain of unknown function (the nervy domain), inactivates the protein's ability to inhibit AML-1B-dependent transcription (26).

The development of drug-resistant neoplastic cells during chemotherapeutic regimens is a major determinant in treating many types of cancer, including acute leukemia (1). MDR-1 encodes a transmembrane "pump," P-glycoprotein, that extrudes anthracyclines, epipodophyllotoxins, and vinca alkaloids, drugs which are commonly used to treat AML (1). A subset of de novo AMLs are MDR-1 negative (40). These MDR-1-negative AMLs have recently been linked to the t(8;21) translocation found primarily in adult cases of AML (25), and for these cases, MDR-1 could not be detected (40). Thus, the great majority of t(8;21) cases fail to express MDR-1, and this correlates with a better response to therapy.

Previously, we identified an AML-1 binding site adjacent to an Ets-1 binding site within the first 137 bp upstream of the MDR-1 transcriptional start site. AML-1B can bind this site and stimulate expression of MDR-1 three- to fourfold (42a). In this report, we identified MDR-1, a gene that is expressed in many cell types (including myeloid cells), as a target for AML/ETO repression. Our results also indicate that this repression is not simply the result of AML/ETO interfering with AML-1B function. We analyzed in detail the domains of ETO that mediate repression and found that both the HHR and the ZnF domains are required. Individual serine substitutions at either of two conserved cysteine residues in the putative ZnFs of the MYND domain resulted in similar abrogations of transcriptional repression. We found that AML/ETO can form homodimers as well as heterodimers with ETO and that the HHR motif mediates this dimerization. Finally, we observed that AML/ETO can block Ets-1-mediated transactivation of the MDR-1 promoter. Thus, MDR-1 may represent a fortuitous physiological target for AML/ETO because myeloid leukemias with t(8;21) rarely express MDR-1, a characteristic which is correlated with an improved response to therapy (40).

    MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Cell culture. C33A cells and Cos-7 cells were maintained in Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (BioWhittaker Inc, Walkersville, Md.) containing 10% fetal calf serum, 50 U of penicillin per ml, 50 µg of streptomycin per ml, and 2 mM L-glutamine (all from BioWhittaker). NIH 3T3 cells were maintained in DMEM with 10% calf serum, antibiotics, and L-glutamine, and HEL cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 (BioWhittaker) containing 10% fetal calf serum, antibiotics, and L-glutamine.

Plasmid constructions. Deletions and point mutations in AML/ETO were generated in pBluescript ETO by oligonucleotide-mediated mutagenesis (24). Deletions include the TAF homology domain (residues 277 to 344 in AML/ETO), the HHR (residues 500 to 520), the nervy domain (residues 594 to 636), and the ZnF domain (residues 663 to 700). After sequence analysis to confirm that the mutations were present, the HpaII-BglII fragment (for TAF110 and HHR deletions) or the BglII-XbaI fragment (for nervy and ZnF deletions and point mutations) was then subcloned into pCMV5 AML/ETO. The pMLV Ets-1 expression plasmid was a gift from J. Ghysdael.

Transcriptional analysis. The -137 MDR-1 chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) plasmid has been described previously (44). Transfection of C33A cells (2 × 106 cells in 60-mm-diameter dishes) by calcium phosphate coprecipitation was performed as previously described (16). HEL cells (2 × 106 cells in 60-mm-diameter dishes) were transfected with 10 µl of Lipofectamine (Gibco-BRL, Gaithersburg, Md.) per transfection, and NIH 3T3 cells (2 × 105 cells in 60-mm-diameter dishes) were transfected with 15 µl of Superfect reagent (Qiagen) per transfection. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) beta -galactosidase or Rous sarcoma virus secreted alkaline phosphatase (SEAP) was included as an internal control for transfection efficiency. Measurement of beta -galactosidase activity and SEAP activity followed standard procedures (2, 38). CAT activity was measured as previously described (16) and was quantitated on a Molecular Dynamics PhosphorImager with Image-Quant software and normalized with respect to beta -galactosidase activity. Experiments were repeated a minimum of three times, and results are indicated as the means with standard deviations.

Immunoprecipitation. For coprecipitation experiments to detect heterodimers, Cos-7 cells or NIH 3T3 cells (106 cells in 60-mm-diameter dishes) were cotransfected with 2 µg of CMV5 AML/ETO or AML/ETO deletion mutants and 2 µg of CMV5 ETO. For detecting homodimers, we cotransfected 2 µg of hemagglutinin (HA)-tagged CMV5 AML/ETO (HA-AML/ETO) with 2 µg of CMV5 AML/ETO deletion mutants, and 40 h after transfection the cells were labeled with 100 µCi of [35S]methionine for 3 h in methionine- and cysteine-free Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (PROMIX; Amersham) containing 2% dialyzed calf serum. Cells were lysed in antibody buffer (20 mM Tris [pH 7.5], 100 mM NaCl, 0.5% Triton X-100, 0.5% deoxycholic acid, 0.5% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 1.5 mg of iodoacetamide per ml, 0.2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and 0.1 trypsin-inhibiting units (TIU) of aprotinin per ml), followed by incubation with 100 µl of formalin-fixed Staphylococcus aureus membranes (Immunoprecipitin; GIBCO-BRL) for 30 min to eliminate nonspecific protein binding. After centrifugation for 5 min at 4°C, the supernatants were collected and immunoprecipitated for 1 h with affinity-purified primary antibody. Fifteen microliters of a 50% slurry of protein A-Sepharose (Pharmacia Biotech, Uppsala, Sweden) was then added for 1 h to collect the immune complexes. The immune complexes were then washed three times with lysis buffer, and proteins were eluted by boiling the immune complexes for 2 min in 1× Laemmli buffer. Samples were then analyzed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) in an 8% gel, and the gel was then fixed in 45% methanol-10% acetic acid for 30 min and incubated with Amplify (Amersham) for 20 min. The gel was then dried and subjected to autoradiography.

Western blotting. Western blotting was performed on cell lysates from calcium phosphate-transfected Cos cells (106 cells in 60-mm-diameter dishes) at 48 h posttransfection. Cells were lysed in antibody buffer and sonicated, followed by protein quantitation with the Bio-Rad DC protein assay. Then, 150 µg of protein was boiled in Laemmli buffer for 2 min, fractionated by SDS-PAGE, and transferred to nitrocellulose. Blots were blocked for 1 h with 5% milk, and primary antibody incubation took place overnight at 4°C. After being washed and incubated with secondary antibody, followed by a further washing, proteins were visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (Pierce). For Western blotting with C33A and HEL cells transiently transfected for CAT assays, identical procedures were followed, except that cell lysates were prepared in 250 mM Tris, pH 7.5, containing 0.1 TIU of aprotinin, 0.1 mM phenylmethysulfonyl fluoride, and 1 µg of iodoacetamide per ml.

The antibodies used in these experiments included the AML N-terminal antibody that has been described previously (35), and the alpha -HA (12CA5) antibody was purchased from Babco (Berkeley, Calif.). The ETO antibody was generated against a glutathione S-transferase (GST)-ETO fusion protein and was affinity purified against the GST-ETO protein. This affinity-purified antibody is highly specific for ETO (28a).

