Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, November 2001, p. 7714-7720, Vol. 21, No. 22
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Received 13 July 2001/Accepted 13 August 2001
Insulators define chromosomal domains such that an enhancer in one
domain cannot activate a promoter in a different domain. We show that
the Drosophila gypsy insulator behaves as a
cis-stimulatory element in the larval fat body.
Transcriptional stimulation by the insulator is distance dependent, as
expected for a promoter element as opposed to an enhancer. Stimulation
of a test alcohol dehydrogenase promoter requires a binding site for a
GATA transcription factor, suggesting that the insulator may be
facilitating access of this DNA binding protein to the promoter.
Short-range stimulation requires both the Suppressor of Hairy-wing
protein and the Mod(mdg4)-62.7 protein encoded by the trithorax group
gene mod(mdg4). In the absence of interaction with
Mod(mdg4)-62.7, the insulator is converted into a short-range
transcriptional repressor but retains some cis-stimulatory
activity over longer distances. These results indicate that insulator
and promoter sequences share important characteristics and are not
entirely distinct. We propose that the gypsy insulator can function as
a promoter element and may be analogous to promoter-proximal regulatory
modules that integrate input from multiple distal enhancer sequences.
The normal expression of eukaryotic
genes requires stimulation of promoters by enhancers that often exert
their effects over many kilobases of intervening DNA (3,
54). Given this ability of enhancers to function over long
distances, there must be mechanisms that prevent enhancers of one gene
from activating transcription of neighboring genes. Current models
propose that this is accomplished by insulators, DNA sequences that
define chromosomal domains such that a promoter in one domain cannot be
activated by an enhancer in a different domain (23, 26).
For example, the scs and scs' sequences that flank the Drosophila
hsp70 gene prevent transcriptional stimulation by the yolk
protein-1 enhancer when inserted between the enhancer and an
hsp 70 target promoter (32, 56). Consistently, these same sequences insulate transgenes from the chromosomal position
effects characteristic of germ line transformation in Drosophila (33). Such insulators are likely to
have important roles in the correct developmental regulation of many
genes as exemplified by Fab-7, which separates the
iab-6 and iab-7 regulatory elements of the
Drosophila Bithorax complex, and the locus control region
located upstream of the chicken One of the most extensively studied insulators is located in the 5'
nontranslated region of the Drosophila gypsy
retrotransposon. Many of the spontaneous mutations caused by gypsy
elements are due to the blocking of enhancer-promoter interactions
attributable to this insulator (11, 17, 24, 25, 40). A
430-bp fragment of gypsy, termed "the gypsy insulator," placed
between an enhancer and its target promoter is sufficient to block
enhancer stimulation (11, 17, 24, 45, 51, 60). As is true
of other insulators, this same DNA fragment effectively insulates
transgenes from chromosomal position effects (48).
The Suppressor of Hairy-wing protein [Su(Hw)] is required for this
enhancer-blocking activity in vivo (40). The insulator relieves transcriptional repression mediated by polycomb group proteins, and Su(Hw) is required for this activity as well
(35). Su(Hw) contains 12 zinc fingers that mediate direct
binding to an octanucleotide sequence repeated 12 times in the gypsy
insulator (34, 44, 50, 53). It also contains three
conserved motifs that are implicated in protein-protein interactions
and that contribute to blocking of distal enhancers (15, 16, 27,
29, 34).
Another gene, mod(mdg4), is also involved in the
enhancer-blocking activity of the gypsy insulator. Specifically, in the
presence of a mutant form of this gene [the
mod(mdg4)ul allele], the insulator influences
expression of nearby genes in a more general manner (7, 18, 19,
22). Disruption of the carboxy-terminal domain of
Mod(mdg4)-67.2, which mediates binding to Su(Hw), apparently accounts
for the diverse effects seen (15, 17, 21, 22, 27). In some
cases, the insulator appears to lose its polar enhancer-blocking
activity, with promoter-proximal as well as promoter-distal enhancers
apparently being repressed, sometimes in a variegated pattern
(18, 21, 22). In other cases, enhancer blocking by the
insulator appears to be either unaffected or completely abolished in
the presence of mod(mdg4)ul (6, 7, 15, 18,
27). The mod(mdg4) gene is identical to
E(var)3-93D, which influences position effect variegation
and whose wild-type function likely involves establishment and/or maintenance of a transcriptionally active chromatin conformation (10).
In spite of recent evidence suggesting that insulators physically
interact with one another (8, 41), the biochemical mechanisms underlying insulator activity remain poorly understood. In
particular, it is not clear why the promoter region of gypsy contains
an insulator sequence. One possibility is that the insulator is in fact
a promoter sequence that plays a direct role in transcription.
