Molecular and Cellular Biology, May 2001, p. 3071-3082, Vol. 21, No. 9
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.9.3071-3082.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

andDepartment of Microbiology, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York 10032
Received 24 March 2000/Returned for modification 5 June 2000/Accepted 5 February 2001
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Expression of the CD4 gene is tightly controlled throughout
thymopoiesis. The downregulation of CD4 gene expression in
CD4
CD8
and CD4
CD8+ T lymphocytes is controlled by a transcriptional
silencer located in the first intron of the CD4 locus. Here, we
determine that the c-Myb transcription factor binds to a functional
site in the CD4 silencer. As c-Myb is also required for CD4 promoter
function, these data indicate that depending on the context, c-Myb
plays both positive and negative roles in the control of CD4 gene
expression. Interestingly, a second CD4 silencer-binding factor, HES-1,
binds to c-Myb in vivo and induces it to become a transcriptional
repressor. We propose that the recruitment of HES-1 and c-Myb to the
silencer leads to the formation of a multifactor complex that induces
silencer function and repression of CD4 gene expression.
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
T-cell development is controlled by
the ordered regulation of genes involved in the progression of the
thymocyte through each stage of maturation. One of the most important
genes expressed at specific stages of T-cell development is that
encoding the coreceptor CD4. The earliest committed T-cell precursor
cells do not express either CD4 or the coreceptor CD8 and are referred to as double-negative (DN) thymocytes. Expression of CD4 and CD8 is
first seen in T cells that have undergone successful rearrangement of
the T-cell receptor (TCR)
genes. This double-positive (DP) population subsequently completes rearrangement of the TCR
chain gene and undergoes the selection process to ensure a properly restricted T-cell repertoire (6). CD4 expression is
maintained in mature T cells that survive selection and recognize
antigen bound to major histocompatibility complex class II (5,
15). These cells downregulate expression of CD8 and become
committed helper T cells (TH). Those cells that survive
selection and recognize antigen bound to major histocompatibility
complex class I will downregulate expression of CD4, maintain
expression of CD8, and become committed cytotoxic T cells
(TC) (42, 46). Thus, the activation or
downregulation of CD4 gene expression defines the different stages of
developing T cells. We have sought to understand how CD4 gene
expression is linked to thymocyte development by identifying factors
that bind to and mediate the function of the CD4 transcriptional
control regions. As these trans-acting factors are likely to
be responsive to the T-cell selection process, their study will help
delineate the signaling pathways that drive repertoire selection.
Expression of the CD4 gene is controlled by four elements: a promoter, a thymocyte enhancer which functions early in development, a mature enhancer which begins function in mature post-selection T cells, and a transcriptional silencer (1, 8-10, 33, 34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 49, and M. Adlam and G. Siu, unpublished). The silencer is the critical element that represses CD4 expression in DN thymocytes and as the DP thymocyte matures into the CD8 single-positive (SP) TC cell (41, 43). There are three factor-binding sites in the CD4 silencer, which we refer to as S1, S2, and S3, all of which are important in mediating silencer function (10). We have previously determined that the Notch pathway intermediate HES-1 binds to the silencer site S1 and silencer-associated factor (SAF) binds to S3; both are important in mediating silencer function (22, 23). Interestingly, SAF is located in the cytoplasm of DP and CD4 SP T cells and in the nucleus of DN and CD8 SP T cells. Its active transport to the nucleus is DP thymocyte specific, is controlled by lck signaling via the Mek1 pathway, and induces the downregulation of CD4 expression, the initiating step of CD8 SP development (W. W. S. Kim, N. de Souza, and G. Siu, submitted for publication). It is thus likely that SAF is critical for transmitting signals from the TCR complex to the CD4 silencer during the repertoire selection process. The factor(s) that binds to the S2 site of the silencer is unknown.
The c-Myb transcription factor plays a role in the control of transcription of many genes that are critical for early hematopoiesis (25); mouse genetic studies have also demonstrated a role for c-Myb in early thymopoiesis (2, 4). Consensus c-Myb-binding sites have been found in the transcriptional control elements of genes important in later stages of thymopoiesis, indicating that c-Myb may also play a role in late T-cell development as well (12, 17, 19, 28, 44). We and others have previously determined that c-Myb induces CD4 expression by binding to a consensus c-Myb site in the CD4 promoter (28, 44). Here, using molecular and transgenic approaches, we determine that c-Myb binds to the S2 functional site of the CD4 silencer and that its binding is important for mediating silencer function. In addition, we demonstrate that HES-1 binds to c-Myb in vivo and induces it to become a transcriptional repressor. Our data thus indicate that c-Myb can function as either a transcriptional repressor at the CD4 silencer or as a transcriptional activator at the CD4 promoter, depending on the context of its binding site within the transcriptional control element, and indicate that HES-1 and c-Myb form a multifactor complex that mediates CD4 silencer function.
| |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Electrophoretic mobility shift assays and UV cross-links and
immunoprecipitations.
Nuclear extracts were purified from the
CD4+ CD8
TH clone D10 or the CD8
SP TC clone L3 using a modified Dignam protocol
(8), and electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA)
analyses were conducted using oligonucleotide probes (Gibco BRL) as
described previously (10). The S2L probe contains
sequences extending from position 121 to 185 in the CD4 silencer
(10). Briefly, the EMSA reaction included reaction buffer
(10 mM HEPES [pH 7.9], 50 mM NaCl, 5 mM Tris-HCl [pH 7.5], 25 mM
EDTA, 1 mM dithiothreitol, and 10% glycerol), 1 mM spermidine, and 1 µg of deoxyinosine-deoxycytosine or 100 ng of herring sperm DNA. For
the competition EMSAs, nonradioactive oligonucleotides were added to
the binding mix simultaneously with the radioactive probe in 100- or
300-fold molar excess and incubated at room temperature for 15 min.
