Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, March 2000, p. 1616-1625, Vol. 20, No. 5
0270-7306/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Cubitus interruptus Requires Drosophila
CREB-Binding Protein To Activate wingless Expression in the
Drosophila Embryo
Yang
Chen,1,
R. H.
Goodman,1 and
Sarah M.
Smolik2,*
Vollum Institute1 and
Department of Cell and Developmental
Biology,2 Oregon Health Sciences University,
Portland, Oregon 97201
Received 29 July 1999/Returned for modification 23 September
1999/Accepted 23 November 1999
 |
ABSTRACT |
CREB-binding protein (CBP) serves as a transcriptional coactivator
in multiple signal transduction pathways. The Drosophila homologue of CBP, dCBP, interacts with the transcription factors Cubitus interruptus (CI), MAD, and Dorsal (DL) and functions as a
coactivator in several signaling pathways during Drosophila development, including the hedgehog (hh),
decapentaplegic (dpp), and Toll
pathways. Although dCBP is required for the expression of the
hh target genes, wingless (wg) and
patched (ptc) in vivo, and potentiates
ci-mediated transcriptional activation in vitro, it is not
known that ci absolutely requires dCBP for its activity. We
used a yeast genetic screen to identify several ci point
mutations that disrupt CI-dCBP interactions. These mutant proteins are
unable to transactivate a reporter gene regulated by ci
binding sites and have a lower dCBP-stimulated activity than wild-type
CI. When expressed exogenously in embryos, the CI point mutants cannot activate endogenous wg expression. Furthermore, a CI mutant
protein that lacks the entire dCBP interaction domain functions as a
negative competitor for wild-type CI activity, and the expression of
dCBP antisense RNAs can suppress CI transactivation in Kc cells. Taken together, our data suggest that dCBP function is necessary for ci-mediated transactivation of wg during
Drosophila embryogenesis.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
CREB-binding protein (CBP) and p300
were identified through their interactions with phosphorylated CREB and
the adenoviral protein E1A, respectively (10, 12, 20). Since
the initial cloning of CBP/p300 and the characterization of their
coactivator functions in CREB-mediated gene activation and E1A-mediated
transformation, CBP/p300 have been shown to be the coactivators for
many transcription factors and coactivators, including nuclear hormone
receptors, p65, Stat, c-Myb, c-jun, Sap-1b, c-fos, Myo-D, p53,
SRC-1/NCoA-1, TIF2/GRIP1, and p/CIP (4; for
reviews, see references 31 and
36). These interactions suggest a role for CBP/p300
in a variety of cellular processes, including differentiation, cellular proliferation, immune response, homeostasis, tumorigenesis, and organogenesis. CBP/p300 are also the target for several other viral
proteins such as simian virus 40 large T antigen and the human T-cell
leukemia virus Tax-1 (13, 18). The current model for
transcriptional activation proposes that CBP/p300 serve as bridging
molecules between DNA-binding transcription factors and the basal
transcriptional machinery. The finding that CBP/p300 interact with
components of the basal transcriptional machinery, such as TFIIB, RNA
polymerase, and RNA helicase A, supports this model as well (15,
19, 23).
Recently, CBP has been shown to possess intrinsic histone
acetyltransferase (HAT) activity, suggesting that its ability to activate transcription involves the modification of chromatin (24). Consistent with this idea is the observation
that CBP interacts synergistically with other HAT proteins that
are thought to be actively involved in chromatin remodeling, such
as p/CAF, p/CIP, and SRC-1/NCoA-1 (32, 33, 37, 40). All of
these studies suggest that CBP integrates signals from different second messenger pathways into specific patterns of gene expression.
Haploinsufficiency of CBP causes Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome
in humans, a genetic abnormality characterized by mental retardation, abnormal skeletal development, and susceptibility to cancers
(28). Mice lacking either the CBP or p300 gene die early in
embryogenesis. Disrupting one copy of CBP in mice results in abnormal
skeletal development and a decrease in BMP-7 expression,
while heterozygous p300 mutant mice show significant embryonic
lethality (35, 41). The CBP/p300 transheterozygotes are
lethal (41). Besides embryonic lethality, these knockout
animals show multiple defects in neurogenesis, bone and heart
development, and growth progress, suggesting that CBP/p300 are involved
in many developmental processes governing cellular proliferation and
differentiation (35, 41). Thus, CBP knockouts in mammalian
systems are exceedingly complex and have not allowed an analysis of the
requirement of CBP/p300 in the regulation of specific target genes.
We have isolated a Drosophila homologue of CBP (dCBP). Flies
that are heterozygous for dCBP mutations develop normally; however, embryos that are homozygous for dCBP mutations die early in development and have severe defects, such as a twisted germ band, loss of head
structures, and cuticular defects (1). dCBP has been shown to act as a coactivator for dorsal (dl)
(2), mad (39), and cubitus
interruptus (ci) (1), implicating dCBP as a
positive activator of at least three signaling pathways, the
Toll, decapentaplegic (dpp), and the
hedgehog (hh) pathways. The dl target
gene, twist (twi), is not expressed in
dCBP-mutant embryos and when tested in tissue culture, dCBP can
potentiate DL-mediated transcriptional activation (2).
Certain dpp-regulated enhancers are not activated in
dCBP-mutant embryos, and in vitro dCBP can interact with MAD, the
transcription factor that mediates the activation of these enhancers
(39). The loss of dCBP function results in the loss of
hh target gene expression; wingless
(wg) and patched (ptc) are induced but
not maintained in dCBP mutant embryos, and dCBP mutant clones in the
wing do not express ptc. Furthermore, in cell culture
experiments, dCBP potentiates the transcriptional activity of cubitus
interruptus (CI) (1). These results suggest but do not prove
that dCBP is required for the activity of the transcription factors
that mediate the various signaling cascades.
ci encodes a transcription factor responsible for
transducing the hh signal into the nucleus (3, 11, 25,
27). It is both a transcriptional repressor and activator. The
repression domain is in the N terminus, and the activation domain maps
to the C terminus, which includes the dCBP interacting domain. There are five highly conserved zinc fingers that are responsible for DNA-binding activity. A proteolytic cleavage site lies C-terminal to
the zinc finger domain between amino acids (aa) 650 to 700 (5,
21). In the absence of a hh signal, a substantial
amount of CI is proteolysed, generating a 75-kDa protein containing the zinc finger domain and the N-terminal repressor domain (5). Presumably, this form of CI migrates into nucleus, binds to the CI
binding sites in the target gene promoters, and functions as a
repressor. When cells receive an hh signal, this proteolysis is inhibited and, through an unknown mechanism, the activator form of
CI transactivates the hh target genes, presumably by
recruiting its coactivator dCBP (1, 5).
To determine whether dCBP is absolutely required for CI activity and to
define the CI-dCBP interaction more precisely, we performed a genetic
screen to isolate point mutations in CI that disrupt its interaction
with dCBP. We show that these mutant CI proteins cannot activate
transcription in cell culture and cannot support wg
expression in embryos. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the expression
of the dCBP antisense RNAs can suppress CI transcriptional activity in
cell culture. Taken together, these results demonstrate that dCBP is
required for ci-mediated transcriptional activation of CI
enhancers in cell culture and wg expression in embryos.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Plasmid vectors.
For cell culture, we used pPac5c (kindly
provided by M. Krasnow, Stanford University School of Medicine, and K. Thummel, University of Utah), which has the actin 5C proximal promoter
to drive protein expression, as our expression vector in Kc cells. The
cloning of pPac-luciferase, pPac-PKA, pPac-PKI, pPac-CI (wild type and m1-4), and pPac-CI protein kinase A (PKA) mutants was as described previously (8; note that m1-4 is the same as the
"null" in this reference). The ADHCAT and ADHCAT/GLI6BS (ADHCAT
with six GLI binding sites fused upstream of ADH promoter) reporter
vectors have been described by Akimaru et al. (1). Briefly,
the reporter gene ADHCAT/GLI6BS was constructed by inserting six copies
of the GLI-binding site (5'-GCGTGGACCACCCAAGACGAAATT-3')
(16) into the BglII site of pAdhCAT
(1, 17). Thus, the chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT)
expression is driven by 6-GLI enhancers and a minimal Adh promoter. The
internal deletion of CI [CI(
)] was generated by the following
procedure. The ci DNA fragments containing aa 918 to 1020 and aa 1160 to 1349 were PCR amplified, ligated with an engineered
internal BglII site, and fused into the ci cDNA
at the aa 918 HindIII site and the aa 1349 SmaI site. PCR sequences were confirmed by sequencing using
Sequenase (version 2.0, U.S. Biochemical [USB]). The NotI
fragment containing the dCBP cDNA was blunt ended and cloned into the
pPac5c BamHI site to generate pPac-dCBP. The pPac-dCBP
antisense vector was constructed by inserting the 4.7-kb
EcoRV fragment of dCBP that encodes the 5' coding region of
dCBP (from aa 110 to 1655) into the pPac BamHI site in the
reversed orientation. Hemagglutinin (HA)- or FLAG-tagged CI constructs
were made by inserting oligonucleotides encoding HA or FLAG sequences
into the MluI site at the fifth amino acid in CI. For yeast
transformation, the pACT-CI(wt, 2.1) and pACT-CI(m1-4, 2.1)
vectors were made by ligating the HincII-EcoRI
fragment containing CI from aa 685 to 1377 with the pACT-2 (Clontech)
digested with SmaI and EcoRI. These constructs
are in frame with the GAL4 activation domain in pACT-2. The
pACT-CI(
wt, 2.1) and pACT-CI(
m1-4, 2.1) vectors were made
adopting the same strategy by using a CI fragment (HincII-EcoRI) that has aa 1020 to 1160 deleted.
The CI-C vector (aa 984 to 1377) was originally detected in a
two-hybrid yeast screen using dCBP (aa 835 to 1043) as the "bait"
(1). This same dCBP bait was used in these studies. For
Drosophila transformation, the pUAST-CI wild-type and mutant
constructs were made by inserting the BamHI/NotI
fragment containing full-length ci into the BglII and NotI sites of the pUAST vector (6). The
CI(m1-3) mutant refers to a CI protein that is mutant for the three
consensus RRxS PKA phosphorylation sites found in the CI activation
domain. The mutants 103 and 459 are the two mutant CI proteins that
cannot interact with dCBP.
Tissue culture and transfection.
The Kc cell line is an
immortalized Drosophila embryonic cell line that is possibly
a derivative of Drosophila hematopoietic cells
(9). Kc cells were maintained, transfected, and assayed for
CAT and luciferase activities as described elsewhere (8). For immunoprecipitations, cells were grown and transfected as described
earlier (8).
Yeast two-hybrid and split-hybrid assays.
The yeast
two-hybrid assay was performed as described earlier (38)
with 25 mM 3-aminotriazole (3-AT) to select for strong interactions.
The yeast split-hybrid assay was performed as described by Shih et al.
(30). The construction of the yeast split-hybrid strain has
been described elsewhere (30), and the genotype is MATa/MAT
,
his3
200/his3
200 trp1-901/trp1-901
leu2-3,112/leu2-3,112 ade2/ade2 URA3::(LexA
operator)8-TetR LYS2::(Tet
operator)2-HIS3. The "bait" was the same as
the one used in the yeast two-hybrid screen. The library was made by
fusing a CI fragment (aa 984 to 1377) to the GAL4 activation domain
(pACT-2; Clontech). The DNA sequence ACG, which encodes aa 1161 in CI,
was mutated to ACC by PCR to generate a SacII site without
changing the amino acid sequence. Random mutagenesis was performed as
described elsewhere (30) with primers flanking the
NcoI site in the pACT-2 and the engineered SacII
site in CI. The mutagenized PCR fragments were digested with
NcoI and SacII and ligated into pACT-CI (aa 984 to 1377). The resulting mixture of plasmids was transformed into DH5
. The transformants were pooled together, and DNA was purified by
CsCl gradient centrifugation. The split-hybrid screen was carried out
in the presence of 15 mM 3-AT and absence of tetracycline to select for
noninteractors. The noninteractors from the plates were subjected to a
secondary liquid screen to identify true noninteractors. The clones
from the secondary screen were cured on minimal glucose plates, and the
library plasmids were recovered. These plasmids were digested with
BglII to select for full-length CI fragment, and the
full-length plasmids were transformed into the yeast two-hybrid system
with LexA-dCBD as bait to confirm that they do not interact with dCBD
in the presence of 20 mM 3-AT. The true noninteractors were sequenced
using the USB system according to their protocol.
Western analysis and immunoprecipitation.
Kc cells were
washed twice with phosphate-buffered saline, scraped off the plate, and
resuspended in lysis buffer containing 100 mM potassium phosphate (pH
7.8) supplemented with 1 mM dithiothreitol. Cell extracts were made by
use of three freeze-thaw cycles, followed by centrifugation at 5,000 rpm. Equal amounts of supernatant were mixed with loading buffer, heat
denatured, and loaded on a 5% sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide
gel electrophoresis gel. Fractionated cell extracts were then
electronically transferred to an Immobilon-P membrane (Millipore) by
using a semidry transfer apparatus and reacted to antibody according to
the protocol provided by ECL Kits (Amersham). The anti-CI C-terminal
antibody was provided by R. Holmgren (Northwestern University) and used
at a concentration of 1:10. Immunoprecipitations were performed as
described elsewhere (8).
Germ line transformation and whole-mount embryo in situ
hybridization and immunostaining.
The HACI(wt),
HACI(m1-3), HACI(m1-3*103), and HACI(m1-3*459) pUAST
transgenic fly lines were generated as described earlier (29,
34). At least four independent transformants were generated for
each HACI construct and tested for viability and expression with the
prd-GAL4 line RG1 (42), kindly provided by D. Kalderon, Columbia University. The dual immunohistochemistry and in
situ hybridizations of whole-mount embryos were carried out as
described earlier (7).
 |
RESULTS |
A CI protein that lacks the dCBP interaction domain is a
competitive inhibitor of wild-type CI activity in cell culture and the
expression of antisense dCBP RNAs suppresses wild-type CI
activity.
We have previously shown that CI interacts with dCBP
both in vitro and in vivo (1) but have not demonstrated that
this interaction is required for the expression of any particular
target genes. CI binds dCBP in yeast two-hybrid and glutathione
S-transferase (GST) pull-down assays. The domain in CI that
interacts with dCBP has been mapped at between aa 1020 and 1160, and
the domain in dCBP that interacts with CI is the CREB interacting
domain (dCBD) that lies between aa 835 and 1043. A schematic
representation of CI and dCBP is presented in Fig. 1. dCBP potentiates
CI-mediated transcriptional activation in S2 cells and has been
implicated as the coactivator of ci in vivo. To determine
whether ci absolutely requires dCBP for its activation
function, we used several approaches. The first approach was to make a
CI mutant that has the dCBP interaction domain (between aa 1020 and
1160) deleted [CI(
)] and then to assess its activity. Because
the dCBP interacting domain is located near the C-terminal end of CI
and thus C terminal to the DNA-binding domain of CI, it is unlikely
that a deletion of the dCBP interacting domain would affect the more
medial CI-DNA binding activity (Fig. 1).