Here we critically test this hypothesis using both transient and germ
line transformation methods. In the absence of an enhancer, the
insulator stimulates transcription of a minimal alcohol dehydrogenase gene (Adh) promoter in a distance-dependent manner. Su(Hw)
is essential for this stimulation. Mod(mdg4)-67.2 is necessary for short-range transcriptional stimulation, but lower levels of
longer-range stimulation are seen without the binding of Mod(mdg4)-67.2
to the insulator. In fact, in the absence of Mod(mdg4)-67.2 binding, the insulator is converted into a short-range transcriptional repressor. We also demonstrate that transcriptional stimulation by the
gypsy insulator is promoter specific. We provide evidence that this
stimulation is analogous to that mediated by the GAGA factor in that it
may reflect facilitated binding of a limiting transcription factor to
the adjacent promoter.
Reporter gene construction.
Full details of all gene
constructions are available upon request. Briefly, the firefly
luciferase gene carried in the pGL3-Basic vector (Promega) was used as
a reporter for all experimental constructs. This was fused to one of
three promoters. The minimal promoter of the Drosophila
affinidisjuncta Adh gene consisted of sequences between the
NdeI site at position
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.22.7714-7720.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
The gypsy Insulator Can Act as a Promoter-Specific
Transcriptional Stimulator
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
-globin locus (9, 28, 38).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
203 and the EcoRI site at
position +18 (31, 36). To assess the contribution of box A
binding factor (ABF) binding, a promoter carrying a clustered
point mutation removing the GATA binding site, termed MutB
(31), was inserted into pGL3-Basic using the same
strategy. Constructions with the white promoter carried the
so-called mini-white promoter from pCaSpeR
(46). Sequences from 316 to +60 were excised and
inserted upstream of the firefly luciferase coding region of
pGL3-Basic.
DNA. The
pCaSpeR vector was used for P element transformation
(46). For all experiments shown, the orientation of the
insulator was held constant. Plasmids used for injection were purified
by CsCl gradient centrifugation and quantified by fluorimetry with
Hoechst 33258 dye using a Hoefer DNA Quant fluorometer.
Drosophila stocks. For transient transformation in the presence of wild-type su(Hw) and mod(mdg4) genes, the Drosophila melanogaster Adh-null stock (Adhfn6 cn; ry506) was used (60). To study the role of the Su(Hw) protein in insulator function, the y1 w1118 ct6 f1; Adhfn6 cn; su(Hw)v/su(Hw)f stock was used (60). To assess the role of mod(mdg4), the y1 w1118 ct6 f1; mod(mdg4)u1 stock was used. The ct6 and f1 alleles carry gypsy-induced mutations that allow visual verification of the su(Hw) and mod(mdg4) genotypes. For P element transformation, the w1118 strain was used, and homozygous transformed lines were produced as described previously (60).
Transformation. Transient transformation was performed by injection of plasmid DNAs into the ventral midline of preblastoderm embryos for optimal expression in the larval fat body as described in detail elsewhere (36, 37, 60). Equimolar mixtures of an experimental plasmid encoding firefly luciferase and a control plasmid were injected. The firefly luciferase assay is extremely sensitive and is linear over at least 4 orders of magnitude. Typical basal expression for the wild-type Adh promoter ranged from 106 to 107 light units per larva per 10-s reading with a luminometer. For Adh-null stocks, the control plasmid was p11BXB2, which carries the full-length Adh gene from D. affinidisjuncta and encodes alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) (4). Measurement of firefly luciferase and ADH activities was done as described previously (60). For the analysis of mod(mdg4) effects, which required the use of a strain that was not Adh null, pWWRL1 served as an internal control. This was constructed from pRL-null (Promega), which encodes Renilla reniformis luciferase, by the insertion of the minimal promoter of the D. affinidisjuncta Adh gene as described above. In this case, the Dual Luciferase assay (Promega) was used to measure expression. In all cases, five independent groups of five larvae were analyzed for each gene.
Others have shown that supercoiled plasmids injected in this manner remain as supercoiled monomers, without detectable rearrangement or recombination until the third larval instar (49). Southern analysis confirmed that all plasmids used in the present study remained as supercoiled monomers until the third larval instar, with no detectable conversion to nicked circular forms or integration into the chromosome. However, larger plasmids did show decreased survival to the third instar. To control for this, expression levels for all experimental plasmids carrying the gypsy insulator were normalized relative to similarly sized control plasmids lacking insulator sequences. P element transformation was performed as described previously (60). Six to seven transformed lines were analyzed for each gene. Only homozygous viable autosomal insertions were evaluated. For both transient and stably transformed stocks, levels of expression were compared statistically by the Student t test, corrected, if necessary, for unequal sample sizes (62).DNA sequence analysis. Genomic DNAs were purified from Oregon-R and mod(mdg4)ul flies as described previously (5). The mod(mdg4) genomic regions were amplified with Accutaq LA DNA polymerase (Sigma), using the conditions suggested by the manufacturer. Primers were designed according to published cDNA sequences (GenBank primary accession numbers U30905, U30913, and U30914). Sequencing was performed on an ABI PRISM 377 DNA sequencer using ABI PRISM BigDye terminator cycle sequencing. Both strands were sequenced throughout.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
The insulator influences basal transcription in a manner that depends on distance to the promoter. Previous studies have ascribed both transcriptional stimulation and repression activities to the gypsy insulator (30, 52). However, no study has critically addressed the possibility that stimulation and repression activities may depend upon the spacing between the insulator and the promoter. To address the effects of the insulator on basal transcription, we constructed reporter genes with 20-bp to 4.9-kb spacing between the insulator and a test promoter, a minimal Adh promoter, in the absence of an enhancer and analyzed these by transient transformation of larval fat body (36, 60).
As shown in Fig. 1, the smallest spacing between the insulator and the promoter results in transcriptional repression that is mediated by Su(Hw). In a wild-type su(Hw) background, basal expression is decreased about fivefold (Fig. 1, gene 2) (P = 0.0004). However, in a strain containing low levels of Su(Hw) activity, there is no significant repression (Fig. 1, gene 2).
|
larvae (
|
Effects on basal transcription are promoter specific.
The
question then arises as to why such effects on basal transcription have
not been generally observed by others. One possibility is that
stage-specific differences in trans-acting factors may account for this. While we have analyzed expression in a larval tissue,
others have examined embryonic or adult tissues (8, 41,
45). Alternatively, effects on basal transcription may be
promoter specific. Many previous studies have used the promoter from
the white gene. Therefore, to test for promoter-specific effects, we performed transient transformation of the larval fat body
using this promoter. The white promoter is neither repressed nor significantly stimulated with either minimal spacing or 450-bp spacing between it and the insulator (Fig.
3A).
|
25 region and a binding site for
the GATA transcription factor ABF, or Serpent, which is essential for
high-level expression of the Adh promoter in the larval fat body in vivo and as measured directly by in vitro transcription in
embryonic nuclear extracts (31). ABF binds directly to
this sequence, as demonstrated by electrophoretic gel mobility shift and DNase footprinting assays, but fails to bind a mutant form of the
Adh promoter (MutB) lacking this sequence (31).
The fact that the insulator can reverse repression by polycomb group
proteins (35, 57) suggested to us that the stimulation
seen for the Adh promoter might reflect the ability of the
insulator to facilitate access of ABF to the DNA template. If so,
removing the ABF binding site from the Adh promoter should
eliminate the stimulatory effect of the insulator. Removal of the
ABF binding site located 73 bp upstream of the transcription
initiation point lowers expression of the Adh promoter
50-fold to levels comparable to those seen for the white
promoter (data not shown). Significantly, with this modified promoter,
stimulation by the insulator is completely abolished (Fig. 3B).
Mod(mdg4)-67.2 is required for stimulation of basal transcription. It is unlikely that Su(Hw) alone accounts for these effects. Others have provided evidence for physical interaction between the Mod(mdg4)-67.2 protein and Su(Hw) (6, 15, 22, 27). The mod(mdg4) gene is a member of the trithorax group of genes whose normal function is to mediate local opening of chromatin structure, thereby facilitating transcription (10, 21). The mod(mdg4)u1 allele, which encodes a truncated Mod(mdg4)-67.2 protein (6, 22), is known to influence enhancer blocking by the insulator (15). Our analysis of genomic DNA from wild-type and mod(mdg4)u1 flies showed that the mod(mdg4)u1 allele encodes a Mod(mdg4)-67.2 protein that is shortened by a total of 144 amino acids (GenBank accession numbers AF214648 and AF214650, respectively). This mutation removes all but eight of the amino acids of the carboxy-terminal exon and abolishes the interaction of Mod(mdg4)-67.2 with Su(Hw) (15, 27). If enhancer blocking and transcriptional stimulation are mechanistically related, we reasoned that this mutation would have a direct impact on the insulator's transcriptional stimulation activity.
Indeed, the mod(mdg4)u1 allele dramatically alters the insulator's effects on basal transcription (Fig. 4). With minimal spacing between the promoter and the insulator (Fig. 4, gene 2), transcriptional repression is greater in the mod(mdg4)u1 background (12-fold) than in the wild type (5-fold). Increasing the spacing by just 50 bp reveals a clear distinction between the activity of the insulator in the wild-type and mod(mdg4)u1 backgrounds; there is a fourfold stimulation in wild-type larvae in contrast to a sixfold repression in mod(mdg4)u1 larvae (Fig. 4, gene 11). However, the mod(mdg4)u1 mutation does not abolish all stimulatory activity of the insulator. When the distance between the insulator and the promoter is increased to 970 bp, the insulator still stimulates transcription, but about threefold less strongly than it does in the wild type (Fig. 4, gene 4). Therefore, the Mod(mdg4)-67.2 protein is required for short-range transcriptional stimulation but is not absolutely essential for stimulation over longer distances. Moreover, in the absence of Mod(mdg4)-67.2 binding, Su(Hw) apparently actively represses basal transcription over short distances. A comparison of genes 2 and 11 in Fig. 4 demonstrates that this direct repression is distinct from the presumably nonspecific steric interference with the binding of limiting transcription factors, such as ABF, that results from the closest spacing.
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
The distance-dependent transcriptional stimulation displayed by the gypsy insulator is what one would expect for a promoter element as opposed to an enhancer that would stimulate transcription in a distance-independent manner. These results also suggest that differences in spacing between promoter and insulator sequences account for the apparently contradictory results of others. With a spacing of several hundred base pairs between the insulator and the transcriptional start site, as found in the native gypsy element, Su(Hw) stimulates transcription (52). Yet with minimal spacing, as used previously between heat shock response elements and the Su(Hw) binding sites, Su(Hw) inhibits heat shock-induced stimulation (30). In the latter case, Su(Hw), which remains bound to the insulator during heat shock (20), presumably interferes sterically with the binding of the heat shock transcription factor.
Insulator-promoter interactions are quite sensitive to spacing. In the wild-type genetic background, a change in spacing of as little as 50 bp makes a 20-fold difference in expression (fourfold stimulation versus fivefold repression). In the absence of Mod(mdg4)-67.2 binding, the story is even more complicated. Even with the additional 50-bp spacing, the insulator represses transcription in the mod(mdg4)u1 background. In this case, there is a 24-fold difference between the wild-type and mod(mdg4)u1 backgrounds (fourfold stimulation versus sixfold repression, respectively). The direct repression in the latter case is not simple steric blocking but is likely mediated via the two acidic domains of Su(Hw) (16, 18). Over larger distances, however, the insulator still stimulates transcription, albeit somewhat less strongly, without Mod(mdg4)-67.2 binding.
In view of these findings, some earlier studies must be interpreted with caution. The spacing between the promoter and the insulator, the proteins interacting with the promoter in the particular tissue, and, in all likelihood, the proximity of DNA binding sites for key transcription factors within the enhancer could influence the outcome. Certainly, the results of others are consistent with the idea that the insulator influences transcription directly at the level of the promoter when located within about 1.5 kb of the promoter (18, 22). In contrast, enhancer blocking by the insulator is independent of spacing. In agreement with the results of others, we observed blocking of a strong enhancer in the larval fat body regardless of the spacing between the insulator and the promoter (59, 60). Thus, interpretation of some earlier studies is complicated by the possibility that the insulator might itself stimulate transcription in some cases (while at the same time blocking distal enhancers) in a wild-type mod(mdg4) background. This would explain, for example, why the wing blade and body cuticle enhancers of the yellow gene appear not to be completely blocked in the gypsy-induced y2 allele (18).
The fact that the insulator can act as a promoter element provides a biologically sound rationale for its location in the promoter region of the gypsy retrotransposon. The gypsy insulator thus resembles GAGA sites that bind GAGA factor, a protein encoded by trithorax-like. GAGA sites are found both in chromosomal boundary elements and in promoters (39). Consistently, the BTB domain encoded by mod(mdg4) can functionally substitute for the GAGA factor's BTB domain in transcriptional stimulation (2, 47, 63). The GAGA factor's BTB domain functions to remodel nucleosomal templates in conjunction with NURF (43, 55). However, at certain chromosomal sites, and in the presence of particular protein-protein interactions, GAGA factor instead binds corepressors that mediate chromatin condensation via deacetylation of histones (13). Thus, either chromatin condensation or chromatin remodeling activities could be mediated by the gypsy insulator. Our results favor the latter possibility, at least for the larval fat body.
Local remodeling of chromatin structure provides an attractive mechanistic connection between enhancer blocking and transcriptional stimulation. It is important to note that the same 430-bp insulator sequence used here effectively blocks enhancer-promoter interactions, even in the larval fat body, a tissue where we clearly see transcriptional stimulation (17, 24, 45, 60). Both enhancer blocking by the insulator (24) and the transcriptional stimulation we observed (unpublished observation) are independent of insulator orientation. Thus, the insulator is not a promoter per se, nor does it act in a manner expected for a core promoter element such as the TATA box (12).
Rather, we propose that the gypsy insulator is analogous to promoter-proximal regulatory modules that coordinate inputs from a variety of enhancer sequences and convey these to target promoters (61). The capacity of such a module to accept inputs is expected to be saturable, as is enhancer blocking by the gypsy insulator (50). The recent demonstration that the BTB domain of Mod(mdg4)-67.2 interacts with Chip, a protein involved in long-distance enhancer-promoter interactions, is also consistent with this model (15).
A similar mechanism may apply to a number of insulators. For example,
evaluation of the Drosophila genomic sequence indicates that
the scs insulator is located in a promoter region (1, 14).
Similarly, the facet-strawberry mutation removes an
insulator that maps immediately upstream of, or partially overlaps
with, the promoter of the Notch gene (58). The
model predicts that any such promoter-proximal regulatory module would
display insulator function if assayed outside the context of the native
promoter. An insulator would result when the bound proteins retained
their ability to interact with enhancers but failed to interact
productively with the promoter
due either to location or to particular
protein-protein interactions.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank P. Geyer for providing Drosophila stocks. We also thank P. Geyer, V. Corces, and D. Dorsett for sharing with us their unpublished results.
W.W. was supported in part by a Merit Fellowship from the University of Louisville Center for Genetics and Molecular Medicine. This work was supported by the University of Louisville and by NIH monies to M.D.B.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Louisville Medical School, Louisville, KY 40202. Phone: (502) 852-1646. Fax: (502) 852-6222. E-mail: MDBREN01{at}LOUISVILLE.EDU.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
| 1. |
Adams, M. D., et al.
2000.
The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster.
Science
287:2185-2195 |
| 2. | Albagli, O., P. Dhordain, C. Deweindt, G. Lecocq, and D. Leprince. 1995. The BTB/POZ domain: a new protein-protein interaction motif common to DNA- and actin-binding proteins. Cell Growth Differ. 6:1193-1198[Abstract]. |
| 3. |
Blackwood, E. M., and J. T. Kadonaga.
1998.
Going the distance: a current view of enhancer action.
Science
281:60-63 |
| 4. | Brennan, M. D., and W. J. Dickinson. 1988. Complex developmental regulation of the Drosophila affinidisjuncta alcohol dehydrogenase gene in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev. Biol. 125:64-74[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 5. | Brennan, M. D., R. G. Rowan, and W. J. Dickinson. 1984. Introduction of a functional P element into the germ-line of Drosophila hawaiiensis. Cell 38:147-151[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 6. |
Büchner, K.,
P. Roth,
G. Schotta,
V. Krauss,
H. Saumweber,
G. Reuter, and R. Dorn.
2000.
Genetic and molecular complexity of the position effect variegation modifier mod(mdg4) in Drosophila.
Genetics
155:141-157 |
| 7. | Cai, H., and M. Levine. 1997. The gypsy insulator can function as a promoter-specific silencer in the Drosophila embryo. EMBO J. 16:1732-1741[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 8. |
Cai, H. N., and P. Shen.
2001.
Effects of cis arrangement of chromatin insulators on enhancer-blocking activity.
Science
291:493-495 |
| 9. |
Chung, J. H.,
M. Whiteley, and G. Felsenfeld.
1993.
A 5' element of the chicken -globin domain serves as an insulator in human erythroid cells and protects against position effect in Drosophila.
Cell
74:505-514[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 10. |
Dorn, R.,
V. Krauss,
G. Reuter, and H. Saumweber.
1993.
The enhancer of position-effect variegation of Drosophila, E(var)3-93D, codes for a chromatin protein containing a conserved domain common to several transcriptional regulators.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
90:11376-11380 |
| 11. | Dorsett, D. 1993. Distance-independent inactivation of an enhancer by the suppressor of Hairy-wing DNA-binding protein of Drosophila. Genetics 134:1135-1144[Abstract]. |
| 12. | Dorsett, D. 1999. Distant liaisons: long-range enhancer-promoter interactions in Drosophila. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9:505-514[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 13. | Espinas, M. L., S. Canudas, L. Fanti, S. Pimpinelli, J. Casanova, and F. Azorin. 2000. The GAGA factor of Drosophila interacts with SAP18, a Sin3-associated polypeptide. EMBO Rep. 1:253-259[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 14. |
Farkas, G., and A. Udvardy.
1992.
Sequence of scs and scs' Drosophila DNA fragments with boundary function in the control of gene expression.
Nucleic Acids Res.
20:2604 |
| 15. |
Gause, M.,
P. Morcillo, and D. Dorsett.
2001.
Insulation of enhancer-promoter communication by a gypsy transposon insert in the Drosophila cut gene: cooperation between Suppressor of Hairy-wing and modifier of mdg4 proteins.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
21:4807-4817 |
| 16. | Gdula, D. A., and V. G. Corces. 1997. Characterization of functional domains of the su(Hw) protein that mediate the silencing effect of mod(mdg4) mutations. Genetics 145:153-161[Abstract]. |
| 17. |
Gdula, D. A.,
T. I. Gerasimova, and V. G. Corces.
1996.
Genetic and molecular analysis of the gypsy chromatin insulator of Drosophila.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
93:9378-9383 |
| 18. | Georgiev, P., and M. Kozycina. 1996. Interaction between mutations in the suppressor of Hairy wing and modifier of mdg4 genes of Drosophila melanogaster affecting the phenotype of gypsy-induced mutations. Genetics 142:425-436[Abstract]. |
| 19. | Georgiev, P. G., and T. I. Gerasimova. 1989. Novel genes influencing the expression of the yellow locus and mdg4(gypsy) in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Gen. Genet. 220:121-126[Medline]. |
| 20. | Gerasimova, T. I., K. Byrd, and V. G. Corces. 2000. A chromatin insulator determines the nuclear localization of DNA. Mol. Cell 6:1025-1035[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 21. | Gerasimova, T. I., and V. G. Corces. 1998. Polycomb and Trithorax group proteins mediate the function of a chromatin insulator. Cell 92:511-521[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 22. | Gerasimova, T. I., D. A. Gdula, D. V. Gerasimov, O. Simonova, and V. G. Corces. 1995. A Drosophila protein that imparts directionality on a chromatin insulator is an enhancer of position-effect variegation. Cell 82:587-597[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 23. | Gerasimova, T. I., and V. G. Corces. 1996. Boundary and insulator elements in chromosomes. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 6:185-192[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 24. |
Geyer, P. K., and V. G. Corces.
1992.
DNA position-specific repression of transcription by a Drosophila Zinc finger protein.
Genes Dev.
6:1865-1873 |
| 25. | Geyer, P. K., C. Spana, and V. G. Corces. 1986. On the molecular mechanism of gypsy-induced mutations at the yellow locus of Drosophila melanogaster. EMBO J. 5:2657-2662[Medline]. |
| 26. | Geyer, P. K. 1997. The role of insulator elements in defining domains of gene expression. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 7:242-248[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 27. | Ghosh, D., T. I. Gerasimova, and V. G. Corces. 2001. Interactions between the Su(Hw) and Mod(mdg4) proteins required for gypsy insulator function. EMBO J. 20:2518-2527[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 28. |
Hagstrom, K.,
M. Müller, and P. Schedl.
1996.
Fab-7 functions as a chromatin domain boundary to ensure proper segment specification by the Drosophila bithorax complex.
Genes Dev.
10:3202-3215 |
| 29. |
Harrison, D. A.,
D. A. Gdula,
R. S. Coyne, and V. G. Corces.
1993.
A leucine zipper domain of the suppressor of Hairy-wing protein mediates its repressive effect on enhancer function.
Genes Dev.
7:1966-1978 |
| 30. |
Holdridge, C., and D. Dorsett.
1991.
Repression of hsp70 heat shock gene transcription by the Suppressor of Hairy-wing protein of Drosophila melanogaster.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
11:1894-1900 |
| 31. | Hu, J., H. Qazzaz, and M. D. Brennan. 1995. A transcriptional role of conserved footprinting sequences within the larval promoter of a Drosophila alcohol dehydrogenase gene. J. Mol. Biol. 249:259-269[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 32. |
Kellum, R., and P. Schedl.
1992.
A group of scs elements function as domain boundaries in an enhancer-blocking assay.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
12:2424-2431 |
| 33. | Kellum, R., and P. Schedl. 1991. A position-effect assay for boundaries of higher order chromosomal domains. Cell 64:941-950[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 34. | Kim, J., B. Shen, C. Rosen, and D. Dorsett. 1996. The DNA-binding and enhancer-blocking domains of the Drosophila suppressor of Hairy-wing protein. Mol. Cell. Biol. 16:3381-3392[Abstract]. |
| 35. |
Mallin, D. R.,
J. S. Myung,
S. Patton, and P. K. Geyer.
1998.
Polycomb group repression is blocked by the Drosophila suppressor of Hairy-wing [su(Hw)] insulator.
Genetics
148:331-339 |
| 36. |
McKenzie, R. W.,
J. Hu, and M. D. Brennan.
1994.
Redundant cis-acting elements control expression of the Drosophila affinidisjuncta Adh gene in the larval fat body.
Nucleic Acids Res.
22:1257-1264 |
| 37. | McKenzie, R. W., and M. D. Brennan. 1998. cis-acting sequences contributing to expression of the Drosophila affinidisjuncta Adh gene in both larvae and adults. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 28:869-873[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 38. | Mihaly, J., I. Hogga, S. Barges, M. Galloni, R. K. Mishra, K. Hagstrom, M. Müller, P. Schedl, L. Sipos, J. Gausz, H. Gyurkovics, and F. Karch. 1998. Chromatin domain boundaries in the Bithorax complex. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 54:60-70[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 39. |
Mishra, R. K.,
J. Mihaly,
S. Barges,
A. Spierer,
F. Karch,
K. Hagstrom,
S. E. Schweinsberg, and P. Schedl.
2001.
The iab-7 Polycomb response element maps to a nucleosome-free region of chromatin and requires both GAGA and Pleiohomeotic for silencing activity.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
21:1311-1318 |
| 40. |
Modolell, J.,
W. Bender, and M. Meselson.
1983.
Drosophila melanogaster mutations suppressible by the suppressor of Hairy-wing are insertions of a 7.3-kilobase mobile element.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
80:1678-1682 |
| 41. |
Muravyova, E.,
A. Golovnin,
E. Gracheva,
A. Parshikov,
T. Belenkaya,
V. Pirrotta, and P. Georgiev.
2001.
Loss of insulator activity by paired Su(Hw) chromatin insulators.
Science
291:495-498 |
| 42. | Norrander, J., T. Kempe, and J. Messing. 1983. Construction of improved M13 vectors using oligodeoxynucleotide-directed mutagenesis. Gene 26:101-106[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 43. |
Okada, M., and S. Hirose.
1998.
Chromatin remodeling mediated by Drosophila GAGA factor and ISWI activates fushi tarazu gene transcription in vitro.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:2455-2461 |
| 44. |
Parkhurst, S. M.,
D. A. Harrison,
M. P. Remington,
C. Spana,
R. L. Kelley,
R. S. Coyne, and V. G. Corces.
1988.
The Drosophila su(Hw) gene, which controls the phenotypic effect of the gypsy transposable element, encodes a putative DNA-binding protein.
Genes Dev.
2:1205-1215 |
| 45. | Parnell, T. J., and P. K. Geyer. 2000. Differences in insulator properties revealed by enhancer-blocking assays on episomes. EMBO J. 19:5864-5874[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 46. | Pirrotta, V. 1988. Vectors for P-mediated transformation in Drosophila, p. 437-456. In R. L. Rodrigues, and D. T. Denhardt (ed.), Vectors: a survey of molecular cloning vectors and their uses. Butterworths, Boston, Mass. |
| 47. |
Read, D.,
M. J. Butte,
A. F. Dernburg,
M. Frasch, and T. B. Kornberg.
2000.
Functional studies of the BTB domain in the Drosophila GAGA and Mod(mdg4) proteins.
Nucleic Acids Res.
28:3864-3870 |
| 48. | Roseman, R. R., V. Pirrotta, and P. K. Geyer. 1993. The su(Hw) protein insulates expression of the Drosophila melanogaster white gene from chromosomal position-effects. EMBO J. 12:435-442[Medline]. |
| 49. |
Rothberg, I.,
E. Hotaling, and W. Sofer.
1991.
A Drosophila Adh gene can be activated in trans by an enhancer.
Nucleic Acids Res.
19:5713-5717 |
| 50. |
Scott, K. C.,
A. D. Taubman, and P. K. Geyer.
1999.
Enhancer blocking by the Drosophila gypsy insulator depends upon insulator anatomy and enhancer strength.
Genetics
153:787-798 |
| 51. | Smith, P. A., and V. G. Corces. 1992. The suppressor of Hairy-wing binding region is required for gypsy mutagenesis. Mol. Gen. Genet. 233:65-70[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 52. | Smith, P. A., and V. G. Corces. 1995. The suppressor of Hairy-wing protein regulates the tissue-specific expression of the Drosophila gypsy retrotransposon. Genetics 139:215-228[Abstract]. |
| 53. |
Spana, C.,
D. A. Harrison, and V. G. Corces.
1988.
The Drosophila melanogaster suppressor of Hairy-wing protein binds to specific sequences of the gypsy retrotransposon.
Genes Dev.
2:1414-1423 |
| 54. | Tjian, R., and T. Maniatis. 1994. Transcriptional activation: a complex puzzle with few easy pieces. Cell 77:5-8[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 55. | Tsukiyama, T., C. Daniel, J. Tamkun, and C. Wu. 1995. ISWI, a member of the SW12/SNF2 ATPase family, encodes the 140 kDa subunit of the nucleosome remodeling factor. Cell 83:1021-1026[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 56. | Udvardy, A., E. Maine, and P. Schedl. 1985. The 87A7 chromomere identification of novel chromatin structures flanking the heat shock locus that may define the boundaries of higher order domains. J. Mol. Biol. 185:341-358[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 57. |
van der Vlag, J.,
J. L. den Blaauwen,
R. G. A. B. Sewalt,
R. van Driel, and A. P. Otte.
2000.
Transcriptional repression mediated by polycomb group proteins and other chromatin-associated repressor is selectively blocked in insulators.
J. Biol. Chem.
275:697-704 |
| 58. |
Vazquez, J., and P. Schedl.
2000.
Deletion of an insulator element by the mutation facet-strawberry in Drosophila melanogaster.
Genetics
155:1297-1311 |
| 59. | Wei, W. 2000. Polarity of transcriptional enhancement and chromatin insulator function in Drosophila. Ph.D. thesis. University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky. |
| 60. |
Wei, W., and M. D. Brennan.
2000.
Polarity of transcriptional enhancement revealed by an insulator element.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
97:14518-14523 |
| 61. |
Yuh, C.-H.,
H. Bolouri, and E. H. Davidson.
1998.
Genomic cis-regulatory logic: experimental and computational analysis of a sea urchin gene.
Science
279:1896-1902 |
| 62. | Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. |
| 63. |
Zollman, S.,
D. Godt,
G. G. Privé,
J.-L. Couderc, and F. A. Laski.
1994.
The BTB domain, found primarily in zinc finger proteins, defines an evolutionarily conserved family that includes several developmentally regulated genes in Drosophila.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
91:10717-10721 |
Molecular and Cellular Biology, November 2001, p. 7714-7720, Vol. 21, No. 22
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.22.7714-7720.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Savitskaya, E., Melnikova, L., Kostuchenko, M., Kravchenko, E., Pomerantseva, E., Boikova, T., Chetverina, D., Parshikov, A., Zobacheva, P., Gracheva, E., Galkin, A., Georgiev, P.
(2006). Study of Long-Distance Functional Interactions between Su(Hw) Insulators That Can Regulate Enhancer-Promoter Communication in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Cell. Biol.
26: 754-761
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Kravchenko, E., Savitskaya, E., Kravchuk, O., Parshikov, A., Georgiev, P., Savitsky, M.
(2005). Pairing between gypsy Insulators Facilitates the Enhancer Action in trans throughout the Drosophila Genome. Mol. Cell. Biol.
25: 9283-9291
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Volgina, V., Yam, P.-C., Knight, K. L.
(2005). A negative regulatory element in the rabbit 3'IgH chromosomal region. Int Immunol
17: 973-982
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Golovnin, A., Melnick, E., Mazur, A., Georgiev, P.
(2005). Drosophila Su(Hw) Insulator Can Stimulate Transcription of a Weakened yellow Promoter Over a Distance. Genetics
170: 1133-1142
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Karakozova, M., Savitskaya, E., Melnikova, L., Parshikov, A., Georgiev, P.
(2004). The Mod(mdg4) Component of the Su(Hw) Insulator Inserted in the P Transposon Can Repress Its Mobility in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics
167: 1275-1280
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Parnell, T. J., Viering, M. M., Skjesol, A., Helou, C., Kuhn, E. J., Geyer, P. K.
(2003). An endogenous Suppressor of Hairy-wing insulator separates regulatory domains in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
100: 13436-13441
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Giraldo, P., Martinez, A., Regales, L., Lavado, A., Garcia-Diaz, A., Alonso, A., Busturia, A., Montoliu, L.
(2003). Functional dissection of the mouse tyrosinase locus control region identifies a new putative boundary activity. Nucleic Acids Res
31: 6290-6305
[Abstract] [Full Text]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»