Reactions were then resolved on a nondenaturing 4% polyacrylamide gel
and run at 150 V for 2 h in glycine buffer (190 mM glycine, 25 mM
Tris-HCl [pH 8.5], 1 mM EDTA). For UV cross-linking, a 5× EMSA
binding reaction was performed using a bromodeoxyuridine-substituted S2
probe and exposed for 15 min to short-wave UV light using a
Stratalinker (Stratagene). Immunoprecipitations of the UV cross-linking
reactions with the BP2 and BP7 c-Myb-specific antisera were conducted
as previously described (44). BP2 and BP7 were kindly
provided by Joseph Lipsick. Briefly, cross-linked reactions were first incubated in the presence of normal rabbit serum for 4 to 6 h and
precipitated using GammaBind Plus Sepharose beads (Amersham Pharmacia
Biotech). This preincubation was used to remove all nonspecific
interactions between the nuclear extracts and the antiserum.
Supernatants were then incubated overnight at 4°C in the presence of
specific antiserum (BP2 or BP7). Following precipitation with GammaBind
Plus Sepharose beads, boiled immunoprecipitates were resolved on a
sodium dodecyl sulfate-10% polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
(SDS-PAGE) gel. Protein-DNA complexes were visualized using
autoradiography and were sized in reference to 14C-labeled
protein markers (Sigma). To estimate relative intensities of the bands
in the in vivo immunoprecipitation experiment, mean channel intensities
were determined for 49-pixel boxes encompassing representative portions
of each band, and relative ratios were determined. Multiple exposures
of the autoradiograms were analyzed to ensure that the exposure was
within the linear range. 35S-methionine labeling of the DN
thymoma S49 and coupling of the antisera to Sepharose beads were
conducted as described previously (3).
Immunodepletion and Western analysis. For the immunodepletion of T-cell extracts, 250 µg of nuclear extract was incubated with 2 µg of the mouse monoclonal anti-Myb antibody 1.1 (Upstate Biotechnology). Extract-antibody solutions were incubated overnight in the presence of GammaBind Plus Sepharose beads at 4°C, and immunoprecipitates were pelleted by centrifugation. Protein concentrations of the resulting supernatants were determined using a Bradford assay (Bio-Rad), and equivalent amounts of protein from treated and mock-treated extracts were used in EMSA reactions. Treated and mock-treated extracts were assessed for c-Myb content by Western blot analysis. Briefly, extracts were resolved on SDS-8% PAGE gels and transferred to nitrocellulose (36). Membranes were incubated overnight in the presence of anti-c-Myb polyclonal antibody M-19 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.) and were developed using a chemiluminescent detection system (Boehringer Mannheim). c-Myb null embryonic stem (ES) cells were provided by Michael Mucenski (27).
Generation of reporter constructs.
The mutation of the CD4
promoter P1 site to generate S2/Pro was created with the primer
TGGCGGGGGGCACATCCCACAACTG using the dut
ung
method as
described previously (38). Mutant promoter fragments were
subsequently cloned into the pGL2 luciferase reporter vector. Mutations
of the CD4 silencer S2 region were generated from the
1
3 silencer
template using an overlap extension PCR as described previously
(24). The following primers (Gibco BRL, Sigma/Genosys) were used: 5' GGG CAC ATC CCA TTT TTT GGC TAG AGT GGG 3' and
5' CCC ACT CTA GCC AAA AAA TGG GAT GTG CCC 3'. The external
primers used were either T7 or M13R. PCR products were subcloned into pCR 2.1-TOPO vector (Invitrogen). DNA sequencing analysis and restriction enzyme digests confirmed each mutation. Mutant silencers were subcloned into the pTG construct, which contains the CD4 transcriptional control elements and the human HLA-B7 gene as a marker
(10).
Generation of transgenic mice. Generation of transgenic mice using this DNA was carried out using previously described methods (18). Prior to injection, the transgenic DNA insert was excised from the vector DNA and separated across a sucrose gradient as previously described (10). Purified insert DNA was dialyzed against transgenic injection buffer (5 mM Tris [pH 7.5], 0.1 mM EDTA) and injected at a concentration of 5 to 10 µg/ml (18). Transgenic founder mice were identified by the staining of peripheral lymphocytes as described below and by PCR analysis of genomic DNA. Multiple expressing founders for each construct were generated and analyzed.
Flow cytometry.
All analyses were performed on 3- to
6-week-old littermates housed in the pathogen-free Animal Facility of
the Herbert W. Irving Cancer Center at Columbia University. The
following monoclonal antibody reagents were obtained from Pharmingen to
identify peripheral T cells using previously described protocols
(36): allophycocyanin-conjugated RM4-5 (anti-CD4) and
peridinin chlorophyll-A protein-conjugated 53-6.7 (anti-CD8
). The
transgenic marker was stained with a phycoerythrin-conjugated ME-1
(anti-HLA-B7) antibody. Peripheral blood lymphocytes were stained with
-CD4,
-CD8, and
-ME-1. T cells were identified based on their
expression of CD4 or CD8 and then assessed for their expression of
HLA-B7. Representative progeny from all founder mice were analyzed;
typical results from one founder are shown. Analyses were performed
using the FACSCalibur flow cytometer and CellQuest software (Becton
Dickinson) at the Flow Cytometry Facility of the Herbert W. Irving
Cancer Center at Columbia University.
Transient transfection of T-cell lines.