View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Schematic representations of CI and dCBP. (A) CI. The
repressor domain extends from the N terminus to aa 442. The DNA binding
domain is defined by a five-zinc-finger region from aa 442 to 621. The
proteolytic cleavage site is in the residues from aa 650 to 700, and
the domain required to retain CI in the cytoplasm is defined by aa 703 to 850. The four PKA phosphorylation sites are located at S838, S856,
S892, and T1006. The dCBP interaction domain lies between aa 1020 and
1160, and the critical residues for the interaction are between aa 1080 and 1090. The CI activation domain extends from aa 970 to the C
terminus. (B) dCBP. The CI interaction domain is identical to the CREB
binding domain of CBP and extends from aa 835 to 1043. The Bromodomain
is found between aa 1700 and 1943, and the activation domain is in the
region of aa 2278 to the C terminus at aa 3276.
|
|
To ensure that the deletion mutant does not interact with dCBP, we
performed binding assays in the yeast two-hybrid system.
We fused the
GAL4 transactivation domain to the CI fragment that
encodes aa 685 to
1377 and includes the dCBP binding domain [CI(wt,
2.1)]. We also
generated Gal4 fusion proteins with the CI aa 685
to 1377 fragment in
which the serine-threonine residues in the
consensus RRxS/T PKA sites
had been mutated to alanine (Ser-838,
Ser-856, Ser-892, and Thr-1006)
[CI(m1-4, 2.1)]. In cell culture,
CI proteins that carry these
mutations are not proteolysed, and
their activities are not regulated
by PKA (
7,
8). We then
made deletions of the dCBP binding
domain (aa 1020 to 1160) in
the CI(wt 2.1) and CI(m1-4, 2.1)
constructs, CI(