    RESULTS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

AML/ETO represses transcription of the MDR-1 promoter. An AML-1 binding site is located at nucleotide position -94 to -89 in the MDR-1 promoter and in some cell types contributes to the basal expression of MDR-1 (42a). To test whether AML/ETO could affect the transcription of MDR-1 we transfected MDR-1(-137)-CAT together with increasing amounts of AML/ETO. Because previous results revealed that AML-1A (an AML protein missing the transactivation domain) interferes with AML-1B-activated transcription (34), we also tested AML-1A in this assay. We observed repression of MDR-1 with increasing amounts of AML/ETO, but not with increasing amounts of AML1A (Fig. 1A and B). Western blotting of the same cell extracts used to measure CAT activity with antibodies directed to the N terminus of AML-1 revealed that these proteins were synthesized at similar levels (Fig. 1C). These results indicate that ETO sequences in AML/ETO are required for transcriptional repression. Also, because high-level expression of AML1A did not interfere with MDR-1 transcription, we conclude that inhibition of AML-1B activity does not significantly affect MDR-1 basal transcription in C33A cells (confirmed by using constructs in which the AML-1B binding sites were deleted; data not shown).


View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.   AML/ETO, but not AML1A, represses basal transcription of the MDR-1 promoter. (A) C33A cells were transfected with 2.5 µg of MDR-CAT (-137), 100 ng of CMV beta -galactosidase as an internal control, and increasing amounts (in micrograms) of CMV5 AML1A or CMV5 AML/ETO plasmids as indicated. CAT activity was measured from whole-cell extracts as described in Materials and Methods. (B) Quantitation of the results in panel A. CAT activity was normalized with respect to beta -galactosidase activity. Fold repression represents the normalized promoter activities from cells transfected with expression plasmids compared to that from cells transfected with MDR-1 alone. (C) Western blot of cell extracts used in panel A blotted with our anti-AML N-terminal antibody and detected by enhanced chemiluminescence.

To further test the requirement for ETO sequences in MDR repression we tested two C-terminal deletion mutants of AML/ETO. Deletion of residues 540 to 752 (the nervy domain and the putative ZnF domain; Delta 540 AML/ETO) significantly impaired AML/ETO function (Fig. 2). Further deletion to residue 469 (Delta 469 AML/ETO), which removes the amphipathic helix that contains a hydrophobic heptad repeat, completely ablated repression (Fig. 2). We also tested whether the DNA binding ability of AML/ETO was necessary for repression. The AML/ETO protein with the L148D substitution (L148D AML/ETO) is unable to bind DNA (26), and this protein was also unable to repress MDR-1 transcription (Fig. 2).


View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.   AML/ETO repression of MDR-1 requires DNA binding and fusion with ETO sequences. C33A cells were transfected with 5 µg of MDR-1 CAT and 1 µg of Rous sarcoma virus SEAP plasmids and 2 µg of the indicated CMV5 AML/ETO (A/E) fusion proteins. CAT activity was quantitated with a Molecular Dynamics PhosphorImager and normalized relative to SEAP activity.

HHR and ZnF motifs are required for AML/ETO transcriptional repression. The impaired function of Delta 540 AML/ETO for the first time suggested a function for the putative ZnF domain of AML/ETO. To precisely determine the C-terminal sequences of ETO required for repression, we constructed internal deletions in each of the conserved domains of ETO (Fig. 3A). These deletions included the region of ETO that has homology to the TAF110 coactivator (20) that has not been previously tested. We confirmed that each of these mutant proteins was appropriately expressed by transfecting Cos cells, followed by Western blot analysis with our anti-AML antibody (Fig. 3B). These proteins were expressed at levels similar to those of wild-type AML/ETO, although we consistently observed that AML/ETO with the ZnF domain deleted (Delta ZnF AML/ETO) migrated more slowly than predicted. This was also true when the ZnF was independently deleted by using restriction enzymes flanking this domain (data not shown). We also determined that the AML/ETO deletion mutants were not significantly altered in DNA binding or subcellular localization relative to wild-type AML/ETO (data not shown).


View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.   HHR and ZnF motifs are required for transcriptional repression. (A) Schematic diagram of AML/ETO (A/E) and AML/ETO deletion constructs. (B) Cos cells were transfected with 3 µg of the indicated deletion constructs, and at 48 h posttransfection cells were collected for Western analysis as described in Materials and Methods. Blotting was performed with the anti-AML N-terminal antibody. (C) C33A cells were transfected with 2.5 µg of MDR-1 CAT, 100 ng of CMV beta -galactosidase expression plasmid, and 0.5 µg of CMV5 AML/ETO or the indicated CMV5 AML/ETO deletion constructs. CAT activity was quantitated and normalized to beta -galactosidase activity.

These deletion constructs were tested for repression of MDR-1 by transfecting C33A cells (Fig. 3C). Deletion of either the TAF homology domain or the nervy homology region did not significantly alter transcriptional repression. By contrast, deletion of either the HHR or the ZnF domains reduced AML/ETO-mediated repression from six- to twofold (Fig. 3C). Deletion of the HHR and ZnF domains together completely abrogated transcriptional repression, similar to what was seen for Delta 469 AML/ETO, indicating that both motifs contribute to the repression. Western blotting of representative cell extracts used in the CAT assays revealed that proteins were synthesized at similar levels in these same transfections (data not shown). To confirm that this result was not cell type specific we used the hematopoietic cell line HEL (30) and obtained similar results (data not shown, but see Fig. 4 below). In fact, these cell lines were used interchangeably in these assays.

Because AML/ETO with the HHR deleted (Delta HHR AML/ETO) and Delta ZnF AML/ETO still maintained some ability to repress transcription, we performed titration experiments (Fig. 4). As the amount of input DNA increased, we observed an increase in the ability of the Delta HHR AML/ETO mutant to repress transcription, but the levels of repression did not reach those of the wild-type protein. However, an increase in the amount of the Delta ZnF AML/ETO did not result in a further increase in the amount of repression (Fig. 4). Similar results were obtained with C33A cells (data not shown). Western blotting of the cell extracts confirmed that the levels of proteins increased with increasing levels of input DNA (data not shown). Thus, high levels of the Delta HHR AML/ETO protein can overcome the defect to some degree, whereas the modest Delta ZnF AML/ETO repression activity cannot be augmented with increased levels of protein.


View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.   Delta ZnF AML/ETO does not repress efficiently even at high expression levels. (A) Two micrograms of MDR-1 CAT, 100 ng of CMV beta -galactosidase expression plasmid, and 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, or 1 µg of the indicated AML/ETO (A/E) expression plasmids were transfected into HEL cells. At 48 h posttransfection CAT assays were performed as described in Materials and Methods. (B) CAT activity was quantitated and normalized to beta -galactosidase activity.

Point mutations in the putative ZnFs of AML/ETO impair transcriptional repression. Because Delta ZnF AML/ETO is impaired for transcriptional repression even at high protein levels, we constructed more subtle alterations in this domain. The predicted structure of the two ZnFs is shown in Fig. 5A. To determine whether both putative ZnFs were required for function, we deleted the predicted N-terminal ZnF (residues 663 to 673) and we also introduced serine substitutions at either C663 or C683. If this structure forms the predicted ZnFs, serine substitutions at either C663 or C683 would disrupt these structures (Fig. 5A). Moreover, these residues are invariant among the proteins with a homologous MYND motif (17). Each of these mutants was impaired for MDR-1 repression relative to wild-type AML/ETO, and each was similar in activity to Delta ZnF AML/ETO (Fig. 5B). Western blotting of the CAT assay cell extracts indicated that these proteins were expressed at similar levels (Fig. 5C). Thus, the serine substitutions at either C663 and C683 provide indirect evidence that these motifs do form ZnF structures that are required for AML/ETO transcriptional repression.