The CD4+
CD8
TH clone D10 was transfected using
previously described methods (22, 38). Briefly, test and
control plasmids were cotransfected into cells by the DEAE-dextran
method; the test plasmid contained the experimental CD4 promoter
subcloned upstream of the luciferase gene in the pGL2 vector, and the
transfection control plasmid contained the Renilla luciferase gene
under the control of the herpes simplex virus 1 thymidine kinase
promoter (pRL-TK; Promega). The total amount of DNA added to each
transfection point was kept constant with the addition of the pGL2
vector. Cells were harvested after 48 h, and extracts were
prepared for the Dual Luciferase assay as recommended by the
manufacturer (Promega). Renilla and firefly luciferase levels were
measured using a TD 20/20 Luminometer (Turner Designs). Results shown
are averaged for 3 to 7 experiments per data point.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Characterization of the S2-binding factor.
The CD4 silencer
contains three factor-binding sites, referred to as S1, S2, and S3,
that were originally defined by DNase footprinting analyses
(10). As discussed above, HES-1 and the novel
transcription factor SAF bind to S1 and S3, respectively (22,
23). To characterize the S2-binding factor further, we conducted
EMSAs with oligonucleotides encompassing the S2 region (Fig.
1 and 2).
The S2L probe encompasses the complete S2 footprint as well as an
additional 40 bp that flank the site. Incubation of this probe with
nuclear extracts from either CD4 SP TH- or CD8 SP
TC-cell clones resulted in the formation of a single
complex (Fig. 2A and data not shown). We have been unable to detect
other complexes with this probe using a variety of different binding conditions, suggesting that this represents the sole factor-DNA complex
in the S2 region (data not shown). Molar excesses of unlabeled probe
but not nonspecific oligonucleotide inhibited complex formation, indicating that the factor(s) that forms this complex binds
specifically to the S2L probe (Fig. 2A, lanes 3, 4, 7, and 8).
Interestingly, a smaller 27-bp probe encompassing only the S2 footprint
(the S2S probe) (Fig. 1A) also competes for complex formation,
indicating that the factor(s) that binds to S2 binds within this region
(Fig. 2A, lanes 5 and 6).
|
|
The S2-binding factor has the same sequence specificity as c-Myb. Proteins of the Myb family, including c-Myb, bind as monomers to the sequence YAAC(T/G)G (25). Sequence analysis of the S2 region revealed a consensus c-Myb recognition sequence (Fig. 1B). Indeed, the putative c-Myb recognition site in S2 is almost identical in sequence to a previously defined c-Myb in the CD4 promoter (Fig. 1A). These observations led to the hypothesis that c-Myb could be binding to S2 and mediating silencer function. To test this hypothesis, we conducted cold competition EMSA experiments with the S2 probe and T-cell nuclear extracts (Fig. 2C and D). As in previous experiments, the S2S probe bound a single complex that was competed away specifically by addition of excess unlabeled S2S to the reaction but not by similar addition of a nonspecific oligonucleotide (Fig. 2C, lanes 3, 4, 11, and 12). Molar excesses of an unlabeled P1 oligonucleotide containing the CD4 promoter c-Myb site also compete for S2 factor binding (Fig. 1A and 2C, lanes 7 and 8); mutation of the c-Myb recognition sequences in P1 abrogates its ability to compete for S2 complex formation (the P1MX probe; Fig. 1A and 2C, lanes 9 and 10). In addition, molar excesses of a competitor oligonucleotide containing a known c-Myb recognition site from the mim-1 promoter also compete for S2 complex formation (the mim-1 probe; Fig. 1A and 2C, lanes 5 and 6). The mim-1 consensus Myb site is completely different in sequence from the putative c-Myb site in S2; due to degeneracy within the consensus sequence, the mim-1 site differs in sequence within the c-Myb site itself at two of six nucleotides (Fig. 1A) (30). Nonetheless, the mim-1 oligonucleotide competes as efficiently for S2 complex formation as the S2S oligonucleotide itself.
To confirm that the c-Myb consensus sequence itself in the S2 region is required for factor binding, we determined the effect of mutating this site on S2-binding complex formation. If c-Myb is indeed binding to S2, one can predict that the formation of the S2-binding complex would be dependent on an intact c-Myb recognition sequence. We therefore conducted cold-competition EMSA experiments with T-cell extracts and S2S oligonucleotides containing mutations in the c-Myb recognition site (Fig. 2D and data not shown). The MybT mutation contains insertions in the core c-Myb recognition site of S2; molar excesses of this oligonucleotide do not compete for complex formation, indicating that the S2-binding factor recognizes the consensus c-Myb recognition site in S2. In addition, the S2-binding complex could not be detected in EMSAs when the MybT oligonucleotide was used as a radiolabeled probe (data not shown). Taken together, these data provide strong evidence that the S2-binding protein has the same sequence specificity as c-Myb and support the hypothesis that c-Myb binds to the CD4 silencer.The S2-binding factor shares antigenic epitopes with c-Myb.
To
determine if the endogenous factor binding to S2 shares antigenic
epitopes with c-Myb, we conducted UV cross-linking and immunoprecipitation analyses (Fig. 3). An
EMSA reaction with the S2S probe and T-cell nuclear extract was exposed
to UV light, inducing the formation of covalent bonds between the DNA
probe and bound nuclear proteins. The products of the binding reaction were then resolved on an SDS-PAGE gel, and the cross-linked protein-DNA complexes were visualized with autoradiography. As can be seen in Fig.