wt, 2.1) and
CI(

m1-4, 2.1). All of these
vectors encoding GAL4 fusion proteins
were transformed into the L40
yeast two-hybrid strain that has
the LexA-dCBP (aa 835 to 1043) vector
as bait and LexA-driven
HIS3 and
lacZ as reporter
genes. We also transformed L40 with
the GAL4CI-C (aa 918 to 1377)
construct, which was originally
identified in a yeast two-hybrid screen
to detect proteins that
interact with dCBP, as a positive control. As
shown in Fig.
2A,
both CI(wt, 2.1)
and CI(m1-4, 2.1) interact with dCBP (aa 835
to 1043) in the
presence of 25 mM 3-AT, while the deletion mutants,
CI(

wt, 2.1)
and CI(

m1-4, 2.1), do not.

View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
CI deleted for the dCBP interaction domain does not bind
dCBP and is a negative competitor for wild-type CI activity. (A) The
domain of dCBP from aa 825 to 1043 that binds to CI fused to the LexA
DNA binding domain (the "bait") and the "prey" [pACT-2,
pACT-CI(wt, 2.1), pACT-CI(m1-4, 2.1), pACT-CI( wt,2.1)
pACT-CI( m1-4,2.1), or pACT-CI-C (CI aa 984 to 1377)] were
cotransformed into the yeast strain L40. The transformed yeast were
plated on selective media in the presence or absence of 25 mM 3-AT (see
Materials and Methods). (B) A total of 100 ng of pPac-luciferase, 5 µg of ADHCAT/GLI6BS, 1 µg of full-length pPac-CI(wt), or 1 µg
of pPac-CI(m1-4) and increasing amounts of pPac-CI( ) were
transfected into Kc cells. CAT activities were normalized to the
corresponding luciferase activities. The data represent
the means ± the standard error of the mean. (Inset) Western blot
showing that the CI constructs used in panel B are expressed in Kc
cells.
|
|
We then tested whether a full-length CI(

) could act as a
competitive inhibitor of CI(wt) and CI(m1-4) in Kc cells. As
shown
in Fig.
2B, CI(

) has very little effect on the basal
promoter
activity within the concentration range tested. However, when
increasing amounts of CI(

) are cotransfected with 1 µg of
CI(wt)
or CI(m1-4), CI(

) effectively suppresses the CI
activity in a
dose-dependent manner. CI(

) is effectively
expressed in our Kc
cell system as determined by Western analysis with
an antibody
against the C terminus of CI protein (Fig.
2B, inset). One
explanation
for this result is that the CI(

) binds to the CI-DNA
binding
site and competes with wild-type CI for DNA binding. Because
the
CI(

) does not have the dCBP interaction domain, dCBP is not
recruited
to the promoter region and we do not observe transcriptional
activation.
However, this experiment does not rule out the possibility
that
the deletion of 140 amino acids from the CI activation domain
disrupts the structure of CI to such an extent that the protein
can no
longer interact with other required proteins or the basal
transcriptional machinery. To assess whether dCBP is required
for CI
activity, we performed a dCBP antisense
experiment.
As shown in Fig.
3, transfecting up to 8 µg of an antisense dCBP vector that encodes antisense message for aa
110 to 1655
has a negligible effect on the basal promoter activity.
However,
in the presence of CI(wt), dCBP antisense effectively
suppresses
wild-type CI activity. Antisense dCBP RNAs were also able to
suppress
CI(m1-4) activity.