View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.   Point mutations in the predicted ZnFs abrogate AML/ETO function. (A) predicted structure of the ZnF domain in the ETO portion of AML/ETO. (B) C33A cells were transfected with 2 µg of MDR-1 CAT, 100 ng of CMV beta -galactosidase expression plasmid, and 0.5 µg of the indicated AML/ETO (A/E) expression plasmids. CAT assays were quantitated and normalized to beta -galactosidase activity. (C) Western blotting (as described in Materials and Methods) was performed on representative cell lysates used in panel B with the anti-AML N-terminal antibody.

AML/ETO can homodimerize and form heterodimers with ETO. The t(12;21) fusion protein can also interfere with AML-1B-dependent activation of the TCRbeta enhancer and the M-CSF-1 receptor (11, 19). This activity requires a putative repression domain that can also mediate homodimer formation (19). Because the HHR and ZnF domains of ETO are putative protein interaction domains, we asked whether AML/ETO and ETO could form heterodimers. Cos-7 cells were metabolically labeled 48 h posttransfection, and cell lysates were prepared for immunoprecipitation with the N-terminal AML-1 antibody (32). We found that ETO could be coprecipitated with AML/ETO and that this interaction was stable even when the immunoprecipitations were performed in the presence of 0.5% SDS (Fig. 6A). However, we did find that boiling the cell lysate disrupted the interaction (Fig. 6A, third lane from left). We tested our panel of AML/ETO deletion mutants and found that the HHR was the only conserved domain required for ETO to coprecipitate with AML/ETO (Fig. 6A). Control immunoprecipitation with our anti-ETO antibody revealed that ETO was expressed appropriately with Delta HHR AML/ETO but was unable to coprecipitate (Fig. 6A, fifth lane from left). Similar results were obtained upon transfecting NIH 3T3 cells (data not shown).


View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.   The HHR motif is required for AML/ETO/ETO heterodimers and AML/ETO homodimers. (A) Cos cells were transfected with 2 µg of the indicated CMV5 AML/ETO (A/E) and CMV5 ETO plasmids, and 48 h posttransfection cells were labeled with [35S]methionine as described in Materials and Methods. Equal trichloroacetic acid-precipitable counts were immunoprecipitated with the antibodies listed on the bottom of the diagram, as described in Materials and Methods. "Boil" indicates that the sample was heated to 100°C for 1 min prior to the immunoprecipitation. Protein A-Sepharose was used to collect immunocomplexes, which were then analyzed by SDS-PAGE in an 8% gel. The gel was then dried and subjected to autoradiography. (B) Cos cells were transfected with HA-AML/ETO (HA A/E) and the indicated AML/ETO deletion constructs and were labeled with [35S]methionine, immunoprecipitated, and analyzed by SDS-PAGE as described for panel A.

To test whether AML/ETO can form homodimers through the HHR motif, we tested the ability of HA-AML/ETO to interact with either AML/ETO with the TAF domain deleted (Delta TAF AML/ETO) or Delta HHR AML/ETO. Delta TAF AML/ETO was efficiently coprecipitated with HA-AML/ETO (Fig. 6B), whereas Delta HHR AML/ETO did not coprecipitate with HA-AML/ETO. Control experiments indicated that the HA antibody did not precipitate Delta TAF AML/ETO alone and that Delta HHR AML/ETO was efficiently expressed in the cell lysate (Fig. 6B). These precipitations were performed in the presence of 0.2% SDS (0.5% SDS interfered with the anti-HA antibody immunoprecipitations), again indicating the stability of interactions with the HHR motif. Taken together, these experiments reveal that the HHR mediates AML/ETO homodimer and AML/ETO-ETO heterodimer formation.

Functional analysis of AML/ETO-ETO heterodimers. Because AML/ETO can interact with ETO, we determined whether this interaction affects AML/ETO function. This interaction is significant given that cells carrying t(8;21) also express ETO protein (10). We observed levels of AML/ETO-mediated repression of MDR-1 in HEL cells similar to those in C33A cells (Fig. 3 and 4). Therefore, we determined the levels of endogenous ETO protein in these cells by Western blot analysis using anti-ETO antibodies directed against the C-terminal domain. HEL cells express readily detectable levels of ETO, whereas C33A cells do not express detectable protein (Fig. 7A). These results suggest that high levels of ETO are not required for AML/ETO function. In fact, by comparison to the levels of AML/ETO expressed in transient transfection/repression assays, it appears that ETO may be dispensable for this activity. To directly test ETO involvement in AML/ETO function we cotransfected increasing amounts of ETO with AML/ETO and MDR-1-CAT into C33A cells. We chose C33A cells because they do not appear to express endogenous ETO. In these experiments we also transfected less AML/ETO (100 ng) so that potential increases in repression due to the addition of ETO could be observed. However, we found that cotransfection of ETO did not stimulate the ability of AML/ETO to repress, but rather at high levels inhibited AML/ETO function (Fig. 7B).


View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 7.   High expression levels of ETO can inhibit AML/ETO function. (A) Western blot analysis of ETO expression in HEL and C33A cells. Cell lysates (150 µg) from HEL or C33A cells were fractionated by SDS-PAGE in an 8% gel, transferred to nitrocellulose, and blotted with ETO antiserum as described in Materials and Methods. (B) C33A cells were transfected with 2 µg of MDR-1, 0.1 µg of CMV5 AML/ETO, 100 ng of CMV beta -galactosidase, and increasing amounts of CMV5 ETO as indicated. CAT assays were quantitated and normalized to beta -galactosidase activity.

AML/ETO can repress Ets-1 activation of the MDR-1 promoter. Recent work indicates that MDR1 transcription can be stimulated by Ets-1 (42a). Although MDR-1 is only modestly activated by AML-1B (approximately twofold in C33A or NIH 3T3 cells), Ets-1 can activate the promoter three- to fivefold in NIH 3T3 cells. This activation is dependent on an Ets binding site (42a) and is not observed in C33A cells, likely due to higher levels of basal activity (data not shown). Therefore, we tested the ability of AML/ETO to block Ets-1-activated MDR-1 transcription and found that AML/ETO could efficiently inhibit Ets-1-dependent activation (Fig. 8). A titration experiment revealed that higher levels of AML/ETO could repress basal transcription of MDR-1 in NIH 3T3 cells, as we observed for C33A cells (data not shown, but see the results for AML/ETO [0.1 µg] in Fig. 8). AML1A was unable to repress Ets-1 activation except at a 100-fold excess relative to AML/ETO. This repression may be due to direct physical interaction (titration) between the runt domain of AML1A and Ets-1 (15).


View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 8.   AML/ETO can inhibit Ets-1-mediated activation of MDR-1. NIH 3T3 cells were transfected with 2 µg of MDR-1 and 20 ng of CMV beta -galactosidase. Where indicated Ets-1 (Ets; 0.5 µg) was added, along with the indicated increasing amounts of CMV5 AML/ETO or CMV5 AML1A. CAT activity was quantitated and normalized to beta -galactosidase activity.