3A, UV cross-linking of the S2S probe with T-cell nuclear extracts
results in a 96-kDa protein-DNA complex. By subtracting the molecular
mass of the DNA probe, we determined the apparent molecular mass of the
protein binding to the S2S probe to be 75 kDa, which is similar to the
molecular mass of c-Myb (25). Occasionally, we could also
detect an approximately 84-kDa protein-DNA complex in this experiment
(Fig. 3 and data not shown). The predicted molecular mass of the factor
that would make up this complex would be 63 kDa. Although the identity
of this factor is unknown, this complex is not detected reproducibly;
in addition, there is no known Myb-like factor of this molecular mass.
It is also possible that this 63-kDa protein is not a member of the Myb
family. However, we are unable to detect more than one factor binding
to the S2 region (see above), and depletion experiments indicate that
all S2-binding factors share antigenic epitopes with c-Myb (see below). It is thus likely that this complex represents a degradation product of
c-Myb.
|
Depletion of c-Myb leads to loss of S2-binding activity.
To
demonstrate further that c-Myb is necessary for formation of the
S2-binding complex, we used immunodepletion to generate T-cell nuclear
extracts that lacked c-Myb. Based on Western analyses, c-Myb is
expressed in cell lines representing each of the four major T-cell
developmental stages (data not shown). If c-Myb is the S2-binding
factor, then we would expect to observe a loss of S2-binding activity
in extracts from which c-Myb had been depleted. Nuclear extracts from
DP AKR1G1 thymoma cells were depleted of c-Myb by immunoprecipitation
with the anti-c-Myb antibody 1.1, and the depletion was confirmed by
Western blot analysis (Fig. 4A, left
panel). We could not detect S2-binding activity in EMSA reactions with
the depleted extracts (Fig. 4A, center panel); in contrast, we could
still detect the binding of HES-1 to the S1 probe (Fig. 4A, right
panel). Thus, depleting T-cell extracts of c-Myb also leads to a
specific loss of S2-binding activity.
|
The c-Myb recognition site is essential for silencer function.
If the binding of c-Myb to S2 is important for silencer function, we
could predict that the site-specific mutation of the c-Myb recognition
site in S2 in the appropriate context would lead to abrogation of
silencer function. To test this, we generated a mutation of the c-Myb
site in the S2 region and tested this mutant silencer in our transgenic
assay (10). We utilized reporter constructs that contain a
cell surface marker gene under the transcriptional control of the CD4
promoter and enhancers as well as different mutations of the CD4
silencer (10). As we have reported previously, mice that
are transgenic with a construct that contains the unmutated CD4
silencer (pTGSil) express the marker gene in CD4 SP but not CD8 SP T
cells, whereas mice transgenic with constructs that do not contain the
silencer (pTG) express the marker gene in both mature T-cell subsets
(10) (Fig. 5). Deletion of
any one of the three sites does not affect silencer function; function
is abrogated only when S2 is deleted in combination with either S1 or
S3 or both. Thus, a mutated CD4 silencer with S1 and S3 deleted (
1/3) still functions, whereas a silencer with all three sites deleted (
1/2/3) does not (10) (Fig. 5). To determine if
the c-Myb-binding site within the S2 region is the critical functional site within the S2-footprinted region, we generated a mutation in the
consensus c-Myb site in the
1/3 silencer and cloned this mutant
silencer into the pTG construct (
1/3MT). The S1 and S3 deletions are
identical to those in the
1/3 mutated silencer tested previously,
whereas the mutation introduced into the c-Myb recognition site has
been shown in our biochemical experiments to abrogate S2 factor binding
(Fig. 2D). As can be seen in Fig. 5, mice transgenic with the
1/3MT
construct express the marker in both CD4 SP and CD8 SP T cells,
indicating that silencer function has been broken. These data indicate
that inhibiting the binding of c-Myb to S2 abrogates silencer function.
|
Context dependence of c-Myb function.
Our data indicate that
c-Myb is playing a critical role in mediating silencer function and may
therefore play a role in the repression of CD4 expression. As discussed
above, we have previously shown that c-Myb also plays an important role
in the induction of CD4 promoter function (44). Thus,
c-Myb appears to play opposing roles in the control of CD4 expression:
activation in CD4+ T cells, repression in CD4
T cells. The mechanism by which c-Myb mediates opposite functions in
these closely related cell types is unknown. One possibility is that
c-Myb is induced to assume different conformations when binding to its
recognition sites in the different elements. In this model, the
silencer site induces c-Myb to assume a conformation that leads it to
become a transcriptional repressor, whereas the promoter sites induce
c-Myb to become an activator. Thus, activating and repressing
c-Myb-containing complexes may recognize different c-Myb consensus sequences.
100 to
75 (40) encompassing the defined
functional c-Myb sites (28, 44); all spacing distances
between the c-Myb site and the other factor-binding sites in the
promoter were preserved (39). The S2/Pro mutant promoter
was tested for function in transient transfection reporter assays in
the CD4 SP TH clone D10. As we and others have reported
earlier, the unmutated CD4 promoter functions at high levels in
activated TH cells (28, 35, 37, 39, 44),
whereas site-specific mutations of the c-Myb consensus sequence within
the P1 promoter functional site (the MX mutation) lead to significant
decreases in promoter activity (28, 44) (Fig.
6A). Interestingly, substitution of the
silencer c-Myb recognition site into the c-Myb site in the CD4 promoter does not appreciably affect promoter function; we consistently obtain
levels of reporter activity with the S2/Pro promoter construct comparable to that obtained with the wild-type CD4 promoter reporter construct (Fig. 6A). We can draw two conclusions from these data. First, the data further confirm that the S2 site is a functional c-Myb
recognition site. Second, these data indicate that the c-Myb-binding sites in the silencer and the promoter are functionally equivalent, and
sequence differences between these two sites do not result in
differences in c-Myb function.
|
HES-1 binds to c-Myb in vivo.