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Expression of dCBP antisense RNA inhibits CI-mediated
transcriptional activation. A total of 100 ng of pPac-luciferase, 5 µg of ADHCAT/GLI6BS, 1 µg of full-length pPac-CI(wt), or 1 µg
of pPac-CI(m1-4) and increasing amounts of pPac-dCBP antisense
vector were transfected into Kc cells. CAT activities were assayed 5 days after transfection and processed as described in Fig. 1B.
|
|
Identification of CI point mutations that disrupt the CI-dCBP
interaction.
The deletion and antisense experiments support the
hypothesis that dCBP is required for CI-mediated transcriptional
activation. However, they cannot rule out the possibility that
antisense dCBP has a secondary effect on unknown factors that are
important for CI transcriptional activity. Ideally, a mutation in CI
that affected only its ability to interact with dCBP would demonstrate
the requirement of dCBP for CI function. To generate point mutations in
CI that disrupt the CI-dCBP interaction, we performed a yeast genetic screen termed the split-hybrid assay (30). The split-hybrid system is a two-component reporter system that converts the disruption of a protein-protein interaction into a positive selection. The first
reporter is the TetR gene that is driven by LexA binding sites. The
second reporter is the HIS3 gene that is driven by the TetR operator
sites. When a LexA binding domain is fused to a protein that interacts
with another protein fused to the VP16 activation domain (or the GAL4
activation domain), TetR is expressed. The TetR then binds to the
TetR operator sites upstream of HIS3 and suppresses the expression of
HIS3. Thus, these yeast strains that contain interacting proteins
cannot grow on plates lacking histidine. Mutations that disrupt the
binding of the two interacting proteins, inhibit the activation of
TetR. The lower doses of TetR allow the expression of HIS3, and yeast
strains carrying these mutant proteins will grow in the absence of
histidine. Tetracycline can be used to control LexA fusions that have
intrinsic transcriptional activity and 3-AT, an inhibitor of the
histidine pathway, can be used to select for weak protein-protein interactions.
To generate mutations in CI that would disrupt the dCBP-CI
interaction, we randomly mutagenized the dCBP interacting domain
in CI
(aa 1020 to 1160) and cloned these mutant fragments into
pACT-CI that
has the GAL4 activation domain fused to the C terminus
of CI from
aa 984 to 1377. This randomly mutagenized CI library
was
transformed into the split-hybrid yeast strain that carries
a vector
expressing a fusion protein between the LexA DNA binding
domain and the
CI-binding domain of dCBP (aa 835 to 1043). We
screened 20,000 yeast
transformants and isolated 500 colonies
that grew in the presence of
3-AT on HIS-selective plates. A total
of 365 of the 500 colonies grew
well in liquid medium in the presence
of different concentrations of
3-AT. Of these 365 yeast clones,
146 contain the full-length CI
fragment, and 94 of them produce
proteins that do not interact with
dCBP when tested in a yeast
two-hybrid system. The majority of these 94 clones are frameshift
mutations (50), nonsense mutations
(
18), and multiple mutations
(
9). Only 10 are
single or double mutations. Seven wild-type
clones escaped the screen.
The 12 clones containing the single,
double, or triple mutations were
cloned into full-length
ci, and
the vectors were transfected
into Kc cells. We determined the
transcriptional activities of these
mutant proteins and the ability
of dCBP to augment these activities.
The results of these studies
are shown in Fig.
4A and summarized in Table
1. A graphic representation
of the
effects of dCBP on the activities of four proteins with
single
mutations is illustrated in Fig.
4B.

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
Activities of the CI mutants in Kc cells. (A) A total of
100 ng of pPac-luciferase, 5 µg of ADHCAT/GLI6BS, and either 2 µg
of pPac-FLAGCI(wt) or pPac-FLAGCI(split-hybrid mutant) were
transfected into Kc cells. CAT activities were analyzed as for Fig. 1B.
(Inset) Western blot showing that the CI mutant constructs are
expressed in Kc cells. (B) CAT activities of 2 µg of the single
mutation CI constructs in the presence or absence of 1 µg of
pPac-dCBP. A summary of the results in panels A and B is presented in
Table 1.
|
|
When 2 µg of DNA was used to transfect Kc cells, 10 of the 12 mutants
that did not interact with dCBP in yeast had significantly
decreased
activity in Kc cells; two preserved more than 50% wild-type
CI
activity. To determine whether the decrease in activity was
due to
insufficient protein expression, we performed a Western
blot analysis
of cells transfected with the different CI mutants.
All of the
transfected cells expressed full-length protein at
levels comparable to
or higher than cells expressing wild-type
CI (Fig.
4A, inset). Four of
the seven mutants with single amino
acid changes had less than 10% of
the wild-type activity. Two
of the mutations, 272 and 103, involve
residue changes to the
known helix-disrupting residues proline and
glycine, respectively.
The two mutations 376 and 459 are relatively
benign; mutation
376 changes a leucine to a ring histidine, and
mutation 459 changes
a methionine to threonine. We chose one disruption
mutation, 103,
and one benign mutation, 459, to further characterize
the CI-dCBP
interaction.
Construction and analysis of CI*103 and CI*459 double mutants that
are independent of PKA regulation.
The purpose of the yeast screen
and tissue culture experiments was to provide reagents to test the
hypothesis that dCBP is required for CI function in vivo. We expected
that the overexpression of CI carrying these hypomorphic mutations in
flies would be of little consequence and would not affect endogenous
wg expression. Certainly, these mutants would have less
effect on wg expression than the effect observed when
wild-type CI is overexpressed. We generated UAS-CI transgenic fly lines
and crossed them with the prd-GAL4 line, in which the
expression of the GAL4 activator is under the control of the
paired (prd) promoter, to study the effect of
overexpressing wild-type CI on endogenous wg expression
(7). We do not observe any abnormalities or changes in
endogenous wg expression when the wild-type CI is
overexpressed in the prd domain (Fig. 6A and reference
7). This suggests that, like the endogenous wild-type CI, the exogenous CI protein is proteolyzed to the repressor form of the protein in the cells of the prd domain that do
not receive a hh signal. To determine whether the
hypomorphic CI*103 and CI*459 mutants could activate wg
expression in the Drosophila embryo, we needed to assess the
activity of CI*103 and CI*459 in forms that could not be proteolyzed
and would thus be in an active form in the cells of the prd
domain that do not receive a hh signal.
We generated double-mutant CI constructs that have the consensus RRxS
PKA sites at Ser-838, Ser-856, and Ser-892 mutated to
alanines in
addition to the point mutations in CI*103 and CI*459
[CI(m1-3*103)
and CI(m1-3*459)]. We have previously shown that
when the four
consensus PKA sites are mutated, CI is no longer
proteolyzed, regulated
by PKA, or regulated by
hedgehog signaling
to activate
wg (
7,
8). To use these two double-mutant forms
of CI, it was necessary to ensure that PKA did not negatively
regulate
the activity of CI(m1-3), that dCBP could potentiate
the activity
of CI(m1-3), and that the double-mutant proteins
were not
proteolyzed. As shown in Fig.
5A,
CI(m1-3) is 11-fold
more active than CI(wt) in Kc cells, and
this activity is not
affected by the addition of the PKA inhibitor PKI.
CI(wt) activity
increases 10-fold in the presence of PKI. When
additional PKA
is introduced, the CI(wt) activity is suppressed
threefold, while
the activity of CI(m1-3) increases almost twofold.
Thus, CI(m1-3),
like CI(m1-4) (
8), is no longer
subject to the negative regulation
of PKA.

View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
CI that is mutant for the three consensus PKA sites and
for which the dCBP binding domain is hypomorphic is independent of
negative PKA regulation and minimally augmented by additional dCBP. (A)
A total of 100 ng of pPac-luciferase, 5 µg of ADHCAT/GLI6BS, and 2 µg of pPac-HACI(wt), pPac-FLAGCI(split-hybrid mutant),
pPac-HACI(m1-3), or pPac-HACI(m1-3 split-hybrid mutant), plus 4 µg of pPac, pPac-PKA, or pPac-PKI were transfected into Kc cells. CAT
activities were analyzed as in Fig. 1B. (B) CAT activities of 2 µg of
the PKA mutant CI construct or double-mutant CI constructs in the
presence or absence of 1 µg of pPac-dCBP. (Inset) Western blot
showing that the CI constructs used in the transfection assay were
expressed in Kc cells. (C) A total of 10 µg of each pPac-HA CI
constructs was transfected into Kc cells, immunoprecipitated, and
probed with HA antibody. The arrow shows the position of the 75-kDa
repressor form of CI. The larger fragments are presumed to be breakdown
products because they are variable from gel to gel (for comparison, see
references 7 and 8).
|
|
The maximal activities of CI(m1-3*103) and CI(m1-3*459) are
reduced and represent approximately 20% of maximal CI(wt) activity
and only 4% of maximal CI(m1-3) activity. These activities are
similar to those of the single CI*103 and CI*459 mutants that
also have
approximately 20% the maximal wild-type activity. In
the presence of
PKI, the activities of the CI*103 and CI*459 mutants
increase fivefold
and represent only 10% of the PKI-stimulated
wild-type CI activity.
The activities of the double mutants do
not increase significantly
with the addition of PKI. When PKA
is added to the double mutants,
their activities are enhanced
by three- to fourfold. The addition of
dCBP augments the activities
of CI(m1-3*103) and CI(m1-3*459),
but these activities are sevenfold
less than the dCBP-enhanced activity
of CI(m1-3). The decreased
activities observed for the CI double
mutants are not due to low
expression levels of the proteins. A Western
blot probed with
an anti-CI antibody (Fig.
5B, inset)
demonstrates that the Kc
cells express high levels of the mutant
proteins. Although the
CI double mutants are not proteolyzed to
the repressor form in
the cells (Fig.
5C), their activities are less
potent compared
to the transactivation achieved with the same dose of
CI(wt).
The CI double mutants cannot activate endogenous wg
expression in the Drosophila embryo.
We made upstream
activation sequence (UAS)-HACI(m1-3), UAS-HACI(m1-3*103),
and UAS-HACI(m1-3*459) transgenic fly lines to investigate the
consequences of overexpressing the CI mutants that are defective in
dCBP binding in vivo. UAS-HACI(m1-3), UAS-HACI(m1-3*103), and
UAS-HACI(m1-3*459) lines were crossed to the
prd-GAL4 line to generate flies that ectopically express
HA-tagged CI in the paired (prd) expression
domain. Figure 6 illustrates embryos that are double stained for the HA epitope and wg message. Our
previous findings demonstrated that inhibition of PKA phosphorylation
at Ser-838, Ser-856, and Ser-892 abolishes CI proteolysis and increases CI transcriptional activity and that, when the four consensus PKA sites
are mutant, CI is able to activate wg in the absence of a HH
signal (7, 8). In agreement with these studies, the ectopic
expression of HACI(m1-3) results in the ectopic expression of
wg in the anteriormost cells of the prd
expression domain (Fig. 6B). In 97.8% (266 of 272) of the embryos
counted, wg expression is expanded in the anterior cells of
the prd domains. In contrast, the overexpression of
HACI(m1-3*103) or HACI(m1-3*459) does not result in the ectopic
expression of wg. In 94.5% (357 of 378) of the
HACI(m1-3*103) and 93% (185 of 198) of the HACI(m1-3*459) embryos, the levels of wg message in the prd
domains are nearly wild type compared to the neighboring segments that
express endogenous CI (Fig. 6C). While animals expressing CI(m1-3)
in the prd domains are virtually lethal (10% survival),
those expressing HACI(m1-3*103) or HACI(m1-3*459) in the
prd domains are viable.

View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
CI mutant for the dCBP binding cannot transactivate
wg in the embryo. The brackets delineate the prd
domain, and the vertical black bars represent the domains of
wg expression. The cells posterior to the domain of
wg expression are not competent to express wg
(14). (A) UAS-HACI/+; prd-GAL4/+ embryos have a
wild-type pattern of wg expression. Although overexpressed
in cells that do not receive a HH signal, wild-type CI is regulated; it
is proteolyzed in these cells to the repressor form. The exogenous
wild-type CI is not proteolyzed in the cells abutting the
anterior-posterior boundary that receive an HH signal, and the
presumably full-length activated form ensures the activation of
wg. (B) UAS-HACI(m1-3)/+;
prd-GAL4/+ embryos. wg is misexpressed in the
anterior cells of the prd domain that express the mutant CI
and do not receive an HH signal. The mutant CI cannot be phosphorylated
and thus is not proteolyzed in cells that do not receive a HH signal.
The increased amount of activated CI is sufficient to ensure
wg expression in these cells. (C) In
UAS-HACI(m1-3*459)/+; prd-GAL4/+
embryos, the exogenous expression of the mutant CI should stimulate
wg expression in the cells that do not receive an HH signal
because it cannot be proteolyzed to the repressor form of CI. However,
this is not the case. The overexpression of this mutant CI cannot
activate wg to the degree seen in panel B because the
ability of the mutant CI to interact with dCBP is reduced. This
phenotype is identical to that of the
UAS-HACI(m1-3*103)/+; prd-GAL4/+
embryos. In each panel, embryos are stained with an anti-HA antibody to
detect exogenous CI and a wg antisense RNA probe. Anterior
is left and ventral is forward.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The results of cell culture experiments have produced a model of
CBP action in which the coactivator stimulates basal transcription by
forming a molecular bridge between signal-responsive transcriptional activators and the basal transcriptional machinery (15, 19, 23,
31, 36). The discovery that CBP has an intrinsic
acetyltransferase activity suggests that by acetylating histones, CBP
might open the nucleosomes and allow activator access to the promoters
(24). The fact that CBP can bind additional
acetyltransferases further suggests that CBP is part of chromatin
remodeling complexes (32, 33, 37, 40). Although these
studies have defined some of the signaling pathways and types of
transcriptional activities that involve CBP, it is not yet certain how
CBP and its associated proteins function in vivo. The identification of
the CBP homologue in Drosophila and the generation of
mutations in the dCBP gene have identified some of the signaling
pathways that use dCBP in flies. dCBP mutant animals do not express
twist, the target gene of the Toll pathway
(2), wg or ptc, targets of the
hh pathway (1), or certain
dpp-responsive enhancers (39). Although dCBP has
been shown to interact with the transcription factors that activate
these targets and in some cases to augment their activities, it has not
been demonstrated whether dCBP is absolutely required for the
activation of these factors.
We provide here evidence that the CI-dCBP interaction is required for
the CI activation of a CI reporter in cell culture and for
wg expression in embryos. The expression of antisense dCBP RNAs can suppress CI activity in cell culture. This suppression is
detected after 4 days, demonstrating that dCBP has a long half-life in
these cells. This result is consistent with the fact that maternal dCBP
RNAs can rescue the lack of zygotic dCBP through embryonic development
(1). To rule out the possibility that the loss of dCBP was
having a secondary effect on proteins required for CI activity, we
generated mutations in CI that could not interact with dCBP and
assessed their abilities to transactivate CI targets in cell culture
and the wg target gene in embryos.
The first mutant we generated was a CI deleted for the dCBP interaction
domain. This protein cannot transactivate a CI reporter gene and acts
as an inhibitor of wild-type CI in Kc cells. The dCBP interaction
domain was defined by GST pull-down experiments and the fact that it
interacts with a dCBP "bait" in yeast two-hybrid screens
(1). While other regions of CI may also interact with dCBP,
these interactions may not be sufficient to rescue the loss of the
characterized interaction domain. An alternate explanation of these
results may be that, in addition to deleting the dCBP interaction
domain, this deletion ablates regions of CI that are needed to interact
with the basal transcriptional machinery. In this case, the interaction
with dCBP may only be required to enhance the activity. To
differentiate these possibilities, we used the yeast split-hybrid
system to generate point mutations in CI that would destabilize the
CI-dCBP interaction. We analyzed mutants with single amino acid changes
that are predicted either to maintain the overall structure of the CI
activation domain or to disrupt the helical structure of the CBP
interaction domain. The single site mutations should minimize the
possibility that the CI mutants would not interact with other factors
required for CI activity.
The four single site mutations that disrupt the CI-dCBP interaction and
have the lowest activity fall in the amino acid sequence LILPDEMLQY.
Mutation 376 is a lesion in the first L residue, while mutations 103, 459, and 272 are lesions in the E, M, and third L residues,
respectively. These residues are highly conserved in the CBP
binding domain of SREBP, a transcription factor that binds to and is
activated by CBP in a phosphorylation-independent manner (22,
26). The first L, the M, and third L are exactly conserved, while
the two similarly charged D and E residues are switched. This
comparison suggests that this motif will be important for protein
binding to CBP.
The CI mutation CI*459 is a change from methionine to threonine and is
least likely to disrupt the conformation of the CI activation domain.
In contrast, CI*103, changes a charged glutamic acid residue to a
glycine. This mutation may interfere with dCBP binding either by
changing a critical charge interaction or by disrupting the helical
structure of the dCBP binding domain. Although neither protein binds
dCBP in the yeast two-hybrid assay, both behave as hypomorphs in
transient-transfection assays and have a maximal activity that is 20%
of the maximal wild-type CI activity. That these mutations do not
result in a complete loss of CI function suggests that they destabilize
the CI-dCBP interaction and lower the affinity of CI for dCBP or that
CI interacts with other dCBP residues and this secondary interaction(s)
can allow some mutant CI activity. It is possible that the 103 and 459 mutations disrupt the interaction between CI and a factor other than
dCBP and that this interaction is more critical to CI function than the
CI-dCBP interaction. If so, one would expect that increases in the
dosage of dCBP would not affect the mutant protein activity. This is not the case. Increasing the amount of dCBP can augment the activities of CI*103 and CI*459, although these activities are 10-fold less than
those seen when dCBP coactivates wild-type CI. The results of these
studies do not rule out the possibility that the dCBP interaction
domain interacts with other factors, but they do support the hypothesis
that the dCBP interaction with CI is required for wild-type CI function.
We next wanted to determine whether these mutant proteins could
activate an endogenous CI promoter. In the cell culture assays we
utilize an artificial promoter with multiple CI binding sites and
assess the ability of the bound CI to recruit a specific coactivator. The CI-dCBP interaction may be crucial to the transactivation of these
artificial promoters but not be essential on an endogenous promoter.
The CI mutants behave as hypomorphs, and we would not expect to see a
loss of activity in a background of wild-type CI. Therefore, we needed
to assess the activities of the CI mutants in cells where wild-type CI
is inactive. We took advantage of our finding that mutations in the
four consensus RRxS/T PKA sites prevent proteolysis of CI and result in
the transactivation of wg in cells that do not receive an HH
signal (7, 8). We thus generated CI double mutants that
carry the 103 and 459 lesions in the dCBP interaction domain and
mutations in the three PKA phosphorylation sites.
The CI(m1-3) mutant behaves in the same manner as the CI(m1-4)
mutant; its activity is not affected by the addition of the PKA
inhibitor PKI and is enhanced twofold by additional PKA. This twofold
activation suggests that there is a secondary, positive effect of PKA
on CI activity; however, it is not significant in cell culture and
cannot be detected in vivo (7). As with CI(m1-4), CI(m1-3) can transactivate the endogenous wg promoter in
the anterior cells of the prd domain that do not receive an
HH signal.
The CI double mutants behave in a manner consistent with their lesions.
Their activities are severely reduced, are not affected by the presence
of PKI, and are only mildly enhanced by additional PKA. When expressed
in the prd domain, the CI double mutants cannot misexpress
endogenous wg in the anterior cells that do not receive a HH
signal. Thus, the CI-dCBP interaction is required for the CI-mediated
activation of endogenous wg expression. Obviously, we will
want to assess the role the CI-dCBP interaction at other CI target
genes in various tissues during development. To determine the role of
dCBP in signaling, it will be important to define which factors and
promoters require dCBP and which are augmented by dCBP function.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
This work was supported by a grant from the National Institutes
of Health (DK4Y239).
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Cell and Developmental Biology, L-215, Oregon Health Sciences
University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Portland, OR 97201. Phone:
(503) 494-7192. Fax: (503) 494-4353. E-mail: smoliks{at}ohsu.edu.
Present address: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT 84108.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Akimaru, H.,
Y. Chen,
P. Dai,
D.-X. Hou,
M. Nonaka,
S. M. Smolik,
S. Armstrong,
R. H. Goodman, and S. Ishii.
1997.
Drosophila CBP is a co-activator of cubitus interruptus in hedgehog signaling.
Nature
386:735-738[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Akimaru, H.,
D. Hou, and S. Ishii.
1997.
Drosophila CBP is required for dorsal-dependent twist gene expression.
Nat. Genet.
17:211-214[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Alexandre, C.,
A. Jacinto, and P. W. Ingham.
1996.
Transcriptional activation of hedgehog target genes in Drosophila is mediated directly by the cubitus interruptus protein, a member of the GLI family of zinc finger DNA-binding proteins.
Genes Dev.
10:2003-2013[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Avantaggiati, M. L.,
V. Ogryzko,
K. Gardner,
A. Giordano,
A. S. Levine, and K. Kelly.
1997.
Recruitment of p300/CBP in p53-dependent signal pathways.
Cell
89:1175-1184[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 5.
|
Aza-Blanc, P.,
F.-A. Ramirez-Weber, and T. B. Kornberg.
1997.
Proteolysis that is inhibited by hedgehog targets cubitus interruptus protein to the nucleus and converts it to a repressor.
Cell
89:1043-1053[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Brand, A. H., and N. Perrimon.
1993.
Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes.
Development
118:401-415[Abstract].
|
| 7.
|
Chen, Y.,
J.-R. Cardinaux,
R. H. Goodman, and S. M. Smolik.
1999.
Mutants of cubitus interruptus that are independent of PKA regulation are independent of hedgehog signaling.
Development
126:3607-3616[Abstract].
|
| 8.
|
Chen, Y.,
N. Gallaher,
R. H. Goodman, and S. M. Smolik.
1998.
Protein kinase A directly regulates the activity and proteolysis of cubitus interruptus.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
95:2349-2354[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Cherbas, L.,
R. Moss, and P. Cherbas.
1994.
Transformation techniques for Drosophila cell lines, p. 161-179.
In
L. S. B. Goldstein, and E. A. Fyrberg (ed.), Drosophila melanogaster: practical uses in cell and molecular biology, vol. 44. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
|
| 10.
|
Chrivia, J. C.,
R. P. S. Kwok,
N. Lamb,
M. Hagiwara,
M. R. Montiminy, and R. H. Goodman.
1993.
Phosphorylated CREB binds specifically to the nuclear protein CBP.
Nature
365:855-859[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Dominguez, M.,
M. Brunner,
E. Hafen, and K. Basler.
1996.
Sending and receiving the hedgehog signal: control by the Drosophila Gli protein cubitus interruptus.
Science
272:1621-1625[Abstract].
|
| 12.
|
Eckner, R.,
M. E. Ewen,
D. Newsome,
M. Gerdes,
J. A. DeCaprio,
J. B. Lawrence, and D. M. Livingston.
1994.
Molecular cloning and functional analysis of the adenovirus E1A-associated 300-kD protein (p300) reveals a protein with properties of a transcriptional adaptor.
Genes Dev.
8:869-884[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 13.
|
Eckner, R.,
J. W. Ludlow,
N. L. Lill,
E. Oldread,
Z. Arany,
N. Modjtahedi,
J. A. DeCaprio,
D. M. Livingston, and J. A. Morgan.
1996.
Association of p300 and CBP with simian virus 40 large T antigen.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16:3454-3464[Abstract].
|
| 14.
|
Ingham, P. W.
1993.
Localized hedgehog activity controls spatial limits of wingless transcription in the Drosophila embryo.
Nature
366:560-562[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 15.
|
Kee, B. L.,
J. Arias, and M. R. Montminy.
1996.
Adaptor-mediated recruitment of RNA polymerase II to a signal-dependent activator.
J. Biol. Chem.
271:2373-2375[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Kinzler, K. W., and B. Vogelstein.
1990.
The GLI gene encodes a nuclear protein which binds specific sequences in the human genome.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
10:634-642[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 17.
|
Krasnow, M. A.,
E. E. Saffman,
K. Kornfeld, and D. S. Hogness.
1989.
Transcriptional activation and repression by Ultrabithorax proteins in cultured Drosophila cells.
Cell
57:1031-1043[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Kwok, R. P. S.,
M. E. Laurance,
J. R. Lundblad,
P. S. Goldman,
H.-M. Shih,
L. M. Connor,
S. J. Marriott, and R. H. Goodman.
1996.
Control of cAMP-regulated enhancers by the viral transactivator Tax through CREB and the co-activator CBP.
Nature
380:642-646[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 19.
|
Kwok, R. P. S.,
J. R. Lundblad,
J. C. Chrivia,
J. P. Richards,
H. P. Bachinger,
R. G. Brennan,
S. G. E. Roberts,
M. R. Green, and R. H. Goodman.
1994.
Nuclear protein CBP is a coactivator for the transcription factor CREB.
Nature
370:223-226[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 20.
|
Lundblad, J. R.,
R. P. S. Kwok,
M. E. Laurance,
M. L. Harter, and R. H. Goodman.
1995.
Adenoviral E1A-associated protein p300 as a functional homologue of the transcriptional co-activator CBP.
Nature
374:85-88[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 21.
|
Methot, N., and C. Basler.
1999.
Hedgehog controls limb development by regulating the activities of distinct transcriptional activator and repressor forms of cubitus interruptus.
Cell
96:819-831[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Naar, A. M.,
P. A. Beaurang,
K. M. Robinson,
J. D. Oliner,
D. Avizonis,
S. Scheek,
J. Zwicker,
J. T. Kadonaga, and R. Tjian.
1998.
Chromatin, TAFs, and a novel multiprotein coactivator are required for synergistic activation by Sp1 and SREBP-1a in vitro.
Genes Dev.
12:3020-3031[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 23.
|
Nakajima, T.,
C. Uchida,
S. F. Anderson,
C.-G. Lee,
J. Hurwitz,
J. D. Parvin, and M. Montminy.
1997.
RNA helicase A mediates association of CBP with RNA polymerase II.
Cell
90:1107-1112[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 24.
|
Ogryzko, V. V.,
R. L. Schiltz,
V. Russanova,
B. H. Howard, and Y. Nakatani.
1996.
The transcriptional coactivators p300 and CBP are histone acetyltransferases.
Cell
87:953-959[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 25.
|
Ohlen, T. V.,
D. Lessing,
R. Nusse, and J. E. Hooper.
1997.
Hedgehog signaling regulates transcription through cubitus interruptus, a sequence-specific DNA binding protein.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94:2404-2409[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 26.
|
Oliner, J. D.,
J. M. Anderson,
S. K. Hansen,
S. Zhou, and R. Tjian.
1996.
SREBP transcriptional activity is mediated through an interaction with the CREB-binding protein.
Genes Dev.
10:2903-2911[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 27.
|
Orenic, T. V.,
D. C. Slusarski,
K. L. Kroll, and R. A. Holmgren.
1990.
Cloning and characterization of the segment polarity gene cubitus interruptus Dominant of Drosophila.
Genes Dev.
4:1053-1067[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 28.
|
Petrij, F.,
R. H. Giles,
H. G. Dauwerse,
J. J. Saris,
R. C. M. Hennekam,
M. Masuno,
N. Tommerup,
G.-J. B. V. Ommen,
R. H. Goodman,
D. J. M. Peters, and M. H. Breuning.
1995.
Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome caused by mutations in the transcriptional co-activator CBP.
Nature
376:348-351[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 29.
|
Rose, R. E.,
N. M. Gallaher,
D. J. Andrew,
R. H. Goodman, and S. M. Smolik.
1997.
The CRE binding protein dCREB-A is required for Drosophila embryonic development.
Genetics
146:595-606[Abstract].
|
| 30.
|
Shih, H.-M.,
P. S. Goldman,
A. J. DeMaggio,
S. M. Hollenberg,
R. H. Goodman, and M. F. Hoekstra.
1996.
A positive genetic selection for disrupting protein-protein interaction: identification of CREB mutations that prevent association with the coactivator CBP.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
93:13896-13901[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 31.
|
Shikama, N.,
J. Lyon, and N. B. L. Thangue.
1997.
The p300/CBP family: integrating signals with transcription factors and chromatin.
Trends Cell Biol.
7:230-236.
|
| 32.
|
Smith, C. L.,
S. A. Onate,
M.-J. Tsai, and B. W. O'Malley.
1996.
CREB binding protein acts synergistically with steroid receptor coactivator-1 to enhance steroid receptor-dependent transcription.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
93:8884-8888[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 33.
|
Spencer, T. E.,
G. Jenster,
M. M. Burcin,
C. D. Allis,
J. Zhou,
C. A. Mizzen,
N. J. McKenna,
S. A. Onate,
S. Y. Tsai,
M.-J. Tsai, and B. W. O'Malley.
1997.
Steroid receptor coactivator-1 is a histone acetyltransferase.
Nature
389:194-198[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 34.
|
Spradling, A.
1986.
P element-mediated transformation, p. 175-198.
In
D. B. Roberts (ed.), Drosophila: a practical approach. IRL Press, New York, N.Y.
|
| 35.
|
Tanaka, Y.,
I. Naruse,
T. Maekawa,
H. Masuya,
T. Shiroishi, and S. Ishii.
1997.
Abnormal skeletal patterning in embryos lacking a single CBP allele: a partial similarity with Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94:10215-10220[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 36.
|
Torchia, J.,
C. Glass, and M. G. Rosenfeld.
1998.
Co-activators and co-repressors in the integration of transcriptional responses.
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
10:373-383[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 37.
|
Torchia, J.,
D. W. Rose,
J. Inostroza,
Y. Kamel,
S. Westin,
C. K. Glass, and M. G. Rosenfeld.
1997.
The transcriptional co-activator p/CIP binds CBP and mediates nuclear-receptor function.
Nature
387:677-684[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 38.
|
Vojtek, A. B.,
S. M. Hollenberg, and J. A. Cooper.
1993.
Mammalian Ras interacts directly with the serine/threonine kinase Raf.
Cell
74:205-214[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 39.
|
Waltzer, L., and M. Bienz.
1999.
A function of CBP as a transcriptional co-activator during Dpp signalling.
EMBO J.
18:1630-1641[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 40.
|
Yang, X.-J.,
V. V. Ogryzko,
J.-I. Nishikawa,
B. H. Howard, and Y. Nakatani.
1996.
A p300/CBP-associated factor that competes with the adenoviral oncoprotein E1A.
Nature
382:319-324[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 41.
|
Yao, T.-P.,
S. P. Oh,
M. Fuchs,
N.-D. Zhou,
L.-E. Chng,
D. Newsome,
R. T. Bronson,
E. Li,
D. M. Livingston, and R. Eckner.
1998.
Gene dosage-dependent embryonic development and proliferation defects in mice lacking the transcriptional integrator p300.
Cell
93:361-372[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 42.
|
Yoffe, K. B.,
A. S. Manoukian,
E. L. Wilder,
A. H. Brand, and N. Perrimon.
1995.
Evidence for engrailed-independent wingless autoregulation in Drosophila.
Dev. Biol.
170:636-650[CrossRef][Medline].
|
Molecular and Cellular Biology, March 2000, p. 1616-1625, Vol. 20, No. 5
0270-7306/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Eichberger, T., Kaser, A., Pixner, C., Schmid, C., Klingler, S., Winklmayr, M., Hauser-Kronberger, C., Aberger, F., Frischauf, A.-M.
(2008). GLI2-specific Transcriptional Activation of the Bone Morphogenetic Protein/Activin Antagonist Follistatin in Human Epidermal Cells. J. Biol. Chem.
283: 12426-12437
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Lum, L., Beachy, P. A.
(2004). The Hedgehog Response Network: Sensors, Switches, and Routers. Science
304: 1755-1759
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Goto, N. K., Zor, T., Martinez-Yamout, M., Dyson, H. J., Wright, P. E.
(2002). Cooperativity in Transcription Factor Binding to the Coactivator CREB-binding Protein (CBP). THE MIXED LINEAGE LEUKEMIA PROTEIN (MLL) ACTIVATION DOMAIN BINDS TO AN ALLOSTERIC SITE ON THE KIX DOMAIN. J. Biol. Chem.
277: 43168-43174
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Mao, J., Maye, P., Kogerman, P., Tejedor, F. J., Toftgard, R., Xie, W., Wu, G., Wu, D.
(2002). Regulation of Gli1 Transcriptional Activity in the Nucleus by Dyrk1. J. Biol. Chem.
277: 35156-35161
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Ludlam, W. H., Taylor, M. H., Tanner, K. G., Denu, J. M., Goodman, R. H., Smolik, S. M.
(2002). The Acetyltransferase Activity of CBP Is Required for wingless Activation and H4 Acetylation in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Cell. Biol.
22: 3832-3841
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Bantignies, F., Goodman, R. H., Smolik, S. M.
(2002). The interaction between the coactivator dCBP and Modulo, a chromatin-associated factor, affects segmentation and melanotic tumor formation in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
10.1073/pnas.052509799v1
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Bantignies, F., Goodman, R. H., Smolik, S. M.
(2000). Functional Interaction between the Coactivator Drosophila CREB-Binding Protein and ASH1, a Member of the Trithorax Group of Chromatin Modifiers. Mol. Cell. Biol.
20: 9317-9330
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Goodman, R. H., Smolik, S.
(2000). CBP/p300 in cell growth, transformation, and development. Genes Dev.
14: 1553-1577
[Full Text]
-
Cardinaux, J.-R., Notis, J. C., Zhang, Q., Vo, N., Craig, J. C., Fass, D. M., Brennan, R. G., Goodman, R. H.
(2000). Recruitment of CREB Binding Protein Is Sufficient for CREB-Mediated Gene Activation. Mol. Cell. Biol.
20: 1546-1552
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Wang, Q., Holmgren, R.
(2000). Nuclear import of cubitus interruptus is regulated by hedgehog via a mechanism distinct from Ci stabilization and Ci activation. Development
127: 3131-3139
[Abstract]
-
Bantignies, F., Goodman, R. H., Smolik, S. M.
(2002). The interaction between the coactivator dCBP and Modulo, a chromatin-associated factor, affects segmentation and melanotic tumor formation in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
99: 2895-2900
[Abstract]
[Full Text]