To further characterize the inhibition of Ets-1 activation, we tested a series of AML/ETO mutants. The L148D AML/ETO protein was unable to inhibit Ets-1, indicating that the DNA binding ability of the fusion protein is required for repression (Fig. 9). Delta 469 AML/ETO was deficient for blocking Ets-1 function, as was Delta HHR/Delta ZnF (double mutant) AML/ETO, revealing that the C-terminal ETO sequences are again required for repression. Delta HHR AML/ETO was impaired threefold relative to wild-type AML/ETO, while Delta ZnF AML/ETO showed a twofold decrease relative to the wild type. Western blotting with anti-Ets-1 indicated that Ets-1 protein levels were not altered by cotransfection with AML/ETO or AML/ETO deletion mutants (data not shown). Thus, both the HHR and ZnF domains contribute to the inhibition of Ets-1 activation.


View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 9.   AML/ETO inhibition of Ets-1 activation requires AML/ETO DNA binding and HHR and ZnF domains. (A) NIH 3T3 cells were transfected with 2 µg of MDR-1 CAT, 20 ng of CMV beta -galactosidase, 0.5 µg of Ets-1, and 1 ng of AML/ETO (A/E) or 10 ng of AML/ETO or AML/ETO deletion constructs. (B) CAT assays were quantitated and normalized to beta -galactosidase activity. Because Ets-1 consistently activated beta -galactosidase activity twofold, the apparent levels of activated transcription shown in panel A are reduced in panel B.

    DISCUSSION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

AML/ETO interferes with AML-1B-dependent transactivation of the TCRbeta , interleukin 3, neutrophil protein 3, and GM-CSF promoters (13, 34, 45, 47) and AML-2 and PEBP2A1 (AML-3) activation of TCRbeta (35). However, the fusion protein fails to inhibit basal transcription from these promoters, suggesting that it acts as a dominant inhibitory protein to interfere with AML family member functions. As well, AML/ETO can interfere with AML-1B and C/EBPalpha synergistic activation of the NP-3 promoter, but not with basal transcription (47). Thus, the results for the MDR-1 promoter represent the first example of AML/ETO repression of basal transcription.

Basal expression from the MDR-1 promoter has not been completely characterized, but in C33A cells removal of both the canonical AML-1 binding site and an Ets binding site by deleting nucleotides -58 to -137 did not significantly alter basal transcription (data not shown). Moreover, these cells have low levels of AML-1B, and overexpression of a competitive inhibitor of AML-1B failed to inhibit basal expression (Fig. 1), indicating that loss of AML-1B function is not sufficient to alter this basal transcription. While C/EBPbeta has been shown to regulate the MDR-1 promoter, its DNA binding site is deleted in the promoter constructs used here (6). Mutant forms of the p53 tumor suppressor protein have been shown to activate MDR-1 (5), and C33A cells lack functional p53 (8, 44). Therefore, at least part of the high level of basal activity observed in C33A cells could be due to derepression or activation by mutant p53.

The AML/ETO HHR dimerization motif contributes to the repression of the MDR-1 promoter. However, because repression occurs in cells that contain undetectable levels of ETO, the formation of AML-1/ETO-ETO heterodimers is not required for activity. Moreover, our anti-ETO serum is directed to the MYND domain, which is nearly identical to those in other ETO family proteins, and this antiserum cross-reacts with a second ETO family member (data not shown). Therefore, it is unlikely that C33A cells express high levels of other ETO family members. While coexpression of another ETO family member enhanced AML-1/ETO repression of the TCRbeta enhancer approximately twofold (23), it is unlikely that heterodimerization with other family members is required for AML-1/ETO functions.

To address the role of AML/ETO homodimers in repression, we replaced the HHR of AML/ETO with the GCN4 leucine zipper. This motif mediates homodimeric interactions of GCN4 and has been used to investigate the functional role of p53 homodimerization (41). Thus, this chimeric AML/ETO protein should only form homodimers and not associate with other heterodimeric partners, including ETO. The GCN4-modified AML/ETO was impaired for transcriptional repression to a level similar to that of the HHR deletion mutant (three- to fourfold relative to the wild type; data not shown). Although these results suggest that the HHR may function to recruit a heterologous protein, the GCN4-AML/ETO protein formed relatively weak homodimers (barely detectable by immunoprecipitation from transfected cells in buffer lacking SDS) compared to the wild-type protein (easily detectable in buffer containing SDS). Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that homodimers do play a role in repression.

Our results have defined a second domain in AML/ETO that contributes to transcriptional repression. Even subtle mutations that would affect the structure of the predicted ZnFs impair repression. This domain has been termed the MYND motif due to the conservation of its general structure in ETO (also known as myeloid tumor gene 8 [MTG8]) and in the Drosophila proteins nervy and DEAF-1 (17). This motif is also found in numerous other proteins and predicted proteins in mammals, yeast, and Caenorhabditis elegans (17). Only one of these proteins has been assigned a function. DEAF-1 is a transcription factor that specifically binds DNA and cooperates with Deformed to regulate transcription, although the MYND domain does not participate in DNA binding. Our results strongly suggest that this motif interacts with other proteins to negatively regulate transcription. In support of this hypothesis, we have used the yeast two-hybrid assay and coimmunoprecipitation assays to identify a specific interaction between the MYND motif and N-CoR, a corepressor that recruits histone deacetylases to repress transcription (29). Thus, the interaction with N-CoR cosegregates with the function of the MYND domain in transcriptional repression of basal and Ets-1-dependent activation of the MDR-1 promoter.

Ets family transcription factors such as Ets-1 and PU.1 are involved in proliferation and differentiation of hematopoietic cells (27). C/EBPalpha is also a critical regulator of granulocytic differentiation (14). In addition to AML-1B and Ets-1, AML/ETO can inhibit CEBPalpha transactivation and AML-1B-C/EBPalpha synergistic transcriptional activation (47). Therefore, the block in differentiation observed in myeloid blasts containing t(8;21) and in 32D cells overexpressing AML/ETO (47) may result from AML/ETO inhibition of genes that are normally activated by differentiation-promoting factors such as AML-1B, Ets family proteins, and C/EBPalpha .

The expression of the MDR-1 gene in de novo AML is a poor prognostic factor, likely due to the role of MDR in chemotherapeutic insensitivity. However, recent studies indicate that in a subset of AML [those with t(8;21)] the expression of MDR is undetectable and clearly indicative of a good prognosis. Although childhood cases that carry the t(8;21) translocation did express MDR-1 (75%), the majority of the adult cases fail to express P-glycoprotein (40). Interestingly, this correlates with therapeutic outcome, as childhood t(8;21) cases respond poorly to chemotherapy (22, 31). Whether MDR-1 is regulated differently in children versus adults is a difficult question to address; however, it appears that a fortuitous outcome of t(8;21), at least in adults, is the inhibition of MDR-1 expression, perhaps through direct repression of transcription.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Dana King and Yue Hou for technical assistance and Jennifer Westendorf, Randy Fenrick, Shari Meyers, and Noel Lenny for plasmids, insightful discussions, and critical evaluation of data.

This work was supported by NIH/NCI grants RO1-CA64140 and RO1-CA77274, by American Cancer Society grant JFRA-591 (to S.W.H.), by the American Lebanese and Syrian Associated Charities, by the Vanderbilt Cancer Center, and by a center grant from NCI (CA68485).

    FOOTNOTES

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Biochemistry and the Vanderbilt Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 21st and Garland, Nashville, TN 37027. Phone: (615) 936-3582. Fax: (615) 936-1790. E-mail: scott.hiebert{at}mcmail.vanderbilt.edu.

    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

1. Arceci, R. J. 1993. Clinical significance of P-glycoprotein in multidrug resistance malignancies. Blood 81:2215-2222[Free Full Text].
2. Berger, J., J. Hauber, R. Hauber, R. Geiger, and B. R. Cullen. 1988. Secreted placental alkaline phophatase: a powerful new quantitative indicator of gene expression in eukaryotic cells. Gene 66:1-10[Medline].
3. Bloomfield, C. D. 1992. Prognostic factors for selecting curative therapy for adult acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 6:65-67.
4. Castilla, L. H., C. Wijmenga, Q. Wang, T. Stacy, N. Speck, M. Eckhaus, M. Marin-Padilla, F. S. Collins, A. Wynashaw-Boris, and P. P. Liu. 1996. Failure of embryonic hematopoiesis and lethal hemorrhages in mouse embryos heterozygous for a knocked-in leukemia gene CBFB-MY11. Cell 87:687-696[Medline].
5. Chin, K.-V., K. Ueda, I. Pastan, and M. Gottesman. 1992. Modulation of activity of the promoter of the human MDR1 gene by ras and p53. Science 255:459-462[Abstract/Free Full Text].
6. Combates, N. J., R. W. Rzepka, Y. N. Chen, and D. Cohen. 1994. NF-IL6, a member of the C/EBP family of transcription factors, binds and trans-activates the human MDR-1 promoter. J. Biol. Chem. 269:29715-29719[Abstract/Free Full Text].
7. Cowell, I. 1994. Repression versus activation in the control of gene transcription. Trends Biochem. Sci. 19:38-42[Medline].
8. Crook, T., D. Wrede, and K. H. Vousden. 1991. p53 point mutations in HPV negative human cervical carcinoma cell lines. Oncogene 6:873-875[Medline].
9. Dastague, N., C. Payen, M. Lafage-Pochitaloff, P. Bernard, D. Leroux, F. Huguet-Rigal, A. M. Stoppa, G. Marit, L. Molina, and M. Michallet. 1995. Prognostic significance of karyotype in de novo adult acute myeloid leukemia. The BGMT group. Leukemia 9:1491-1498[Medline].
10. Erickson, P. F., G. Dessev, R. S. Lasher, G. Philips, M. Robinson, and H. A. Drabkin. 1996. ETO and AML1 phosphoproteins are expressed in CD34+ hematopoietic progenitors: implications for t(8;21) leukemogenesis and monitoring residual disease. Blood 88:1813-1823[Abstract/Free Full Text].
11. Fears, S., M. Gavin, D. E. Zhang, C. Hetherington, Y. Ben-David, J. D. Rowley, and G. Nucifora. 1997. Functional characterization of ETV6 and ETV6/CBFA2 in the regulation of the MCSFR proximal promoter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:1949-1954[Abstract/Free Full Text].
12. Feinstein, P. G., K. Kornfeld, D. S. Hogness, and R. S. Mann. 1995. Identification of homeotic target genes in Drosophila melanogaster including nervy, a proto-oncogene homologue. Genetics 140:573-586[Abstract].
13. Frank, R., J. Zhang, H. Uchida, S. Meyers, S. W. Hiebert, and S. D. Nimer. 1995. The AML1/ETO fusion protein blocks transactivation of the GM-CSF promoter by AML1B. Oncogene 11:2667-2674[Medline].
14. Friedman, A. D. 1996. Regulation of immature myeloid cell differentiation by PEBP2/CBF, Myb, C/EBP, and Ets family members. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 211:149-157[Medline].
15. Giese, K., C. Kingsley, J. R. Kirshner, and R. Grosschedl. 1995. Assembly and function of a TCR alpha enhancer complex is dependent on LEF-1-induced DNA bending and multiple protein-protein interactions. Genes Dev. 9:995-1008[Abstract/Free Full Text].
16. Gorman, C. M., L. F. Moffat, and B. H. Howard. 1982. Recombinant genomes which express chloramphenicol acetyltransferase in mammalian cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2:1044-1051[Abstract/Free Full Text].
17. Gross, C. T., and W. McGinnis. 1996. DEAF-1, a novel protein that binds an essential region in a Deformed response element. EMBO J. 15:1961-1970[Medline].
18. Herschbach, B. M., and A. D. Johnson. 1993. Transcriptional repression in eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Cell Biol. 9:479-509.
19. Hiebert, S. W., W. Sun, J. N. Davis, T. Golub, S. Shurtleff, A. Buijs, J. R. Downing, G. Grosveld, M. F. Roussel, D. G. Gilliland, N. Lenny, and S. Meyers. 1996. The t(12;21) translocation converts AML-1B from an activator to a repressor of transcription. Mol. Cell. Biol. 16:1349-1355[Abstract].
20. Hoey, T., R. O. Weinzierl, G. Gill, J. L. Chen, B. D. Dynlacht, and R. Tjian. 1993. Molecular cloning and functional analysis of Drosophila TAF110 reveal properties expected of coactivators. Cell 72:247-260[Medline].
21. Joventino, L. P., W. Stock, N. J. Lane, K. M. Daly, R. Mick, M. M. Le Beau, and R. A. Larson. 1995. Certain HLA antigens are associated with specific morphologic and cytogenetic subsets of acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 9:433-439[Medline].
22. Kalwinski, D. K., S. C. Raimondi, M. J. Schell, J. Mirro, V. M. Santana, F. Behm, G. V. Dahl, and D. Williams. 1990. Prognostic importance of cytogenetic subgroups in de novo pediatric acute nonlymphocytic leukemia. J. Clin. Oncol. 8:75-83[Abstract/Free Full Text].
23. Kitabayashi, I., K. Ida, F. Morohoshi, A. Yokoyama, N. Mitsuhashi, K. Shimizu, N. Nomura, Y. Hayashi, and M. Ohki. 1998. The AML1-MTG8 leukemic fusion protein forms a complex with a novel member of the MTG8(ETO/CDR) family, MTGR1. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18:846-858[Abstract/Free Full Text].
24. Kunkel, T. A. 1985. Rapid and efficient site-specific mutagenesis without phenotypic selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82:488-494[Abstract/Free Full Text].
25. Leith, C. P., K. J. Kopecky, J. Godwin, T. McConnel, M. L. Slovak, I.-M. Chen, D. R. Head, F. R. Appelbaum, and C. L. Willman. 1997. Acute myeloid leukemia in the elderly: assessment of multidrug resistance (MDR1) and cytogenetics distinguishes biologic subgroups with remarkably distinct responses to standard chemotherapy. A Southwest Oncology Group study. Blood 9:3323-3329.