A second possible mechanism for
the dual functionality of c-Myb is that the differential association of
c-Myb with other DNA-binding transcription factors leads to different
activating or repressing transcription factor complexes. In
CD4+ T cells, the interaction of c-Myb with one factor
would lead to its binding to the CD4 promoter and the induction of its
function, whereas in CD4
T cells, c-Myb interacts with a
second factor which leads to its binding to the silencer and repression
of CD4 expression. One logical candidate for a c-Myb cofactor is HES-1,
which binds to S1 of the CD4 silencer and is a known transcriptional
repressor. Since the HES-1-binding site is next to the c-Myb-binding
site, it is possible that the two factors may bind to each other
directly and mediate silencer function as a multifactor complex. To
test this, we conducted coimmunoprecipitation studies using nuclear extracts from the DP T-cell clone AKR1G1 and antibodies against HES-1
and c-Myb. In this experiment, endogenous HES-1 was immunoprecipitated from T-cell nuclear extracts with the HES-1 antiserum
(22), the precipitate was resolved on an SDS-PAGE gel and
transferred to nitrocellulose, and the membrane was subjected to
Western blot analysis with the anti-c-Myb monoclonal antibody 1.1. As
can be seen in Fig. 7A, we can detect a
75-kDa protein, which is the appropriate size for c-Myb. No complex is
detected in lanes containing immunoprecipitates using the preimmune
serum in place of the anti-HES-1 antiserum. These data indicate that
the immunoprecipitation of HES-1 also brings down c-Myb, providing
evidence that HES-1 can bind to c-Myb directly in vivo. To estimate the
amount of c-Myb immunoprecipitated in this assay, we compared the
intensities of the c-Myb band with that detectable in an input lane
loaded with 20% of the T-cell nuclear extract used in the
immunoprecipitation assay (Fig. 7A). Using densitometric analyses, we
determined that 35% of the c-Myb in these extracts is complexed with
HES-1, indicating that the amount of HES-1-complexed c-Myb is
surprisingly high.
|
|
HES-1 induces c-Myb-dependent repression of transcription. Our biochemical data suggest that the HES-1-c-Myb complex binds to the silencer and mediates the repression of CD4 gene expression. We can thus make the prediction that the overexpression of HES-1 would lead to increased levels of HES-1 bound to c-Myb, which in turn could be recruited to a transcriptional control element by the binding of c-Myb in the complex to its recognition site, even in the absence of a consensus HES-1 site. According to this hypothesis, this would result in transcriptional repression. As discussed above, the CD4 promoter contains a c-Myb but not a HES-1 recognition site (38, 39). Should the HES-1-c-Myb complex function as a repressor, one can make the prediction that the overexpression of HES-1 should lead to the repression of CD4 promoter function dependent on the c-Myb site. To test these predictions, we conducted cotransfection reporter assays using eukaryotic expression constructs that contain the HES-1 and c-Myb cDNAs. The CD4 SP TH clone D10 was transfected with these constructs as well as with the wild-type and MX mutant CD4 promoter luciferase constructs described above (Fig. 6B and C). Transfection of the CD4 promoter luciferase construct alone leads to high levels of reporter activity (Fig. 6B, first lane). Cotransfection with the c-Myb expression vector leads to only a modest enhancement of promoter function (Fig. 6B); this is consistent with what we have reported previously (44) and is likely due to the high levels of endogenous c-Myb. Addition of increasing amounts of HES-1 expression vector to the transfection leads to the dose-dependent decrease in reporter activity (Fig. 6B). Similar results are obtained without the transfection of the c-Myb expression vector; this repression is likely due to the interaction of the overexpressed HES-1 with endogenous c-Myb (data not shown). These data indicate that the overexpression of HES-1 can indeed repress CD4 promoter function, even in the absence of its cognate binding site. We do not observe decreases in reporter activity when the MX variant of the CD4 promoter, which contains a site-specific mutation in the c-Myb-binding site, is used in the reporter construct (Fig. 6C). Similarly, overexpressed HES-1 does not repress simian virus 40 early promoter and enhancer function, indicating that it is not causing a general repression of transcription (data not shown). Thus, overexpression of HES-1 leads to repression of CD4 promoter function that is dependent on the ability of c-Myb to bind to its binding site. These observations fulfill the predictions listed above and indicate that the HES-1-c-Myb complex indeed functions as a transcriptional repressor.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Context-dependent c-Myb function in mediating CD4 gene expression. We and others have shown that c-Myb can induce the CD4 promoter to function at high levels in CD4 SP TH cells (28, 44); here we present data indicating that c-Myb also binds to the CD4 silencer and helps mediate its function as well. We also demonstrate that c-Myb can function as a transcriptional repressor when bound to HES-1, a second CD4 silencer-binding factor. Our data thus suggest that in the appropriate contexts c-Myb can both activate and repress CD4 gene expression. Although c-Myb has been reported in separate systems to function as both an activator and a repressor, this is the first report of c-Myb playing both roles in the control of transcription of the same gene. Our data suggest that c-Myb function at either the promoter or the silencer is dependent on the other factors that bind to each element. We have demonstrated that c-Myb binds to HES-1 in vivo and forms a repressor complex; we propose that this multifactor complex binds to the CD4 silencer at S1 and S2, leading to the induction of silencer function and transcriptional repression of the CD4 gene. This HES-1-c-Myb complex may recruit other factors to the CD4 silencer as well. For example, HES-1 is known to recruit TLE, the mammalian homologue of groucho, as well as cooperate with Runt domain-containing proteins, such as Cbfa2-AML-PEBP2, to DNA to repress transcription (14, 26). It is interesting to note that Cbfa2-AML-PEBP2 is also capable of interacting with c-Myb to affect transcription (16, 51), and that there are consensus Cbfa2-AML-PEBP2 binding sites within footprinted regions of the CD4 silencer (10). It is thus possible that a multifactor repressor complex consisting of HES-1 and c-Myb, perhaps in conjunction with Cbfa2-AML-PEBP2 and TLE, may be critical for inducing silencer function and the downregulation of CD4 gene expression. At the CD4 promoter, however, c-Myb interacts with a different set of transcription factors. Although our experiments indicate that a significant amount of c-Myb in T cells is complexed with HES-1, there is still free c-Myb in these cells that may be capable of accessing the promoter alone. Previous studies have demonstrated that the MAZ and Elf-1 transcription factors mediate CD4 promoter function (11, 38); in addition, an unknown factor that displays subclass-specific properties binds to a third functional site (39). It is thus possible that the interaction of c-Myb with these other factors in the absence of HES-1 induces it to become a transcriptional activator.
