Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, August 2001, p. 5531-5540, Vol. 21, No. 16
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.16.5531-5540.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Reconstitution of Enhancer Function in Paternal
Pronuclei of One-Cell Mouse Embryos
Luca
Rastelli,1,
Karen
Robinson,2,
Yanbo
Xu,1 and
Sadhan
Majumder1,*
Department of Molecular Genetics, The
University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
77030,1 and Department of Biology,
University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California
920932
Received 10 November 2000/Returned for modification 22 December
2000/Accepted 11 May 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
How chromatin-mediated transcription regulates the beginning of
mammalian development is currently unknown. Factors responsible for
promoter repression and enhancer-mediated relief of this repression are
not present in the paternal pronuclei of one-cell mouse embryos but are
present in the zygotic nuclei of two-cell embryos. Here we show that
coinjection of purified histones and a plasmid-encoded reporter gene
into the paternal pronuclei of one-cell embryos at a specific
histone-DNA concentration could recreate the behavior observed in
two-cell embryos: acquisition of promoter repression and subsequent
relief of this repression either by functional enhancers or by histone
deacetylase inhibitors. Furthermore, the extent of enhancer-mediated
stimulation in one-cell embryos depended on the acetylation status of
the injected histones, on the treatment of embryos with a histone
deacetylase inhibitor, and on the developmentally regulated appearance
of enhancer-specific coactivator activity. The coinjected plasmids in
one-cell embryos also exhibited chromatin assembly, as determined by a
supercoiling assay. Thus, injection of histones into one-cell embryos
faithfully reproduced the chromatin-mediated transcription observed in
two-cell embryos. These results suggest that the need for enhancers to
stimulate promoters through relief of chromatin-mediated repression
occurs once the parental genomes are organized into chromatin.
Furthermore, we present a model mammalian system in which the role of
individual histones, and particular domains within the histones that
are targeted in enhancer function, can be examined using purified
mutant histones.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Transcription by RNA polymerase II is thought to
be controlled primarily by two DNA elements: promoters and enhancers.
Promoters, which constitute short-distance interactions, determine
where transcription begins. They consist of a binding site for the
basal-level transcription complex and often one or more
sequence-specific transcription factor binding sites, upstream and
close to the initiation site. Enhancers, which constitute long-distance
interactions, stimulate weak promoters in a tissue-specific manner.
Enhancers consist of transcription factor binding sites that function
distal to the initiation site from either an upstream or a downstream position (28, 37). Our current knowledge of the principles that regulate mammalian transcription, including the function of
enhancers, comes mainly from studies involving either cell-free in
vitro systems or in vivo systems consisting of cultured cells or
cultured cells infected with animal viruses. Enhancers are not active
in in vitro systems unless the template DNA is reconstituted into
chromatin. How transcriptional regulation controls complex physiological processes such as the development of the fertilized egg
into an animal is largely unknown, in part because there are few in
vivo model systems. The Xenopus system, which can be used to
study early vertebrate development, does not accurately reflect mammalian development in all aspects (14, 28, 37). Recent advances in microinjection technologies have allow transcription and
replication to be studied in mammalian embryos at as early as the
one-cell embryo stage and provide an unprecedented opportunity to study
these regulatory processes in a living system (16, 17, 28, 41,
42).
In mammals, fertilization of an egg by a sperm produces a one-cell
embryo containing paternal and maternal haploid pronuclei. Each
pronucleus then undergoes DNA replication before entering the first
mitosis to generate a two-cell embryo containing one diploid zygotic
nucleus per cell, each with a set of maternal chromosomes and a set of
paternal chromosomes. Maternally inherited mRNAs are translated
continuously in mature eggs and in one-cell embryos (12),
but most expression of zygotic genes (zygotic gene activation [ZGA])
begins by a time-dependent mechanism (zygotic clock) at about 32 h
postfertilization (hpf), when the embryo is at the two-cell stage of
normal development (16, 17, 28, 41, 42). However, if
inhibitors of DNA replication are used to arrest one-cell embryos in S
phase, those embryos remain morphologically one-cell embryo, but ZGA
still begins at 32 hpf, as in normal developing two-cell embryos
(10, 33, 51). Furthermore, ZGA also begins at 32 hpf in S
phase-arrested two-cell embryos. The discovery of the zygotic clock was
crucial in allowing the requirements for transcription and DNA
replication in arrested-mouse one-cell embryos to be compared with
those in arrested two-cell embryos. To perform such comparisons, one
can inject plasmid DNA into the pronuclei or nuclei of these embryos
and analyze the injected plasmid DNA's activity at 32 hpf (16,
28, 35). The injected plasmid DNA can replicate or express an
encoded reporter gene only when specific cis-acting
regulatory sequences and their cognate transacting proteins are present
and only when the embryo's genome executes the same function during
its normal developmental program. Thus, this is a useful system for
studying the embryo's capacity for DNA replication and gene expression
and its requirements for specific regulatory elements (27,
28).
Preliminary studies using microinjected plasmid DNA revealed that the
components of enhancer function that are required in all cultured cells
and cell extracts are actually acquired sequentially during mouse
embryonic development. (i) Enhancer function, which first appears at
the two-cell stage in mouse development and coincides with ZGA,
relieves repression of promoters (4, 30, 32, 33, 51, 52,
55). (ii) Enhancers stimulate promoters by a
TATA-box-independent mechanism in undifferentiated embryonic cell types
and later change to a TATA-box-dependent mode as cell differentiation
becomes evident (11, 29). (iii) Enhancers appear to
require a coactivator activity for optimal function. The coactivator
activity is not available until zygotic gene expression begins at the
two-cell stage (23, 31).
Here we used an improved experimental protocol of microinjecting a
plasmid containing a promoter-enhancer sequence driving a luciferase
reporter gene into the paternal pronuclei of one-cell embryos and the
zygotic nuclei of two-cell embryos and then assayed reporter gene
activity. These experiments confirmed our previous observations that
promoter repression and enhancer-mediated promoter stimulation do not
occur in paternal pronuclei but do occur in zygotic nuclei. We then
showed that coinjection of purified histones along with the plasmid DNA
at a specific histone-DNA concentration could reconstitute repression
of the plasmid-encoded promoter and subsequent relief of this
repression by functional enhancers in the paternal pronuclei of
one-cell embryos. The reconstituted enhancer function responded to the
acetylation status of the injected histones and to the treatment of
embryos with histone deacetylase inhibitors. The reconstituted enhancer
function also depended on the expression of enhancer-specific
coactivator activity and showed properties of chromatin assembly, as
determined by superhelicity assays. These results also suggest that
enhancer function during mouse development occurs when the parental
genomes are organized into chromatin.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Mouse embryos.