26. Lenny, N., S. Meyers, and S. W. Hiebert. 1995. Functional domains of the t(8;21) fusion protein, AML-1/ETO. Oncogene 11:1761-1769[Medline].
27. Lenny, N., J. J. Westendorf, and S. W. Hiebert. 1997. Transcriptional regulation during myelopoiesis. Mol. Biol. Rep. 24:157-168[Medline].
28. Liu, P., S. A. Tarle, A. Hajra, D. F. Claxton, P. Marlton, M. Freedman, M. J. Siciliano, and F. S. Collins. 1993. Fusion between transcription factor CBF beta/PEBP2 beta and a myosin heavy chain in acute myeloid leukemia. Science 261:1041-1044[Abstract/Free Full Text].
28a. Lutterbach, B., and S. W. Hiebert. Unpublished data.
29. Lutterbach, B., J. J. Westendorf, A. Patten, K. Huynh, V. J. Bardwell, R. M. Lavinsky, M. G. Rosenfeld, E. Seto, and S. W. Hiebert. Mechanism of transcriptional repression by the t(8;21) fusion protein: ETO interacts with the N-CoR and mSin3 corepressors. Submitted for publication.
30. Martin, P., and T. Papayannopoulou. 1982. A new human erythroleukemia cell line with spontaneous and induced globin expression. Science 216:1233-1237[Abstract/Free Full Text].
31. Martinez-Climent, J. A., N. J. Lane, C. M. Rubin, E. Morgan, H. S. Johnstone, R. Mick, S. B. Murphy, J. W. Vardiman, R. A. Larson, M. M. Le Beau, and J. D. Rowley. 1995. Clinical and prognostic significance of chromosomal abnormalities in childhood acute myeloid leukemia de novo. Leukemia 9:95-101[Medline].
32. Meyers, S., J. R. Downing, and S. W. Hiebert. 1993. Identification of AML-1 and the (8;21) translocation protein (AML-1/ETO) as sequence-specific DNA-binding proteins: the runt homology domain is required for DNA binding and protein-protein interactions. Mol. Cell. Biol. 13:6336-6345[Abstract/Free Full Text].
33. Meyers, S., and S. W. Hiebert. 1995. Indirect and direct disruption of transcriptional regulation in cancer: E2F and AML-1. Crit. Rev. Eukaryot. Gene Expr. 5:365-383[Medline].
34. Meyers, S., N. Lenny, and S. W. Hiebert. 1995. The t(8;21) fusion protein interferes with AML-1B-dependent transcriptional activation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 15:1974-1982[Abstract].
35. Meyers, S., N. Lenny, W. Sun, and S. W. Hiebert. 1996. AML-2 is a potential target for transcriptional regulation by the t(8;21) and t(12;21) fusion proteins in acute leukemia. Oncogene 13:303-312[Medline].
36. Miyoshi, H., T. Kozu, K. Shimizu, K. Enomoto, N. Maseki, Y. Kaneko, N. Kamada, and M. Ohki. 1993. The t(8;21) translocation in acute myeloid leukemia results in production of an AML1-MTG8 fusion transcript. EMBO J. 12:2715-2721[Medline].
37. Miyoshi, H., K. Shimizu, T. Kou, N. Maseki, Y. Kaneko, and M. Ohki. 1991. t(8;21) breakpoints on chromosome 21 in acute myeloid leukemia are clustered within a limited region of a single gene, AML. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88:10431-10434[Abstract/Free Full Text].
38. Norton, P. A., and J. M. Coffin. 1985. Bacterial B-galactosidase as a marker of Rous sacoma virus gene expression and replication. Mol. Cell. Biol. 5:281-290[Abstract/Free Full Text].
39. Okuda, T., J. van Deursen, S. W. Hiebert, G. Grosveld, and J. R. Downing. 1996. AML1, the target of multiple chromosomal translocations in human leukemia, is essential for normal fetal liver hematopoiesis. Cell 84:321-330[Medline].
40. Pearson, L., C. P. Leith, M. H. Duncan, I. M. Chen, T. McConnell, K. Trinkaus, K. Foucar, and C. L. Willman. 1996. Multidrug resistance-1 (MDR1) expression and functional dye/drug efflux is highly correlated with the t(8;21) chromosomal translocation in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 10:1274-1282[Medline].
41. Pietenpol, J. A., T. Tokino, S. Thiagalingam, W. S. el-Deiry, K. W. Kinzler, and B. Vogelstein. 1994. Sequence-specific transcriptional activation is essential for growth suppression by p53. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:1998-2002[Abstract/Free Full Text].
42. Porwit-MacDonald, A., G. Janossey, K. Ivory, D. Swirsky, R. Peters, K. Wheatley, H. Walker, A. Turker, A. H. Goldstone, and A. Burnett. 1996. Leukemia-associated changes identified by quantitative flow cytometry. IV. CD34 overexpression in acute myelogenous leukemia M2 with t(8;21). Blood 87:1162-1169[Abstract/Free Full Text].
42a. Schuetz, J. Unpublished data.
43. Shurtleff, S. A., A. Buijs, F. G. Behm, J. E. Rubnitz, S. C. Raimondi, M. L. Hancock, G. C. Chan, C. H. Pui, G. Grosveld, and J. R. Downing. 1995. TEL/AML1 fusion resulting from a cryptic t(12;21) is the most common genetic lesion in pediatric ALL and defines a subgroup of patients with an excellent prognosis. Leukemia 9:1985-1989[Medline].
44. Thottassery, J. V., G. P. Zambetti, D. Arimori, E. G. Schuetz, and J. D. Schuetz. 1997. p53-dependent regulation of MDR1 gene expression causes selective resistance to chemotherapeutic agents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:11037-11042[Abstract/Free Full Text].
45. Uchida, H., J. Zhang, and S. D. Nimer. 1997. Am11a and Am11b can transactivate the human Il-3 promoter. J. Immunol. 158:2251-2258[Abstract].
46. Wang, Q., T. Stacy, J. D. Miller, A. F. Lewis, T.-L. Gu, X. Huang, J. H. Bushweller, J.-C. Bories, F. W. Alt, G. Ryan, P. P. Liu, A. Wynshaw-Boris, M. Binder, M. Marin-Padilla, A. H. Sharpe, and N. A. Speck. 1996. The CBFbeta subunit is essential for CBFalpha 2 (AML1) function in vivo. Cell 87:697-708[Medline].
47. Westendorf, J. J., C. M. Yamamoto, N. Lenny, J. R. Downing, M. E. Selsted, and S. W. Hiebert. 1998. The t(8;21) fusion product, AML-1-ETO, associates with C/EBP-alpha , inhibits C/EBP-alpha -dependent transcription, and blocks granulocytic differentiation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18:322-333[Abstract/Free Full Text].
48. Yergeau, D. A., C. J. Hetherington, Q. Wang, P. Zhang, A. Sharpe, M. Binder, M. Marin-Padilla, D. G. Tenen, N. A. Speck, and D. E. Zhang. 1997. Embryonic lethality and impairment of haematopoiesis in mice heterozygous for an AML-ETO fusion gene. Nat. Genet. 15:303-306[Medline].