Context-dependent transcription factor function has been previously demonstrated in dorsal-ventral pattern formation in Drosophila melanogaster development. In this system, the dorsoventral fate map of the embryo is determined by a concentration gradient of the maternal transcription factor Dorsal (32, 33, 45). The ability of Dorsal to mediate fate determination is dependent on its ability to function as both a transcriptional activator and a transcription repressor; Dorsal binds to the promoters of the mesoderm-determining genes snail and twist and induces their expression, whereas for the ectoderm-determining genes zerknullt and decapentaplegic, Dorsal binds to a ventral repression region and mediates transcriptional repression (31). Interestingly, Dorsal binding to its cognate recognition site alone leads to transcriptional activation (20, 21, 30, 47); transcriptional repression requires additional elements (30). For the ventral repression region of zerknullt, Dorsal binds as a multifactor complex with cut, dead ringer, and groucho, and it is this complete complex that mediates transcriptional repression (49). Thus, the context of the Dorsal-binding site determines whether or not Dorsal becomes a transcriptional activator or a transcriptional repressor. The similarities in mechanism of function between Dorsal in the control of dorsoventral fate and c-Myb in the control of CD4 gene expression suggest that context dependence is a general mechanism for modifying transcription factor function in complex developmental systems.c-Myb and the mechanism of CD4 silencer function.
In
controlling CD4-specific expression, the silencer must inhibit the
transcriptional machinery from functioning (the mechanism of action),
and it must do so in a subclass-specific manner (the specificity of
action). These two functions may be completely distinct from each other
and require different sets of factors, or there may be significant
overlap. Nonetheless, in constructing models for the role of the CD4
silencer-binding factors in the control of CD4 gene expression, it is
useful to consider these concepts separately. Because both HES-1 and
c-Myb are expressed and their interaction in vivo can be demonstrated
in all T-cell subclasses, it is less likely that these factors mediate
the specificity of silencer function. We believe that the specificity
of function of CD4 expression is mediated primarily by the S3-binding
factor SAF. This novel homeodomain-like transcription factor is
expressed in all T cells; however, SAF is present in the nucleus of T
cells in which the silencer is functioning and which thus do not
express CD4, such as DN and CD8 SP T cells (24; Kim et
al., submitted). In contrast, in T cells in which the silencer is not
functioning, such as CD4 SP and DP T cells, SAF is present in the
cytoplasm (24; Kim et al., submitted). We believe that the
transport of SAF across the nuclear membrane in developing T cells
mediates the specificity of CD4 silencer function (Kim et al.,
submitted). However, our data demonstrating that the HES-1-c-Myb
complex is a functional transcriptional repressor indicate that this
complex is more likely to play an important role in mediating the
actual repression mechanism. In our model, HES-1 and c-Myb bind
together to form a repressor complex in DP T cells, but they are
nonfunctional at the CD4 silencer due to the absence of SAF. Should the
DP thymocyte develop into a CD4 SP T cell, SAF remains outside of the
nucleus, and the HES-1-c-Myb complex is not recruited to the silencer; instead, uncomplexed c-Myb is recruited to the promoter, where in
conjunction with other promoter-binding factors, it induces CD4
promoter function (Fig. 9A).
Alternatively, should the DP T cell develop into a CD8 SP T cell, SAF
is transported into the nucleus, where it recruits the HES-1-c-Myb
complex to the silencer, thus leading to the induction of CD4 silencer
function (Fig. 8B). This could be mediated either directly by the
HES-1-c-Myb complex or by the recruitment of other
transcriptional corepressors, such as Cbfa2-AML-PEBP2 and TLE. Further
experiments in this system will enable us to address these questions
directly.
|
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank Monica Mendelson for technical assistance, Nikhil deSouza for the 35S-labeled T-cell nuclear extracts, and Kathryn Calame, Alessandra Pernis, and Chris Schindler for critical review of the manuscript.
This work was funded by grants from the NIH (AI34925) and the Irma T. Hirschl-Monique Weill Caulier Trust to G.S. R.D.A. and H.K.K. were supported by NIH training grant no. T32AI07525.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Microbiology, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, 701 West 168th St., New York, NY 10032. Phone: (212) 305-2743. Fax: (212) 305-8013. E-mail: siu{at}cusiu3.cpmc.columbia.edu.
Present address: Department of Pathology, Washington University
School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110.
Present address: Experimental Immunology Branch, National Cancer
Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892-1360.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Adlam, M.,
D. D. Duncan,
D. K. Ng, and G. Siu.
1997.
Positive selection induces CD4 promoter and enhancer function.
Int. Immunol.
9:877-887 |
| 2. |
Allen, R. D.,
T. P. Bender, and G. Siu.
1999.
c-Myb is essential for early T cell development.