CD-1 mouse embryos were isolated and cultured
as described elsewhere (16, 27, 35). Briefly, as shown in
Fig. 1, superovulation was induced in 8- to 10-week-old female mice by intraperitoneal injection of 10 U (0.1 ml
of a 100-U/ml stock solution) of pregnant mares' serum (Sigma), and
then, 48 h later, 10 U (0.1 ml of a 100-u/ml stock solution) of
human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG; Sigma), which triggers ovulation 11 to 13 h later. Each injected female was mated with a single male
more than 10 weeks old. Fertilization takes place at about 12 h
post-hCG (0 hpf). One-cell embryos were isolated at 6 to 8 hpf and
cultured in the presence of 4 µg of aphidicolin (Boehringer-Mannheim)
per ml to arrest development at the beginning of S phase. Two-cell
embryos were isolated at 26 to 28 hpf, when they had completed S phase,
and were cultured in the presence of aphidicolin. Because the first S
phase had not yet begun when the one-cell embryos were isolated,
aphidicolin caused them to retain their two pronuclei (male and female)
throughout the experiment. Because the two-cell embryos were isolated
after they had undergone DNA replication, aphidicolin caused them to arrest at the four-cell stage. Without aphidicolin, injected one-cell and two-cell embryos developed up to the morula stage.
Injection of plasmid DNA and reporter gene assay.
Injection
and assay of reporter gene expression were performed by a modification
of a protocol described elsewhere (27), according to the
timetable shown in Fig. 1. We used five plasmids (pluc, pGtkluc,
pGal4-VP16, pGal4-DBD, and pGFP) in this study. They are schematically
shown in Fig. 2. The control plasmid pluc contains the luciferase reporter gene with no promoter or enhancer sequences. The reporter plasmid pGtkluc contains a tandem series of
nine yeast GAL4 DNA-binding sites (Gal4 enhancer), placed 600 bp
upstream of the herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase (tk) promoter,
which drives expression of the luciferase gene (27, 35).
The tk promoter is functional in both mouse embryos and differentiated
cells (29, 30). In mouse embryos, luciferase is a very
sensitive reporter gene with a short half-life; thus, its expression
reflects steady-state concentration of the protein (27,
35). The luciferase activity produced in embryos from this
plasmid correlates directly with the presence of the promoter-enhancer sequences encoded by the plasmid (23, 30, 31). The
expression vectors pGal4-VP16 and pGal4-DBD encode the complete
Gal4-VP16 protein and the Gal4 DNA-binding domain, respectively. These
genes are under the control of simian virus 40 promoter-enhancer
elements and are expressed in mouse embryos (23, 30, 31).
Thus, coinjection of pGtkluc with pGal4-VP16 will activate the Gal4
enhancer. In contrast, pGtkluc alone or coinjection of pGtkluc with
pGal4-DBD will not activate the Gal4 enhancer. The tracer plasmid pGFP
encodes the green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter gene under the
control of human cytomegalovirus immediate early promoter-enhancer
elements and is also expressed in mouse embryos (31).

View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
A schematic representation of the plasmids used in the
study. See Materials and Methods for details.
|
|
Plasmid DNA was suspended in 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.6) containing 0.25 mM
EDTA (
27). About 2 pl of plasmid DNA solution containing
a
total of 0.0765 µg of plasmid DNA (0.05 µg of pGtkluc per µl;
0.025 µg of pGal4-VP16, pGal4-DBD, or pBR322 vector DNA per µl;
0.015 µg pGFP per µl, per µl with or without histones (see below)
was injected into the paternal pronuclei of aphidicolin-arrested
one-cell embryos or the zygotic nuclei of aphidicolin-arrested
two-cell
embryos between 30 and 38 hpf (Fig.
1). About 30 to 60
embryos were
injected. Embryos that survived injection (~80%)
were cultured and
then monitored for expression of GFP at 54 hpf.
Both
aphidicolin-arrested one-cell and two-cell embryos show ZGA
at 32 hpf
(
27,
28). Between 20 and 50 GFP-positive embryos
were
individually assayed for luciferase activity at 54 to 57
hpf as
described previously (
23,
27). Briefly, each embryo
was
transfered into an Eppendorf tube containing 50 µl of luciferase
reaction mix (LRM; 25 mM glycylglycine) [pH 7.8], 10 mM magnesium
acetate, 0.5 mM ATP [pH 7], 100 mg of bovine serum albumin per
ml, 1 mM dithiothreitol; LRM can be stored at 4°C for a month)
containing
freshly added 0.1% Triton X-100 and then frozen in
a dry ice-ethanol
bath. Frozen embryos can be stored at

70°C
until assayed. Frozen
samples were thawed at 37°C and centrifuged
in an Eppendorf
centrifuge at 10,000 rpm for 1 min to collect
the embryo extract at the
bottom of the tube. The embryo extract
was mixed with 300 µl of LRM
in a polystyrene cuvette, and the
luciferase activity was measured
using a Monolight 2010 luminometer
(Analytical Luminiscence) that
dispenses 100 µl of 1 mM luciferin
solution in water (Analytical
Luminiscence; stock solution can
be stored at 4°C for a month) plus 1 mg of coenzyme A (grade II;
Boehringer Mannheim; a stock solution of
100 mg/ml can be stored
at

70°C for months) per ml and integrates
the emitted light over
a period of 10 s. For each datum point in
the graph, the mean
value of all the embryos was used, and the
variation among individual
embryos was expressed as the standard error
of the mean. While
the range of luciferase activities in individual
embryos varied
by as much as 1,000-fold, the mean values obtained from
several
independent experiments varied by 13 to 25% (data not shown).
Moreover, the relative activities of different batches of embryos
and
different promoters were always similar, even when DNA injection
was
performed by different people. Each set of experiments was
repeated two
to three
times.
Histones.
Individual, electrophoretically homogeneous,
calf-thymus histones (Roche Diagnostics Corporation) were resuspended
in sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at 1 mg/ml, aliquoted, and
frozen at
80°C. The histone core stock was made fresh each time as
a 1:1:1:1 mix of histones H2A, H2B, H3, and H4. Histone H1 was added at
one-eighth the concentration of all core histones when indicated. Various dilutions of the stock were added to the plasmid DNA before injection. Nonacetylated and acetylated histones were purified from a
3-liter culture of HeLa cells (NIH Cell Culture Center) that had been
grown to 7.6 × 105 cells/ml in minimal essential
medium with 5% serum with or without the addition of 8 mM butyric acid
24 h before harvesting. The cells were harvested by centrifugation
for 10 min at 2,500 × g, followed by two 5-min washes
with PBS, with or without 8 mM butyric acid, to produce a 5-g cell
pellet. The histones were then isolated as described previously
(44).
Supercoiling assay.
Between 100 and 200 embryos
injected with 0.076 µg of pGtkluc (plus 0.04 µg of histones per
µl where indicated) per µl were flash-frozen in a siliconized tube
containing 50 µl of 10 mM Tris-HCl, 1 mM EDTA (pH 8.0), 0.1% Triton
X-100, and 5 µg of yeast tRNA. The mixture was then thawed and
deproteinized by digestion with proteinase K plus 0.5% sodium dodecyl
sulfate at 56°C for 30 min. The DNA was then extracted with
phenol-chloroform and precipitated with alcohol. The resulting pellet
was resuspended in 15 µl of 10 mM Tris and 1 mM EDTA (pH 8.0) and
assayed for superhelicity as described elsewhere (33) by
electrophoresis of the extracted DNA in a 0.7% agarose gel and
transfer onto Hybond+ (Amersham) membranes, which were then hybridized
with a labeled plasmid DNA probe and analyzed by autoradiography. Each
experiment was performed twice, and a representative result is shown.
 |
RESULTS |
Enhancer-dependent stimulation of promoter activity in
two-cell but not in one-cell embryos.
To compare the
transcriptional activity in the paternal pronuclei of S-phase-arrested
one-cell embryos with that of the zygotic nuclei of S-phase-arrested
two-cell embryos, we injected them with pGtkluc plus pGFP and vector
DNA (pBR322), pGal4-VP16, or pGal4-DBD and assayed for luciferase
activity. To measure the background level of luciferase activity in
these embryos, we replaced pGtkluc by pluc. The experimental protocol
described here is similar to ones we reported previously (23, 30,
31) but has three advantages. First, it permits the total amount
of DNA in each injection to be kept constant by injecting the mutant
form of pGal4-VP16 (pGal4-DBD), which was not used before. Second, pGFP was used as a tracer to identify embryos that were successfully injected and were biologically active. In previous experiments there
was no such tracer reporter gene that could detect whether the embryos
were actually injected with the plasmid DNA or whether the embryos were
active. This reduced the level of error in the present experiment.
Third, in previous experiments one-cell embryos were injected with
plasmid DNA 4 to 8 hpf and reporter gene expression was assayed at 52 hpf and two-cell embryos were injected between 36 and 40 hpf and
assayed at 84 hpf. Thus, although the microinjected plasmids were
present inside one-and two-cell embryos for a total of 48 h, the
exact time they were inside these embryos after fertilization was
different. Thus, it was possible that any difference observed in the
expression of genes from the injected plasmids between one- and
two-cell embryos was due to this temporal difference and not due to the
stage of the embryo. To distinguish between these possibilities, both
one-cell and two-cell embryos in the present study were injected 30 to
38 hpf and assayed at 54 to 57 hpf.
As shown in Fig.
3, microinjection of
pluc plus the vector DNA, pBR322, alone produced very little
luciferase, confirming
that these embryos did not produce endogenous
luciferase. The
tk promoter activity in the absence of the enhancer
function (pGtkluc
plus pBR322) was very high in the paternal pronuclei
of one-cell
embryos but was strongly repressed in the zygotic nuclei of
two-cell
embryos. Activation of enhancer function by coinjection of
pGal4-VP16
did not substantially change luciferase activity in one-cell
embryos
but stimulated promoter activity 140-fold in two-cell embryos.
Expression of Gal4-VP16 in these embryos resulted in a twofold
nonspecific stimulation of luciferase activity, as previously
reported
(
30). Thus, promoter repression in two-cell embryos
could
be relieved by the Gal4 enhancer. Coinjection of pGtkluc
with
pGal4-DBD, which does not contain an activation domain and
therefore
cannot activate the Gal4 enhancer, did not affect the
high promoter
activity in one-cell embryos or the repressed promoter
activity in
two-cell embryos. These results indicate that even
when the plasmid DNA
was injected into one- and two-cell embryos
at the same time after
fertilization and assayed for luciferase
activity also at the same time
after fertilization, the tk promoter
activity was high in one-cell
embryos and was repressed in two-cell
embryos. The presence of the Gal4
enhancer did not substantially
alter the promoter activity in one-cell
embryos, but in two-cell
embryos the enhancer relieved the promoter
repression and stimulated
expression to a level similar to that in
one-cell embryos.

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Transcriptional enhancer function was not present in the
paternal pronuclei of S phase-arrested one-cell mouse embryos
(1-cellp) but was present in the zygotic nuclei of
S-phase-arrested two-cell embryos (2-cellz). Embryos were
isolated and injected with the plasmids indicated at a total
concentration of 0.0765 µg/µl, and luciferase reporter gene
expression was assayed (see Materials and Methods). pBR, pBR322.
|
|
Promoter repression and subsequent relief of repression by
enhancers in paternal pronuclei of one-cell embryos after coinjection
of purified histones.
Previous experiments with the histone
deacetylase inhibitors sodium butyrate and trichostatin showed that
they cannot stimulate promoters in one-cell embryos but do in two-cell
embryos, suggesting that the lack of promoter repression and subsequent
enhancer function in one-cell embryos is due to the absence of
chromatin-mediated repression (1, 2, 17, 19, 31, 45, 51, 52,
54). As stated above, in addition to chromatin-mediated
repression, enhancer function also requires the presence of an
enhancer-specific coactivator activity that appears during mouse
embryonic development at ZGA at about 32 hpf (23, 31). To
discern the role of chromatin in enhancer function, we coinjected
plasmid DNA and purified histones from calf thymus into the paternal
pronuclei of one-cell mouse embryos at 30 to 38 hpf and assayed
reporter gene activity at 54 to 57 hpf, when the enhancer-specific
coactivator activity should be produced in these embryos. We did not
assay embryos beyond this time point because, in aphidicolin-arrested
one-cell embryos, protein translation then decreases drastically
(27, 52).
The tk promoter activity was found to depend on the histone
concentration (Fig.
4). At lower
concentrations of core histones
plus histone H1 (<0.1 µg/µl),
promoter activity was repressed
in the absence of enhancer function
(

Enh), but this repression
was relieved by the presence of enhancer
function (+Enh). Higher
concentrations of histones (>0.1 µg/µl)
repressed luciferase activity
in both the

Enh and +Enh conditions,
indicating that the higher
concentrations inhibited transcription
nonspecifically and that
this inhibition could not be relieved by
enhancers. Similar results
were seen when pGtkluc was coinjected with
core histones (Fig.
4), except that the enhancer function could relieve
promoter repression
at higher concentrations of histones (up to 0.2 µg/µl). At 0.04
µg/µl, the core histones, with or without H1,
repressed promoter
activity by ca. 100-fold in the absence of the
enhancer function;
however, this repression could be relieved and
promoter activity
stimulated to ca. 200-fold by the enhancer function.
Thus, the
appearance of promoter repression followed by
enhancer-mediated
relief of this repression after injection of specific
concentrations
of histones into the paternal pronuclei indicated that
promoter
repression was not simply due to the formation of nonspecific
insoluble histone-DNA complexes but rather due to the reconstitution
of
enhancer function.

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
Injection of core histones with or without H1 into
paternal pronuclei of S-phase-arrested one-cell embryos repressed
promoter activity from coinjected plasmids, and this repression was
relieved by enhancers. Plasmid DNA solution (0.0765 µg/µl)
containing pGtkluc plus pGFP and either pGal4-DBD ( Enh) or pGal4-VP16
(+Enh) was coinjected with purified core histones plus histone H1
(core+H1; A and C) or core histones alone (core; B and C) at the
indicated concentrations into the paternal pronuclei of
S-phase-arrested one-cell embryos and assayed for luciferase activity
according to the timetable shown in Fig. 1. Histones were of calf
thymus origin (see Materials and Methods).
|
|
As shown in Fig.
4C, optimal enhancer-mediated stimulation was observed
at 0.04 to 0.1 µg of core histones per µl and at 0.04
µg of core
histones plus H1 per µl. As we coinjected 76.5 µg of
total plasmid
DNA per µl, the effective concentration of histones
in our system was
within the normal range of equimolar concentrations
of histones and DNA
necessary to form physiologically active chromatin.
We chose to use
0.04 µg of histones per µl for further experiments
for two reasons.
First, this was the concentration at which both
core histones and core
histones plus H1 were effective. By using
this concentration, the
results of future experiments with or
without H1 can be compared with
our results. Second, since 0.04
µg/µl was the lowest effective
concentration, we expected it to
produce fewer nonspecific effects
inside the
embryo.
Enhancer-mediated relief of promoter repression into paternal
pronuclei depends on acetylation status of injected histones.
Acetylation of histones modulates chromatin structure, stimulates
promoter activity, and regulates gene expression (18, 22, 26, 38,
53, 56). To determine whether the acetylation status of histones
has an effect in our assay system, we performed two sets of
experiments. In the first experiment we examined the effect of
coinjecting the plasmids with HeLa-nonacetylated and HeLa-acetylated
histones. We found that to achieve same degree of promoter repression
in the absence of enhancer function required more than three times more
acetylated histones than nonacetylated histones (Fig.
5A; 0.066 µg of acetylated histones per
µl versus 0.02 µg of nonacetylated histones per µl). Thus,
chromatin repression and subsequent enhancer stimulation in the
paternal pronuclei depended on the acetylation status of the histones,
as has been observed in other systems (18, 22, 26, 38, 53,
56).

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
(A) Acetylation status of histones injected into the
paternal pronuclei of one-cell embryos determined the degree of
promoter repression and relief of this repression by enhancers. Plasmid
DNA solution (0.0765 µg/µl) containing pGtkluc plus pGFP and either
pGa14-DBD ( Enh) or pGal4-VP16 (+Enh) was coinjected along with
different concentrations of HeLa-nonacetylated core histones ( ,
Enh; , +Enh) or HeLa-acetylated core histones ( , Enh; ,
+Enh), and the luciferase activity was assayed. (B) Promoter repression
of injected plasmids in the paternal pronuclei of one-cell embryos
caused by coinjection of core histones, with or without H1, could be
relieved by butyrate. Embryos injected with pGtkluc plus pGFP at a
concentration of 0.0765 µg/µl and core histones plus H1 (Core+H1)
or core histones alone (Core) at a concentration of 0.04 µg/µl were
cultured with (+bu) or without butyrate ( bu) and assayed for
luciferase activity.
|
|
Interestingly, the optimum concentration of HeLa-nonacetylated histones
that was needed to obtain enhancer-mediated promoter
stimulation (Fig.
5A) was different from the optimum concentration
of calf
thymus-histones needed to obtain similar effects (Fig.
4). This
suggests that, although the pattern of reconstitution
of enhancer
function in paternal pronuclei by introduction of
exogenous histones
obtained from diverse sources remains similar,
the histone source might
influence the actual concentration that
is required to obtain optimum
enhancer
function.
In the second set of experiments, we first injected histones into the
male pronuclei of one-cell embryos and then treated
the injected
embryos with sodium butyrate. The promoter repression
generated by
either core histones or core histones plus H1 in
one-cell embryos was
relieved by butyrate to a similar degree
(Fig.
5B), suggesting that
promoter repression under these conditions
is like that in two-cell
embryos due to formation of chromatin
(
1,
2,
17,
19,
31,
45,
51,
52,
54). Thus,
these two sets of complementary experiments
support the idea that
the acetylation status of injected histones in
one-cell embryos
determines the degree of promoter repression and
relief of this
repression by
enhancers.
Enhancer-mediated relief of promoter repression into paternal
pronuclei depends on the availability of enhancer-specific
coactivator.
Previously, we observed that the enhancer function
requires coactivator activity, which appears in mouse embryos at 30 hpf, and this activity increases with time (23, 31). To
determine whether the enhancer function observed in one-cell embryos in the presence of core histones also depends on the coactivator activity,
we injected enhancer constructs (+Enh) with or without core histones
into the paternal pronuclei of one-cell embryos at about 30 hpf, close
to the time when ZGA begins (32 hpf), and assayed for luciferase
activity at 37 and 56 hpf. In the absence of histones, when there was
no promoter repression, the promoter activity was similar at both times
(Fig. 6A). This result is consistent with
the observation that tk promoter-driven luciferase expression from
injected plasmids in arrested one-cell embryos peaks by about 3 h
after ZGA (33). However, in the presence of core histones, which cause promoter repression, the repression was not relieved when
the embryos were assayed at 37 hpf but was relieved at 56 hpf. This
suggested that the enhancer function observed in our embryo system
required developmentally regulated coactivator activity (23).

View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
(A) Enhancer-mediated relief of promoter repression
depended on the availability of enhancer-specific coactivator activity.
pGtkluc plus pGal4-VP16 and pGFP at a total concentration of 0.0765 µg/µl were injected with (+core) or without ( core) 0.04 µg of
core histones per µl at 30 hpf and assayed for luciferase activity at
37 and 56 hpf. (B) Injection of core histones into the paternal
pronuclei of one-cell embryos caused chromatin assembly on coinjected
plasmid DNA. pGtkluc (0.0765 µg/µl) was injected into the paternal
pronuclei of one-cell embryos in the absence (1C h) or presence (1C+h)
of 0.04 µg of core histones per µl, and the injected DNA was
isolated and assayed for superhelicity. Supercoiled (S), relaxed (R),
and linear (L) forms of the plasmid DNA are indicated. Input uninjected
pGtkluc DNA (I) was used as a control. pGtkluc injected into one-cell
embryos with nonacetylated (nAc) and acetylated (Ac) histones was also
assayed for superhelicity.
|
|
Chromatin assembly on coinjected plasmids after injection of
purified histones into paternal pronuclei.
Introduction of
negative supercoiling into plasmid DNA has been used by several
laboratories as an assay to examine chromatin assembly (3, 33,
49). Using this assay, plasmid DNA injected into the zygotic
nuclei of two-cell embryos was mainly supercoiled, whereas that
injected into paternal pronuclei was linear (33). To
determine whether the injection of histones into paternal pronuclei of
one-cell embryos actually causes chromatin assembly on coinjected plasmid DNA, we analyzed the superhelicity of the plasmid DNA in the
embryos with or without coinjection of the core histones. As shown in
Fig. 6B, the uninjected control input plasmid DNA (I) contained both
relaxed and supercoiled forms. When the plasmid DNA alone was injected
into the paternal pronuclei of one-cell embryos (1C
h), no
superhelicity was observed. In contrast, in the presence of core
histones (1C+h), the plasmid DNA exhibited superhelicity similar to
that previously observed when plasmid DNA alone was injected into
two-cell embryos, in which chromatin repression was observed
(33). Thus, the introduction of exogenous core histones
was responsible for the formation of chromatin assembly on the plasmid
DNA injected into the paternal pronuclei of one-cell embryos.
Interestingly, plasmid DNA injected with histones was consistently
found to produce stronger signal than when injected without histones,
suggesting that addition of the exogenous histones also might protect
the injected DNA from degradation during the experimental procedure.
As described above, approximately three times more acetylated histones
than nonacetylated histones were required to produce
the same amount of
promoter repression from injected plasmids
into the paternal pronuclei.
To determine whether acetylated histones
were less efficient than
nonacetylated histones in inducing chromatin
assembly, plasmid DNA
injected into paternal pronuclei with acetylated
or nonacetylated
histones was subjected to a superhelicity assay.
As shown in Fig.
6B,
acetylated and nonacetylated histones produced
similar levels of
supercoiled DNA (77 and 81%, respectively).
This suggests that the
transcriptional stimulation seen in the
presence of acetylated histones
is not due to inefficient chromatin
assembly but is more likely due to
the accessibility of the chromatin
to transcription factors, as has
been reported for other systems
(
20).
Reconstitution of enhancer function into the paternal pronuclei by
injection of H3 and H4 but not H2A and H2B.
In vivo, the
nucleosome assembly takes place sequentially, first by deposition of
histones H3 and H4 on the DNA, followed by deposition of H2A and H2B
(20). Furthermore, it has been shown that nucleosome
structure can be induced in vitro by H3 and H4 but not by H2A and H2B
(44). To determine whether our reconstituted enhancer
function followed these principles, plasmid DNA was coinjected with
purified H3 and H4 (1:1) or H2A and H2B (1:1), and the enhancer
function was assayed. Plasmid DNA alone was also used as a control.
Plasmid DNA without enhancer produced high promoter activity that was
repressed by either core histones or core histones plus H1 (Fig.
7). Histones H2A plus H2B or H3 plus H4
also produced promoter repression (ca. 15-fold). Their combined
repression was similar in magnitude to the repression produced by all
core histones together or by core histones plus H1 (150-fold). However,
enhancer function relieved H2A plus H2B repression only slightly
(4.5-fold) but relieved H3 plus H4 repression 38-fold. Thus, enhancer
function can be reconstituted by H3 plus H4 but not H2A plus H2B. This
would be expected if enhancers in this system alleviate repression
caused by nucleosomes formed as a result of binding of H3 plus H4 but
not by DNA bound abnormally and nonspecifically by H2A plus H2B. Thus,
these results suggest that coinjected histones form functional
chromatin on the plasmid DNA.

View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 7.
Enhancer function could be reconstituted in the paternal
pronuclei by injection of H3 plus H4 but not H2A plus H2B. pGtkluc plus
pGFP and either pGal4-VP16 (+Enh) or pGal4-DBD ( Enh) at a final
concentration of 0.0765 µg/µl were injected in the paternal
pronuclei of one-cell embryos by themselves (no histones), with core
histones plus H1 (core+H1), with core histones alone (core), with
histones H2A and H2B (H2A+H2B), or with histones H3 and H4 (H3+H4). The
final concentration of all histones was kept at 0.04 µg/µl.
Promoter activity was determined as described in Materials and
Methods.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The paternal pronuclei of arrested mouse one-cell embryos do not
show chromatin-mediated promoter repression and subsequent relief of
this repression by enhancers. In contrast, such properties are observed
in the zygotic nuclei of arrested mouse two-cell embryos. Here we
showed that microinjection of a specific amount of purified histones
into one-cell embryos recreated promoter repression and, most
importantly, relief of this repression by enhancers and histone
deacetylase inhibitors. Our results suggest that injected histones form
physiologically active chromatin, since histones bound abnormally and
nonspecifically to DNA would not have exhibited these properties. That
the chromatin was biologically active was further supported by the fact
that plasmid DNA coinjected with histones into the paternal pronuclei
formed chromatin, as determined by the superhelicity assay, whereas
plasmid DNA alone did not. Furthermore, the promoter-enhancer activity
depended on the acetylation status of the injected histones and on the developmentally regulated appearance of enhancer-specific coactivator activity. Thus, these findings indicate that injection of purified histones into paternal pronuclei can reconstitute enhancer function expressed from coinjected plasmid DNA (Fig.
8).

View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 8.
Model for reconstitution of promoter repression by
addition of purified histones and enhancer-mediated relief of this
repression in paternal pronuclei of one-cell mouse embryos. Enhancer
activity requires chromatin-mediated promoter repression, enhancer
activation proteins, and enhancer-specific coactivator activity.
Chromatin-mediated promoter repression is present in the zygotic nuclei
of two-cell embryos but not in the paternal pronuclei of one-cell
embryos. Because promoters are not repressed in the latter cell type,
enhancers have no effect under these conditions. A plasmid-encoded
reporter gene injected into paternal pronuclei or zygotic nuclei is
subjected to two competiting reactions: assembly into an active
transcription complex and assembly into a repressed chromatin state.
Coinjection of purified histones into the paternal pronuclei restores
promoter repression. The enhancer-specific coactivator activity that
appears at ZGA (32 hpf) is required for enhancer function and mediates
the interaction of enhancers with promoters, presumably by direct
interaction with enhancer-activation proteins and the transcription
complex that forms at the promoter (31). Thus, coinjecting
purified histones and plasmid DNA into the paternal pronuclei and
assaying the plasmid-encoded enhancer activity at 32 hpf can
reconstitute both promoter repression and enhancer-mediated relief of
this repression. It is not clear whether the enhancer-specific
coactivator interacts either with the enhancer activation proteins or
the transcription complex in the absence of chromatin formation.
|
|
Expression from microinjected plasmids reflects physiological
regulation.
Because mammalian embryos are available in limited
quantities, they are not amenable to biochemical analysis. This makes
it difficult to identify cis-acting sequences and
trans-acting factors that are required for DNA transcription
or replication at the beginning of mammalian development. One solution
to this problem has been to inject plasmid DNA into the germinal
vesicles of oocytes (precursors to the maternal pronucleus), the
paternal or maternal pronuclei of one-cell embryos, or the zygotic
nuclei of two-cell embryos and then identify various sequences and
factors that are required to either replicate the plasmid or to express
an encoded reporter gene (27, 28, 37). These transient
assays, like those used to assay transfected cell lines, reveal the DNA
replication or transcriptional environment of the oocytes and the
embryos, their capacity to replicate or express genes, their ability to utilize specific trans-acting factors, and their ability to
respond to specific cis-acting sequences. The following
observations indicate that the injected plasmid DNA responds to the
same cellular signals that regulate endogenous DNA replication and gene
expression and, therefore, that our model can be used to understand
physiological regulation at the beginning of mouse development.
Injected DNA undergoes replication and transcription (i) only when
unique eukaryotic regulatory sequences are present and
(ii) only in
cells that can replicate their own DNA (
27,
28,
37). For
example, because mouse oocytes are arrested in prophase
of their first
meiosis, they cannot replicate DNA. Accordingly,
plasmid DNA does not
replicate when injected into mouse oocytes,
even if the injected DNA
contains a viral origin and the appropriate
viral proteins are provided
(
14,
32). Although mouse oocytes
cannot replicate DNA,
they express some of their genes. Likewise,
injected plasmids are also
immediately expressed. The same sequence
that induces oocyte-specific
expression of zona pellucida protein-3
when integrated into the
chromosomes of transgenic animals (
25,
40) also induces
oocyte-specific expression when present on
injected plasmid DNA
(
34).
Mouse one-cell and two-cell embryos do replicate their genomic DNA.
Accordingly, plasmid DNA replicates when injected into
either one-cell
or two-cell embryos, but only if it has a polyomavirus
origin core
sequence in
cis and the polyomavirus replication protein,
large T-antigen, is provided (
32). In the absence of a
functional
replication origin, plasmid DNA does not replicate in mouse
embryos.
With respect to transcription, the zygotic clock initiates
expression
of zygotic genes at about 32 hpf, which is when the embryo
is
at the two-cell stage. Plasmid-encoded promoters injected into
the
pronuclei of S-phase-arrested one-cell embryos do not direct
the
expression of the linked gene before 32 hpf. In contrast,
these
promoters are immediately active when injected after 32
hpf into
S-phase-arrested one-cell embryos or either S phase-arrested
or
developing two-cell embryos (
21,
28,
37). Similarly,
endogenous genes are more strongly expressed in the paternal pronuclei
of S-phase-arrested one-cell embryos than in either the maternal
pronuclei of S-phase-arrested one-cell embryos or the zygotic
nuclei of
two-cell embryos, most likely because of the lack of
chromatin-mediated
repression in the paternal pronuclei (
4).
This pattern of
expression of endogenous genes is very similar
to that of
plasmid-encoded genes microinjected into these types
of nuclei
(
23,
30,
45,
46,
51,
52). As shown in this
work,
reconstitution of chromatin-mediated repression on plasmid-borne
promoters injected into S-phase-arrested one-cell embryos transforms
the expression pattern of these promoters into that observed in
two-cell embryos, again strengthening this correlation. Furthermore,
both plasmid-borne reporter genes and endogenous genes use TATA-less
promoters more efficiently than TATA-containing promoters in the
undifferentiated blastomeres compared to the differentiated oocytes
(
11,
29). These observations strongly argue that the
expression
from microinjected plasmids accurately reflects the inherent
mechanisms
these embryos and oocytes use for transcription of
endogenous
genes. Interestingly, similar regulation of gene expression
from
microinjected plasmids is also observed in rabbits (
8,
13).
Role of endogenous histones in the reconstitution of enhancer
function in paternal pronuclei.
Although early one-cell embryos
lack synthesis of certain chromatin components, namely, histones H2A,
H2B, and H1, later-stage embryos (late one-cell stage and older)
synthesize them, as well as isoforms of histone H4 (2, 4, 46, 52,
55). However, the paternal pronuclei of S-phase-arrested
one-cell embryos do not show chromatin-mediated repression for a long
time (at least not until 60 hpf). In contrast, such chromatin-based
repression is observed in either S-phase-arrested or normally
developing two-cell embryos. Our reconstitution of enhancer function in
the paternal pronuclei of arrested one-cell embryos, which occurs only
after injection of exogenous histones, suggests that the histone
components required to produce repression and subsequent derepression
by enhancers are not present in sufficient amounts in these embryos.
This is consistent with the observation that arrested one-cell embryos
undergo a drastic decline in overall protein synthesis, including that
of histones (52). The other possibilities are that the
endogenous components are present in these embryos in functionally
inactive forms or, for some reason, such as differential nuclear
localization or histone loading (1, 50), are unable to act
on microinjected DNA. Finally, although exogenous histones in arrested
one-cell embryos reconstituted promoter repression and subsequent
derepression by enhancers, it is not clear whether the additional
components of chromatin assembly and modification that are active in
other biological systems are missing from this system.
It has been postulated that the expression of somatic histone H1 is a
critical factor in the initiation of the transcriptionally
repressed
state observed in two-cell embryos (
21,
28). We
observe
that under our reconstitution conditions that only a twofold-lower
concentration of core histones plus histone H1 is required to
produce
the same amount of repression compared to core histones
alone (Fig.
4A
and B; <0.1 versus <0.2 µg/µl, respectively). Furthermore,
at the
optimal concentration of both core histones plus histone
H1 and core
histones alone (0.04 µg/µl), the levels of enhancer-mediated
promoter stimulation were of a similar magnitude (Fig.
4C), indicating
that exogenous H1 did not have a major role in our
enhancer-reconstitution
system. Whether at this concentration the
function of histone
H1 can be provided by endogenous histone H1 is not
clear, since
reports differ on when somatic histone H1 is expressed
during
this window of time (
1,
9,
52), and the
microinjection
of somatic histone H1 into one-cell embryos did not
produce a
transcriptionally repressed state (
45).
Paternal pronuclei as an in vivo model system for studying
chromatin-mediated transcription.
Because DNA in our cells is
present as chromatin, any biological process that requires interaction
with DNA, including enhancer-mediated transcription, requires unmasking
of chromatin structure so that transcription factors can gain access to
appropriate DNA sequences (18, 22, 43, 56). This in turn
controls both normal biological processes such as development and
abnormal processes such as cancer (15). The recent
discovery that cancer-regulating molecules such as Rb (6),
BRCA-1 (5), Mi2
(58), and REST/NRSF
(24) exert their action by modulating chromatin structure
has brought a new direction to this area of research. Studies of
nonmammalian systems, as well as mammalian cell culture, and in vitro
systems indicated that the role of a transcription factor may involve recruitment of chromatin-modifying machinery that results in covalent modification of histone "tails" or noncovalent ATP-dependent
"remodeling" of nucleosome structure (7, 36, 39, 47,
48).
In addition, chromatin-remodeling machinery such as SWI/SNF may also
modify histones (
7,
36,
39,
47,
48). In fact,
more and
more proteins and protein complexes that perform such
modifications are
being discovered, suggesting that they have
specific roles in this
process. Specific amino acids of the target
histones appears to be
modified by some of these proteins, especially
the enzymes performing
histone acetylation (histone acetyltransferases).
Furthermore, deletion
of different histone acetyltransferases
genes in knockout mice produces
different phenotypes, again suggesting
that these genes have specific
roles during normal development
(
39,
57). Therefore, it
has been postulated that different
histone acetyltransferases either by
themselves or in concert
produce a very precise pattern of histone
acetylation with a specific
effect on transcription (
7,
39,
47). Although a large number
of studies have documented
acetylation and deacetylation of histones,
the effects of
phosphorylation, methylation, and other modifications
of the core
histones have been less well studied. Thus, various
pathways may result
in modification of global as well as specific
target histones. However,
deciphering this "histone code" remains
a major challenge. The
ability to reconstitute promoter repression
and subsequent relief of
this repression by enhancers in the paternal
pronuclei by
microinjection of purified histones provide a physiological
system in
which specific interactions between an enhancer activation
protein and
a specific histone or a particular domain within the
histone can be
examined by using mutant or modified
histones.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We regret that we could not cite many outstanding research
articles because of space limitations and so cite only a few review articles. We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and to Mel
DePamphilis, Jim Kadonaga, Richard Schultz, and Maureen Goode for their
invaluable ideas and suggestions.
This work was supported in part by a grant to S.M. from the National
Institutes of Health (GM53454). L.R. was supported by a Translational
Research Award from the American Brain Tumor Association.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Molecular Genetics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer
Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Box 11, Houston, TX 77030. Phone: (713)
792-8920. Fax: (713) 792-6054. E-mail:
majumder{at}mdanderson.org.
Present address: Curagen Corporation, Branford, CT 06405.
Present address: Department of Biochemistry, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H7.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Adenot, P. G.,
E. Campio,
E. Legouy,
C. D. Allis,
S. Dimitrov,
J. Renard, and E. M. Thompson.
2000.
Somatic linker histone H1 is present throughout mouse embryogenesis and is not replaced by variant H1 degrees.
J. Cell Sci.
113:2897-2907[Abstract].
|
| 2.
|
Adenot, P. G.,
Y. Mercier,
J.-P. Renard, and E. M. Thompson.
1997.
Differential H4 acetylation of paternal and maternal chromatin precedes DNA replication and differential transcriptional activity in pronuclei of one-cell mouse embryos.
Development
124:4615-4625[Abstract].
|
| 3.
|
Almouzni, G., and A. P. Wolffe.
1993.
Replication-coupled chromatin assembly is required for the repression of basal transcription in vivo.
Genes Dev.
7:2033-2047[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Aoki, F.,
D. M. Worrard, and R. Schultz.
1997.
Regulation of transcriptional activity during the first and second cell cycles in the preimplantation mouse embryos.
Dev. Biol.
181:296-307[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 5.
|
Bochar, D. A.,
L. Wang,
H. Beniya,
A. Kinev,
Y. Xue,
W. S. Lane,
W. Wang,
F. Kashanchi, and R. Shiekhattar.
2000.
BRCA1 is associated with a human SWI/SNF-related complex: linking chromatin remodeling to breast cancer.
Cell
102:257-265[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Brehm, A.,
E. A. Miska,
D. J. McCance,
J. L. Reid,
A. J. Bannister, and T. Kouzarides.
1998.
Retinoblastoma protein recruits histone deacetylase to repress transcription.
Nature
391:597-601[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Cheung, P.,
C. D. Allis, and P. Sassone-Corsi.
2000.
Signaling to chromatin through histone modification.
Cell
103:263-271[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Christians, E.,
E. Campion,
E. M. Thompson, and J. P. Renard.
1995.
Expression of the Hsp 70.1 gene, a landmark of early zygotic activity in the mouse embryo, is restricted to the first burst of transcription.
Development
121:113-122[Abstract].
|
| 9.
|
Clarke, H. J.,
C. Oblin, and M. Bustin.
1992.
Developmental regulation of chromatin composition during mouse embryogenesis: somatic histone H1 is first detectable at the 4-cell stage.
Development
115:791-799[Abstract].
|
| 10.
|
Conover, J. C.,
G. L. Temeles,
J. W. Zimmerman,
B. Burke, and R. Schultz.
1991.
Stage-specific expression of a family of proteins that are major products of zygotic gene activation in the mouse embryo.
Dev. Biol.
144:392-404[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Davis, W., Jr., and R. M. Schultz.
2000.
Developmental changes in TATA-box utilization during preimplantation mouse development.
Dev. Biol.
218:275-283[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 12.
|
De Moor, C. H., and J. D. Richter.
2001.
Translational control in vertebrate development.
Int. Rev. Cytol.
203:567-608[Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Delouis, C.,
C. Bonnerot,
M. Vernet, and J. F. Nicolas.
1992.
Expression of microinjected DNA and RNA in early rabbit embryos: changes in permissiveness for expression and transcriptional selectivity.
Exp. Cell Res.
201:284-291[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 14.
|
DePamphilis, M. L.
2000.
Review: nuclear structure and DNA replication.
J. Struct. Biol.
129:186-197[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 15.
|
DePinho, R. A.
1998.
Transcriptional repression: the cancer-chromatin connection.
Nature
391:533-536[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 16.
|
Doherty, A. S., and R. M. Schultz.
2000.
Culture of preimplantation mouse embryos.
Methods Mol. Biol.
135:47-52[Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Forlani, S.,
C. Bonnerot,
S. Capgras, and J.-F. Nicolas.
1998.
Relief of a repressed gene expression state in the mouse one-cell embryo requires DNA replication.
Development
125:3153-3166[Abstract].
|
| 18.
|
Fry, C. J., and P. J. Farnham.
1999.
Context-dependent transcriptional regulation.
J. Biol. Chem.
274:29583-29586[Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Henery, C. C.,
M. Miranda,
M. Wiekowski,
I. Wilmut, and M. L. DePamphilis.
1995.
Repression of gene expression at the beginning of mouse development.
Dev. Biol.
169:448-460[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 20.
|
Imhof, A., and A. P. Wolffe.
1998.
Transcription: gene control by targeted histone acetylation.
Curr. Biol.
8:R422-R424[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 21.
|
Kaneko, K. J., and M. L. DePamphilis.
1998.
Regulation of gene expression at the beginning of mammalian development and the TEAD family of transcription factors.
Dev. Genet.
22:43-55[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Kornberg, R. D., and Y. Lorch.
1999.
Twenty-five years of the nucleosome, fundamental perticel of the eukaryote chromosome.
Cell
98:285-294[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 23.
|
Lawinger, P,
L. Rastelli,
Z. Zhao, and S. Majumder.
1999.
Lack of enhancer function in mammals is unique to oocytes and fertilized eggs.
J. Biol. Chem.
274:8002-8011[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 24.
|
Lawinger, P.,
R. Venugopal,
Z-S. Guo,
A. Immaneni,
L. Rastelli,
D. Sengupta,
W. Lu,
Z. Zhao,
A. Carneiro,
G. Fuller,
Y. Echelard, and S. Majumder.
2000.
Expression of REST/NRSF is a critical phenotype of medulloblastoma cells.
Nat. Med.
6:826-831[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 25.
|
Lira, S. A.,
R. A. Kinloch,
S. Mortillo, and P. Wassarman.
1990.
An upstream region of the mouse ZP3 gene directs expression of firefly luciferase specifically to growing oocytes in transgenic mice.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
87:7215-7219[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 26.
|
Luger, K., and T. J. Richmond.
1998.
The histone tails of the nucleosome.
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
8:140-146[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 27.
|
Majumder, S.
1997.
Mouse preimplantation embryos as an in vivo system to study gene expression, p. 323-349.
In
A. Cid-Arregui, and A. Garcia-Carranca (ed.), Microinjection and transgenesis: strategies and protocols. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
|
| 28.
|
Majumder, S., and M. L. DePamphilis.
1995.
A unique role for enhancers is revealed during early mouse development.
Bioessays
17:879-889[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 29.
|
Majumder, S., and M. L. DePamphilis.
1994.
TATA-dependent enhancer stimulation of promoter activity in mice is developmentally acquired.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
14:4258-4268[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 30.
|
Majumder, S.,
M. Miranda, and M. DePamphilis.
1993.
Analysis of gene expression in mouse preimplantation embryos demonstrates that the primary role of enhancers is to relieve repression of promoters.
EMBO J.
12:1131-1140[Medline].
|
| 31.
|
Majumder, S.,
Z. Zhao,
K. Kaneko, and M. L. DePamphilis.
1997.
Developmental acquisition of enhancer function requires a unique coactivator activity.
EMBO J.
16:1721-1731[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 32.
|
Martínez-Salas, E.,
D. Y. Cupo, and M. L. DePamphilis.
1988.
The need for enhancers is acquired upon formation of a diploid nucleus during early mouse development.
Genes Dev.
2:1115-1126[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 33.
|
Martínez-Salas, E.,
E. Linney,
J. Hassell, and M. L. DePamphilis.
1989.
The need for enhancers in gene expression first appears during mouse development with formation of a zygotic nucleus.
Genes Dev.
3:1493-1506[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 34.
|
Millar, S. E.,
E. Lader,
L-F. Liang, and J. Dean.
1991.
Oocyte specific factors bind a conserved upstream sequence required for mouse zona pellucida promoter activity.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
11:6197-6204[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 35.
|
Miranda, M.,
S. Majumder,
M. Wiekowski, and M. L. DePamphilis.
1993.
Application of firefly luciferase to preimplantation development.
Methods Enzymol.
225:412-433[Medline].
|
| 36.
|
Peterson, C. L., and J. L. Workman.
2000.
Promoter targeting and chromatin remodeling by the SWI/SNF complex.
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
10:187-192[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 37.
|
Rastelli, L., and S. Majumder.
1999.
The role of chromatin in the establishment of enhancer function during early mouse development.
Gene Ther. Mol. Biol.
3:455-464.
|
| 38.
|
Robinson, K. M., and J. T. Kadonaga.
1998.
The use of chromatin templates to recreate transcriptional regulatory phenomena in vitro.
Biochem. Biophys. Acta
1378:M1-M6[Medline].
|
| 39.
| Roth, S., Y., J. M. Denu, and C. D. Allis. Histone acetyltransferases. Annu. Rev. Biochem., in press.
|
| 40.
|
Schickler, M.,
S. A. Lira,
R. A. Kinloch, and P. Wassarman.
1992.
A mouse oocyte specific protein that binds to a region of mZP3 promoter is responsible for oocyte specific mZP3 gene expression.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
12:120-127[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 41.
|
Schultz, R. M.
1993.
Regulation of zygotic gene activation in the mouse.
Bioessays
8:531-538.
|
| 42.
|
Schultz, R. M.,
W. Davis,
P. Stein, and P. Svoboda.
1999.
Reprogramming of gene expression during preimplantation development.
J. Exp. Zool.
285:276-282[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 43.
|
Sera, T., and A. P. Wolffe.
1998.
Role of histone H1 as an architectural determinant of chromatin structure and as a specific repressor of transcription of Xenopus oocyte 5S rRNA genes.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:3668-3680[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 44.
|
Simon, R. H., and G. Felsenfeld.
1979.
A new procedure for purifying histone pairs H2A+H2B and H3+H4 from chromatin using hydoxylapatite.
Nucleic Acids Res.
6:689-696[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 45.
|
Stein, P., and R. M. Schultz.
2000.
Initiation of a chromatin-based transcriptionally repressive state in the preimplantation mouse embryo: lack of a primary role for expression of somatic histone H1.
Mol. Reprod. Dev.
55:241-248[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 46.
|
Stein, P.,
D. M. Worrad,
N. D. Belyaev,
B. M. Turner, and R. M. Schultz.
1997.
Stage-dependent redistributions of acetylated histones in nuclei of the early preimplantation mouse embryos.
Mol. Reprod. Dev.
47:421-429[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 47.
|
Strahl, B. D., and C. D. Allis.
2000.
The language of covalent histone modifications.
Nature
403:41-45[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 48.
|
Sudarsanam, P., and F. Winston.
2000.
The Swi/Snf family: nucleosome-remodeling complexes and transcriptional control.
Trends Genet.
16:345-355[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 49.
|
Tyler, J. K.,
C. R. Adams,
S.-R. Chen,
R. Kobayashi,
R. T. Kamakaka, and J. T. Kadonaga.
1999.
The RCAF complex mediates chromatin assembly during DNA replication and repair.
Nature
402:555-560[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 50.
|
Vignali, M., and J. L. Workman.
1998.
Location and function of linker histones.
Nat. Struct. Biol.
5:1025-1028[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 51.
|
Wiekowski, M.,
M. Miranda, and M. L. DePamphilis.
1993.
Requirements for promoter activity in mouse oocytes and embryos distinguish paternal pronuclei from maternal and zygotic nuclei.
Dev. Biol.
159:366-378[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 52.
|
Wiekowski, M.,
M. Miranda,
J.-Y. Nothias,
B. M. Turner, and M. L. DePamphilis.
1997.
Changes in histone synthesis and modification at the beginning of mouse development correlate with the establishment of chromatin mediated repression of transcription.
J. Cell Sci.
110:1147-1158[Abstract].
|
| 53.
|
Workman, J. L., and R. E. Kingston.
1998.
Alteration of nucleosomal structure as a mechanism of transcriptional regulation.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
67:545-579[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 54.
|
Worrard, D. M., and R. M. Schultz.
1997.
Regulation of gene expression in the preimplantation mouse embryo: temporal and spatial patterns of expression of the transcription factor Sp1.
Mol. Reprod. Dev.
46:268-277[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 55.
|
Worrard, D. M.,
B. M. Turner, and R. M. Schultz.
1995.
Temporally restricted spatial localization of acetylated isoforms of histone H4 and RNA polymerase II in the two-cell mouse embryo.
Development
121:2949-2959[Abstract].
|
| 56.
|
Wu, J., and M. Grunstein.
2000.
25 years after the nucleosome model: chromatin modification.
Trends Biochem. Sci.
25:619-623[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 57.
|
Xu, W.,
D. G. Edmondson,
Y. A. Evrard,
M. Wakamiya,
R. R. Behringer, and S. Y. Roth.
2000.
Loss of gcn512 leads to increased apoptosis and mesodermal defects during mouse development.
Nat. Genet.
26:229-232[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 58.
|
Zhang, Y.,
G. Leroy,
H.-P. Seelig,
W. S. Lane, and D. Reinberg.
1998.
The dermatomyositis-specific autoantigen Mi2 is a component of a complex containing histone deacetylase and nucleosome remodeling activities.
Cell
95:279-289[CrossRef][Medline].
|
Molecular and Cellular Biology, August 2001, p. 5531-5540, Vol. 21, No. 16
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.16.5531-5540.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Su, X., Gopalakrishnan, V., Stearns, D., Aldape, K., Lang, F. F., Fuller, G., Snyder, E., Eberhart, C. G., Majumder, S.
(2006). Abnormal Expression of REST/NRSF and Myc in Neural Stem/Progenitor Cells Causes Cerebellar Tumors by Blocking Neuronal Differentiation.. Mol. Cell. Biol.
26: 1666-1678
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Kageyama, S.-I., Nagata, M., Aoki, F.
(2004). Isolation of Nascent Messenger RNA from Mouse Preimplantation Embryos. Biol. Reprod.
71: 1948-1955
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Su, X., Kameoka, S., Lentz, S., Majumder, S.
(2004). Activation of REST/NRSF Target Genes in Neural Stem Cells Is Sufficient To Cause Neuronal Differentiation. Mol. Cell. Biol.
24: 8018-8025
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Fiorenza, M. T., Bevilacqua, A., Canterini, S., Torcia, S., Pontecorvi, M., Mangia, F.
(2004). Early Transcriptional Activation of the Hsp70.1 Gene by Osmotic Stress in One-Cell Embryos of the Mouse. Biol. Reprod.
70: 1606-1613
[Abstract]
[Full Text]