Mol Cell Biol, June 1998, p. 3604-3611, Vol. 18, No. 6
0270-7306/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Guo, C., Hu, Q., Yan, C., Zhang, J. (2009). Multivalent Binding of the ETO Corepressor to E Proteins Facilitates Dual Repression Controls Targeting Chromatin and the Basal Transcription Machinery. Mol. Cell. Biol. 29: 2644-2657 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Roudaia, L., Cheney, M. D., Manuylova, E., Chen, W., Morrow, M., Park, S., Lee, C.-T., Kaur, P., Williams, O., Bushweller, J. H., Speck, N. A. (2009). CBF{beta} is critical for AML1-ETO and TEL-AML1 activity. Blood 113: 3070-3079 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Yan, M., Ahn, E.-Y., Hiebert, S. W., Zhang, D.-E. (2009). RUNX1/AML1 DNA-binding domain and ETO/MTG8 NHR2-dimerization domain are critical to AML1-ETO9a leukemogenesis. Blood 113: 883-886 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ahn, E.-Y., Yan, M., Malakhova, O. A., Lo, M.-C., Boyapati, A., Ommen, H. B., Hines, R., Hokland, P., Zhang, D.-E. (2008). Disruption of the NHR4 domain structure in AML1-ETO abrogates SON binding and promotes leukemogenesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 17103-17108 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Odenike, O. M., Alkan, S., Sher, D., Godwin, J. E., Huo, D., Brandt, S. J., Green, M., Xie, J., Zhang, Y., Vesole, D. H., Stiff, P., Wright, J., Larson, R. A., Stock, W. (2008). Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor Romidepsin Has Differential Activity in Core Binding Factor Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Clin. Cancer Res. 14: 7095-7101 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Minakhina, S., Druzhinina, M., Steward, R. (2007). Zfrp8, the Drosophila ortholog of PDCD2, functions in lymph gland development and controls cell proliferation. Development 134: 2387-2396 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Boyapati, A., Yan, M., Peterson, L. F., Biggs, J. R., Le Beau, M. M., Zhang, D.-E. (2007). A leukemia fusion protein attenuates the spindle checkpoint and promotes aneuploidy. Blood 109: 3963-3971 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Shen, C., Shao, Z., Powell-Coffman, J. A. (2006). The Caenorhabditis elegans rhy-1 Gene Inhibits HIF-1 Hypoxia-Inducible Factor Activity in a Negative Feedback Loop That Does Not Include vhl-1. Genetics 174: 1205-1214 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Kumar, R., Manning, J., Spendlove, H. E., Kremmidiotis, G., McKirdy, R., Lee, J., Millband, D. N., Cheney, K. M., Stampfer, M. R., Dwivedi, P. P., Morris, H. A., Callen, D. F. (2006). ZNF652, A Novel Zinc Finger Protein, Interacts with the Putative Breast Tumor Suppressor CBFA2T3 to Repress Transcription. Mol Cancer Res 4: 655-665 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Raaijmakers, M. H.G.P., de Grouw, E. P.L.M., van der Reijden, B. A., de Witte, T. J.M., Jansen, J. H., Raymakers, R. A.P. (2006). ABCB1 Modulation Does Not Circumvent Drug Extrusion from Primitive Leukemic Progenitor Cells and May Preferentially Target Residual Normal Cells in Acute Myelogenous Leukemia.. Clin. Cancer Res. 12: 3452-3458 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Choi, Y., Elagib, K. E., Delehanty, L. L., Goldfarb, A. N. (2006). Erythroid Inhibition by the Leukemic Fusion AML1-ETO Is Associated with Impaired Acetylation of the Major Erythroid Transcription Factor GATA-1.. Cancer Res. 66: 2990-2996 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Sohn, J. W., Lee, S. Y., Lee, S. J., Kim, E. J., Cha, S. I., Kim, C. H., Lee, J.-T., Jung, T. H., Park, J. Y. (2006). MDR1 Polymorphisms Predict the Response to Etoposide-Cisplatin Combination Chemotherapy in Small Cell Lung Cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 36: 137-141 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Choi, K.-O., Lee, T., Lee, N., Kim, J.-H., Yang, E. G., Yoon, J. M., Kim, J. H., Lee, T. G., Park, H. (2005). Inhibition of the Catalytic Activity of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1{alpha}-Prolyl-Hydroxylase 2 by a MYND-Type Zinc Finger. Mol. Pharmacol. 68: 1803-1809 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Senyuk, V., Li, D., Zakharov, A., Mikhail, F. M., Nucifora, G. (2005). The Distal Zinc Finger Domain of AML1/MDS1/EVI1 Is an Oligomerization Domain Involved in Induction of Hematopoietic Differentiation Defects in Primary Cells In vitro. Cancer Res. 65: 7603-7611 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Phan, D., Rasmussen, T. L., Nakagawa, O., McAnally, J., Gottlieb, P. D., Tucker, P. W., Richardson, J. A., Bassel-Duby, R., Olson, E. N. (2005). BOP, a regulator of right ventricular heart development, is a direct transcriptional target of MEF2C in the developing heart. Development 132: 2669-2678 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Wildonger, J., Mann, R. S. (2005). The t(8;21) translocation converts AML1 into a constitutive transcriptional repressor. Development 132: 2263-2272 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Liu, S., Shen, T., Huynh, L., Klisovic, M. I., Rush, L. J., Ford, J. L., Yu, J., Becknell, B., Li, Y., Liu, C., Vukosavljevic, T., Whitman, S. P., Chang, K.-S., Byrd, J. C., Perrotti, D., Plass, C., Marcucci, G. (2005). Interplay of RUNX1/MTG8 and DNA Methyltransferase 1 in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Cancer Res. 65: 1277-1284 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Yan, M., Burel, S. A., Peterson, L. F., Kanbe, E., Iwasaki, H., Boyapati, A., Hines, R., Akashi, K., Zhang, D.-E. (2004). From the Cover: Deletion of an AML1-ETO C-terminal NcoR/SMRT-interacting region strongly induces leukemia development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 17186-17191 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Lausen, J., Cho, S., Liu, S., Werner, M. H. (2004). The Nuclear Receptor Co-repressor (N-CoR) Utilizes Repression Domains I and III for Interaction and Co-repression with ETO. J. Biol. Chem. 279: 49281-49288 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Rochford, J. J., Semple, R. K., Laudes, M., Boyle, K. B., Christodoulides, C., Mulligan, C., Lelliott, C. J., Schinner, S., Hadaschik, D., Mahadevan, M., Sethi, J. K., Vidal-Puig, A., O'Rahilly, S. (2004). ETO/MTG8 Is an Inhibitor of C/EBP{beta} Activity and a Regulator of Early Adipogenesis. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24: 9863-9872 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • So, C. W., Cleary, M. L. (2004). Dimerization: a versatile switch for oncogenesis. Blood 104: 919-922 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Jensik, P. J., Huggenvik, J. I., Collard, M. W. (2004). Identification of a Nuclear Export Signal and Protein Interaction Domains in Deformed Epidermal Autoregulatory Factor-1 (DEAF-1). J. Biol. Chem. 279: 32692-32699 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ibanez, V., Sharma, A., Buonamici, S., Verma, A., Kalakonda, S., Wang, J., Kadkol, S., Saunthararajah, Y. (2004). AML1-ETO Decreases ETO-2 (MTG16) Interactions with Nuclear Receptor Corepressor, an Effect That Impairs Granulocyte Differentiation. Cancer Res. 64: 4547-4554 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Asakura, K., Uchida, H., Miyachi, H., Kobayashi, H., Miyakawa, Y., Nimer, S. D., Takahashi, H., Ikeda, Y., Kizaki, M. (2004). TEL/AML1 Overcomes Drug Resistance Through Transcriptional Repression of Multidrug Resistance-1 Gene Expression. Mol Cancer Res 2: 339-347 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Lee, J. W., Chung, H. Y., Ehrlich, L. A., Jelinek, D. F., Callander, N. S., Roodman, G. D., Choi, S. J. (2004). IL-3 expression by myeloma cells increases both osteoclast formation and growth of myeloma cells. Blood 103: 2308-2315 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Chevallier, N., Corcoran, C. M., Lennon, C., Hyjek, E., Chadburn, A., Bardwell, V. J., Licht, J. D., Melnick, A. (2004). ETO protein of t(8;21) AML is a corepressor for Bcl-6 B-cell lymphoma oncoprotein. Blood 103: 1454-1463 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Barseguian, K., Lutterbach, B., Hiebert, S. W., Nickerson, J., Lian, J. B., Stein, J. L., van Wijnen, A. J., Stein, G. S. (2002). Multiple subnuclear targeting signals of the leukemia-related AML1/ETO and ETO repressor proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 15434-15439 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Kuroda, H., Takahashi, N., Shimada, H., Seki, M., Shinozaki, K., Matsui, M. (2002). Classification and Expression Analysis of Arabidopsis F-Box-Containing Protein Genes. Plant Cell Physiol 43: 1073-1085 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Chung, P.-J., Chang, Y.-S., Liang, C.-L., Meng, C.-L. (2002). Negative Regulation of Epstein-Barr Virus Latent Membrane Protein 1-mediated Functions by the Bone Morphogenetic Protein Receptor IA-binding Protein, BRAM1. J. Biol. Chem. 277: 39850-39857 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • So, C. W., Cleary, M. L. (2002). MLL-AFX Requires the Transcriptional Effector Domains of AFX To Transform Myeloid Progenitors and Transdominantly Interfere with Forkhead Protein Function. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22: 6542-6552 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Illmer, T., Schuler, U. S., Thiede, C., Schwarz, U. I., Kim, R. B., Gotthard, S., Freund, D., Schakel, U., Ehninger, G., Schaich, M. (2002). MDR1 Gene Polymorphisms Affect Therapy Outcome in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients. Cancer Res. 62: 4955-4962 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Hug, B. A., Lee, S. Y. D., Kinsler, E. L., Zhang, J., Lazar, M. A. (2002). Cooperative Function of Aml1-ETO Corepressor Recruitment Domains in the Expansion of Primary Bone Marrow Cells. Cancer Res. 62: 2906-2912 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ansieau, S., Leutz, A. (2002). The Conserved Mynd Domain of BS69 Binds Cellular and Oncoviral Proteins through a Common PXLXP Motif. J. Biol. Chem. 277: 4906-4910 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • SRIVASTAVA, D., GOTTLIEB, P.D., OLSON, E.N. (2002). Molecular Mechanisms of Ventricular Hypoplasia. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 67: 121-126 [Abstract]  
  • Sampath, J., Sun, D., Kidd, V. J., Grenet, J., Gandhi, A., Shapiro, L. H., Wang, Q., Zambetti, G. P., Schuetz, J. D. (2001). Mutant p53 Cooperates with ETS and Selectively Up-regulates Human MDR1 Not MRP1. J. Biol. Chem. 276: 39359-39367 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Amann, J. M., Nip, J., Strom, D. K., Lutterbach, B., Harada, H., Lenny, N., Downing, J. R., Meyers, S., Hiebert, S. W. (2001). ETO, a Target of t(8;21) in Acute Leukemia, Makes Distinct Contacts with Multiple Histone Deacetylases and Binds mSin3A through Its Oligomerization Domain. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21: 6470-6483 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Burel, S. A., Harakawa, N., Zhou, L., Pabst, T., Tenen, D. G., Zhang, D.-E. (2001). Dichotomy of AML1-ETO Functions: Growth Arrest versus Block of Differentiation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21: 5577-5590 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Zhang, J., Hug, B. A., Huang, E. Y., Chen, C. W., Gelmetti, V., Maccarana, M., Minucci, S., Pelicci, P. G., Lazar, M. A. (2001). Oligomerization of ETO Is Obligatory for Corepressor Interaction. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21: 156-163 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Melnick, A., Carlile, G. W., McConnell, M. J., Polinger, A., Hiebert, S. W., Licht, J. D. (2000). AML-1/ETO fusion protein is a dominant negative inhibitor of transcriptional repression by the promyelocytic leukemia zinc finger protein. Blood 96: 3939-3947 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Wood, J. D., Nucifora, F. C. Jr., Duan, K., Zhang, C., Wang, J., Kim, Y., Schilling, G., Sacchi, N., Liu, J. M., Ross, C. A. (2000). Atrophin-1, the Dentato-Rubral and Pallido-Luysian Atrophy Gene Product, Interacts with Eto/Mtg8 in the Nuclear Matrix and Represses Transcription. JCB 150: 939-948 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Shimada, H., Ichikawa, H., Nakamura, S., Katsu, R., Iwasa, M., Kitabayashi, I., Ohki, M. (2000). Analysis of genes under the downstream control of the t(8;21) fusion protein AML1-MTG8: overexpression of the TIS11b (ERF-1, cMG1) gene induces myeloid cell proliferation in response to G-CSF. Blood 96: 655-663 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Melnick, A. M., Westendorf, J. J., Polinger, A., Carlile, G. W., Arai, S., Ball, H. J., Lutterbach, B., Hiebert, S. W., Licht, J. D. (2000). The ETO Protein Disrupted in t(8;21)-Associated Acute Myeloid Leukemia Is a Corepressor for the Promyelocytic Leukemia Zinc Finger Protein. Mol. Cell. Biol. 20: 2075-2086 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Javed, A, Guo, B, Hiebert, S, Choi, J., Green, J, Zhao, S., Osborne, M., Stifani, S, Stein, J., Lian, J., van Wijnen, A., Stein, G. (2000). Groucho/TLE/R-esp proteins associate with the nuclear matrix and repress RUNX (CBF(alpha)/AML/PEBP2(alpha)) dependent activation of tissue-specific gene transcription. J. Cell Sci. 113: 2221-2231 [Abstract]  
  • Michelson, R. J., Collard, M. W., Ziemba, A. J., Persinger, J., Bartholomew, B., Huggenvik, J. I. (1999). Nuclear DEAF-1-related (NUDR) Protein Contains a Novel DNA Binding Domain and Represses Transcription of the Heterogeneous Nuclear Ribonucleoprotein A2/B1 Promoter. J. Biol. Chem. 274: 30510-30519 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Lowenberg, B., Downing, J. R., Burnett, A. (1999). Acute Myeloid Leukemia. NEJM 341: 1051-1062 [Full Text]  
  • Lutterbach, B., Westendorf, J. J., Linggi, B., Patten, A., Moniwa, M., Davie, J. R., Huynh, K. D., Bardwell, V. J., Lavinsky, R. M., Rosenfeld, M. G., Glass, C., Seto, E., Hiebert, S. W. (1998). ETO, a Target of t(8;21) in Acute Leukemia, Interacts with the N-CoR and mSin3 Corepressors. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18: 7176-7184 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Gelmetti, V., Zhang, J., Fanelli, M., Minucci, S., Pelicci, P. G., Lazar, M. A. (1998). Aberrant Recruitment of the Nuclear Receptor Corepressor-Histone Deacetylase Complex by the Acute Myeloid Leukemia Fusion Partner ETO. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18: 7185-7191 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Hildebrand, D., Tiefenbach, J., Heinzel, T., Grez, M., Maurer, A. B. (2001). Multiple Regions of ETO Cooperate in Transcriptional Repression. J. Biol. Chem. 276: 9889-9895 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lutterbach, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hiebert, S. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lutterbach, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hiebert, S. W.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»