Genes Dev.
13:1073-1078 |
| 3. | Ausubel, F. M., R. Brent, R. E. Kingston, D. D. Moore, J. G. Seidman, J. A. Smith, and K. Struhl. 1995. Current protocols in molecular biology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. |
| 4. |
Badiani, P.,
P. Corbella,
D. Kioussis,
J. Marvel, and K. Weston.
1994.
Dominant interfering alleles define a role for c-Myb in T-cell development.
Genes Dev.
8:770-782 |
| 5. | Berg, L. J., A. M. Pullen, B. Fazekas de St. Groth, D. Mathis, C. Benoist, and M. M. Davis. 1989. Antigen/MHC-specific T cells are preferentially exported from the thymus in the presence of their MHC ligand. Cell 58:1035-1046[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 6. |
Bevan, M. J.,
K. A. Hogquist, and S. C. Jameson.
1994.
Selecting the T cell receptor repertoire.
Science
264:796-797 |
| 7. |
Boyle, W. J.,
J. S. Lipsick, and M. A. Baluda.
1986.
Antibodies to the evolutionarily conserved amino-terminal region of the v-Myb-encoded protein detect the c-Myb protein in widely divergent metazoan species.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
83:4685-4689 |
| 8. | Dignam, J. D. 1990. Preparation of extracts from higher eukaryotes, p. 194-203. In M. P. Deutscher (ed.), Methods in enzymology, vol. 182. Academic Press, Inc., New York, N.Y. |
| 9. | Donda, A., M. Schulz, K. Burki, G. De Libero, and Y. Uematsu. 1996. Identification and characterization of a human CD4 silencer. Eur. J. Immunol. 26:493-500[Medline]. |
| 10. | Duncan, D. D., M. Adlam, and G. Siu. 1996. Asymmetric redundancy in CD4 silencer function. Immunity 4:301-311[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 11. | Duncan, D. D., A. Stupakoff, S. M. Hedrick, K. B. Marcu, and G. Siu. 1995. A Myc-associated zinc-finger protein (MAZ) binding site is one of four important functional regions in the CD4 promoter. Mol. Cell. Biol. 15:3179-3186[Abstract]. |
| 12. | Ess, K. C., T. L. Whitaker, G. J. Cost, D. P. Witte, J. J. Hutton, and B. J. Aronow. 1995. A central role for a single c-Myb binding site in a thymic locus control region. Mol. Cell. Biol. 15:5707-5715[Abstract]. |
| 13. | Garcia, A., K. LaMontagne, D. Reavis, U. Stober-Grasser, and J. S. Lipsick. 1991. Determinants of sequence-specific DNA-binding by p48v-myb. Oncogene 6:265-273[Medline]. |
| 14. | Grbavec, D., R. Lo, Y. Liu, and S. Stifani. 1998. Transducin-like Enhancer of split 2, a mammalian homologue of Drosophila Groucho, acts as a transcriptional repressor, interacts with Hairy/Enhancer of split proteins, and is expressed during neuronal development. Eur. J. Biochem. 258:339-349[Medline]. |
| 15. |
Grusby, M. J.,
R. S. Johnson,
V. E. Papaionnou, and L. H. Glimcher.
1991.
Depletion of CD4+ T cells in major histocompatibility complex class II-deficient mice.
Science
253:1417-1420 |
| 16. | Hernandez-Munain, C., and M. S. Krangel. 1995. c-Myb and core-binding factor/PEBP2 display functional synergy but bind independently to adjacent sites in the T-cell receptor delta enhancer. Mol. Cell. Biol. 15:3090-3099[Abstract]. (Erratum, 15:4654.) |
| 17. |
Hernandez-Munain, C., and M. S. Krangel.
1994.
Regulation of the T-cell receptor d enhancer by functional cooperation between c-Myb and core-binding factors.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
14:473-483 |
| 18. | Hogan, B., F. Costantini, and E. Lacy. 1986. Manipulating the mouse embryo: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, N.Y. |
| 19. |
Hsiang, Y.-H.,
J. P. Goldman, and D. H. Raulet.
1995.
The role of c-Myb or a related factor in regulating the T cell receptor gene enhancer.
J. Immunol.
154:5195-5204[Abstract].
|
| 20. | Ip, Y. T., R. Kraut, M. Levine, and C. A. Rushlow. 1991. The dorsal morphogen is a sequence-specific DNA-binding protein that interacts with a long-range repression element in Drosophila. Cell 64:439-446[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 21. |
Jiang, J.,
D. Kosman,
Y. T. Ip, and M. Levine.
1991.
The dorsal morphogen gradient regulates the mesoderm determinant twist in early Drosophila embryos.
Genes Dev.
5:1881-1891 |
| 22. |
Kim, H. K., and G. Siu.
1998.
The Notch pathway intermediate HES-1 silences CD4 gene expression.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:7166-7175 |
| 23. |
Kim, W. W. S., and G. Siu.
1999.
Subclass-specific nuclear localization of a novel CD4 silencer-binding factor.
J. Exp. Med.
190:281-291 |
| 24. | Lin, H. H., and B. H. Robinson. 1997. Approaches to DNA mutagenesis: an overview. Anal. Biochem. 254:157-178[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 25. | Lipsick, J. S. 1996. One billion years of Myb. Oncogene 13:223-235[Medline]. |
| 26. |
McLarren, K. W.,
R. Lo,
D. Grbavec,
K. Thirunavukkarasu,
G. Karsenty, and S. Stifani.
2000.
The mammalian basic helix loop helix protein HES-1 binds to and modulates the transactivating function of the runt-related factor Cbfal.
J. Biol. Chem.
275:530-538 |
| 27. | Mucenski, M. L., K. McLain, A. B. Kier, S. H. Swerdlow, C. M. Schreiner, T. A. Miller, D. W. Pietryga, J. W. J. Scott, and S. S. Potter. 1991. A functional c-myb gene is required for normal murine fetal hepatic hematopoiesis. Cell 65:677-689[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 28. |
Nakayama, K.,
R. Yamamoto,
S. Ishii, and H. Nakauchi.
1993.
Binding of c-Myb to the core sequence of the CD4 promoter.
Int. Immunol.
5:817-824 |
| 29. | Ness, S. A., A. Marknell, and T. Graf. 1989. The v-myb oncogene product binds to and activates the promyelocyte-specific mim-1 gene. Cell 59:1115-1125[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 30. | Pan, D., and A. J. Courey. 1992. The same dorsal binding site mediates both activation and repression in a context-dependent manner. EMBO J. 11:1837-1842[Medline]. |
| 31. | Ray, R. P., K. Arora, C. Nusslein-Volhard, and W. M. Gelbart. 1991. The control of cell fate along the dorsal-ventral axis of the Drosophila embryo. Development 113:35-54[Abstract]. |
| 32. | Roth, S., D. Stein, and C. Nusslein-Volhard. 1989. A gradient of nuclear localization of the dorsal protein determines dorsoventral pattern in the Drosophila embryo. Cell 59:1189-1202[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 33. | Rushlow, C. A., K. Han, J. L. Manley, and M. Levine. 1989. The graded distribution of the dorsal morphogen is initiated by selective nuclear transport in Drosophila. Cell 59:1165-1177[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 34. | Salmon, P., O. Boyer, P. Lores, J. Jami, and D. Klatzmann. 1996. Characterization of an intronless CD4 minigene expressed in mature CD4 and CD8 T cells, but not expressed in immature thymocytes. J. Immunol. 156:1873-1879[Abstract]. |
| 35. |
Salmon, P.,
A. Giovane,
B. Wasylyk, and D. Klatzmann.
1993.
Characterization of the human CD4 gene promoter: transcription from the CD4 gene core promoter is tissue-specific and is activated by Ets proteins.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
90:7739-7743 |
| 36. | Sambrook, J., E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis. 1989. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual (2nd ed.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. |
| 37. | Sarafova, S. D., and G. Siu. 1999. Control of CD4 gene expression: connecting signals to outcomes in T cell development. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 32:785-803[Medline]. |
| 38. |
Sarafova, S. D., and G. Siu.
1999.
A potential role for Elf-1 in CD4 promoter function.
J. Biol. Chem.
274:16126-16134 |
| 39. |
Sarafova, S. D., and G. Siu.
2000.
Precise orientation of factor-binding sites is required for CD4 promoter function.
Nucleic Acids Res.
28:2664-2671 |
| 40. |
Sawada, S., and D. R. Littman.
1993.
A heterodimer of HEB and an E12-related protein interacts with the CD4 enhancer and regulates its activity in T-cell lines.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13:5620-5628 |
| 41. | Sawada, S., J. D. Scarborough, N. Killeen, and D. R. Littman. 1994. A lineage-specific transcriptional silencer regulates CD4 gene expression during T lymphocyte development. Cell 77:917-929[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 42. | Sha, W. C., C. A. Nelson, R. D. Newberry, D. M. Kranz, J. H. Russell, and D. Loh. 1988. Positive and negative selection of an antigen receptor on T cells in transgenic mice. Nature 336:73-76[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 43. | Siu, G., A. L. Wurster, D. D. Duncan, T. M. Soliman, and S. M. Hedrick. 1994. A transcriptional silencer controls the developmental expression of the CD4 gene. EMBO J. 13:3570-3579[Medline]. |
| 44. |
Siu, G.,
A. L. Wurster,
J. S. Lipsick, and S. M. Hedrick.
1992.
Expression of the CD4 gene requires a Myb transcription factor.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
12:1592-1604 |
| 45. | Steward, R. 1989. Relocalization of the dorsal protein from the cytoplasm to the nucleus correlates with its function. Cell 59:1179-1188[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 46. |
Teh, H. S.,
P. Kisielow,
B. Scott,
H. Kishi,
Y. Uematsu,
H. Bluthmann, and H. von Boehmer.
1988.
Thymic major histocompatibility complex antigens and the ![]() T-cell receptor determine the CD4/CD8 phenotype of T cells.
Nature
335:229-233[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 47. | Thisse, C., F. Perrin-Schmitt, C. Stoetzel, and B. Thisse. 1991. Sequence-specific transactivation of the Drosophila twist gene by the dorsal gene product. Cell 65:1191-1201[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 48. |
Uematsu, Y.,
A. Donda, and G. De Libero.
1997.
Thymocytes control the CD4 gene differently from mature T-lymphocytes.
Int. Immunol.
9:179-187 |
| 49. |
Valentine, S. A.,
G. Chen,
T. Shandala,
J. Fernandez,
S. Mische,
R. Saint, and A. J. Courey.
1998.
Dorsal-mediated repression requires the formation of a multiprotein repression complex at the ventral silencer.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18:6584-6594 |
| 50. |
Wurster, A. L.,
G. Siu,
J. Leiden, and S. M. Hedrick.
1994.
Elf-1 binds to a critical element in a second CD4 enhancer.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
14:6452-6463 |
| 51. |
Zaiman, A. L., and J. Lenz.
1996.
Transcriptional activation of a retrovirus enhancer by CBF (AML1) requires a second factor: evidence for cooperativity with c-Myb.
J. Virol.
70:5618-5629 |
This article has been cited by other articles: