Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Molecular and Cellular Biology, September 2002, p. 6542-6552, Vol. 22, No. 18
0270-7306/02/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.22.18.6542-6552.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
Received 29 November 2001/ Returned for modification 12 February 2002/ Accepted 6 June 2002
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Knockin mouse models (11) and retroviral transduction or transplantation assays (36) support a gain-of-function mechanism for a subset of MLL fusion proteins in leukemogenesis. For several nuclear partners, this appears to be the consequence of transcriptional effector domains contributed by the partner proteins. Indeed, structure-function analyses of MLL-ENL and MLL-ELL reveal a complete correlation between domains required for transformation and transcriptional activation (15, 50). These findings suggest the hypothesis that constitutive transcriptional activation by MLL may be a common pathway for its oncogenic conversion by nuclear fusion partners. However, such a mechanism does not exclude possible roles for MLL fusion proteins as transdominant inhibitors of wild-type partner protein function as observed for other chimeric proteins in human leukemias (37, 45).
Two MLL fusion partners, AFX (7, 40) and FKHRL1 (27), and the related FKHR, comprise a subclass of forkhead/winged helix transcription factors (1) that normally regulate genes involved in apoptosis and cell cycle progression (8, 41). Participation of forkhead proteins in these cellular processes suggests their critical roles as tumor suppressors, which may be attenuated after chromosomal translocations in leukemias (7, 27, 40), as well as solid tumors (3, 12, 20). Forkhead proteins bind their cognate DNA sites through a conserved forkhead domain and appear to regulate target gene transcription through recruitment of coactivators such as CBP, p300, or SRC-1, with which they physically interact (43). The coactivators CBP and p300 are also fusion partners for MLL in a subset of leukemias (23, 29, 53, 54).
In this report we demonstrate that transformation of hematopoietic progenitors by MLL-AFX requires the transactivation and CBP interaction domain of AFX. However, this domain alone does not confer oncogenic activity to MLL, demonstrating that simple fusion of a transactivation domain to MLL is not sufficient for transformation of hematopoietic progenitors. In addition to positive gain of function, we also observed a dominant-negative effect of MLL-AFX on transcription and apoptosis mediated by wild-type forkhead family proteins and demonstrate that antagonism of AFX function has a growth-enhancing effect on myeloid progenitors in vitro. Thus, MLL-AFX is capable of impacting MLL- and forkhead-dependent pathways, both of which may contribute to cellular transformation.
|
|
|---|
Hematopoietic progenitor transformation and tumorigenicity assays. Hematopoietic progenitor transformation assays were performed as previously described (50) with modifications. Viral supernatants were collected 3 days after transfection of Phoenix cells and used to infect hematopoietic progenitors and stem cells (harvested from the bone marrow of 4- to 10-week-old C57BL/6 mice) that were positively selected for c-Kit expression by magnetic activated cell sorting. After spinoculation by centrifugation at 500 x g for 2 h at 32°C, transduced cells were cultured overnight in RPMI supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), 20 ng of stem cell factor/ml, and 10 ng each of interleukin-3 (IL-3) and IL-6 (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, Minn.)/ml. Transduced cells were then plated in 1% methylcellulose (Stem Cell Technologies, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) supplemented with the same cytokines plus 10 ng of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (R&D Systems)/ml in the presence or absence of 1 mg of G418/ml. After 7 days of culture, colonies were counted to calculate the transduction efficiency. Single-cell suspensions (104 cells) of G418-resistant colonies were then replated in methylcellulose media supplemented with the same growth factors without G418. Plating was repeated every 7 days.
In each round of replating, single cell suspensions were also expanded in RPMI liquid culture containing 20% FCS plus 20% WEHI-conditioned medium. For tumorigenicity assays, 106 immortalized cells (MLL-AFX271-501 or AFX3') were injected via tail vein into 6-week-old syngeneic C57BL/6 mice, which had received a sublethal dose of 5.25 Gy of total-body gamma irradiation (135Cs). Mice were maintained on antibiotic water to avoid infection and monitored for development of leukemia by complete blood count, blood smear, and fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis. Tissues were fixed in buffered formalin, sectioned, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin for histological analysis.
Phenotype analysis. Cytocentrifugated cells were stained with May-Grünwald-Giemsa (MGG) to assess cell morphology. Immunophenotypic analysis was performed by FACS with fluorochrome-conjugated monoclonal antibodies to Sca-1 (D7 clone), c-Kit (2B8 clone), CD43 (S7 clone), Mac-1 (M1/70 clone), and B220 (RA3-6B2 clone; Pharmingen, Inc., San Diego, Calif.), respectively. Staining was generally performed on ice for 15 min, and then cells were washed twice in staining medium and resuspended in 1 µg of propidium iodine (PI)/ml before analysis with a Moflops (a modified triple laser Cytomation/Becton Dickinson hybrid FACS apparatus). Dead cells were gated out by high PI staining and forward light scatter.
Transcriptional transactivation assays. 293, NIH 3T3, or COS7 cells (5 x 104) were seeded overnight in 24-well plates before transfection with Fugene (Roche Molecular Biochemicals). Gal4 fusion constructs (0.1 µg) were cotransfected with pcDNA3.1/LacZ internal control plasmid (0.2 µg) and a luciferase reporter construct (0.2 µg), which contained two tandem copies of Gal4 consensus binding sites and the luciferase gene driven by either a herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase (TK), adenovirus E1b (46), or myelomonocytic growth factor promoter (18). U937 cells (5 x 106) were electorphorated with 0.8 µg of each Gal4-DBD fusion construct and luciferase reporter construct, together with 0.4 µg of pcDNA3.1/LacZ, in RPMI containing 10 µg of DEAE-dextran at 300 V and 960 µF in a 0.4-mm cuvette (Bio-Rad electroporator). At 24 h after transfection, luciferase and ß-galactosidase activities were analyzed by using commercially prepared reagents. Similar procedures were employed for transactivation studies by using the FHRE (8) or p27kip (41) Luc reporters except that 0.4 µg of FKHRL1 expression vector was cotransfected with 0.2 µg of pcDNA3.1/LacZ control plasmid in combination with 0.4 µg of luciferase reporter construct and 0.4 µg of pcDNA expression constructs. Luciferase activities were normalized based on ß-galactosidase levels. Means and standard deviations were determined from at least two independent experiments performed in duplicate.
In vitro binding assays.
GST pull-down and electrophoretic mobility shift assays were performed as previously described (51, 52). Briefly, [35S]methionine-labeled FKHR, FKHRL1, AFX, and MLL-AFX fusion proteins were generated by in vitro transcription and translation by using the TNT-coupled reticulocyte lysate system according to the manufacturer's instructions (Promega). GST fusion protein (1 µg) was preincubated with glutathionine-Sepharose beads (Sigma) in NETN buffer (0.5% [vol/vol] Nonidet P-40, 20 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA]) for 60 min at 4°C before [35S]methionine-labeled proteins were added. After 90 min incubation at 4°C, the beads were washed five times in buffer H (20 mM HEPES [pH 7.7], 50 mM KCl, 20% [vol/vol] glycerol, 0.1% [vol/vol] Nonidet P40, 0.007% ß-mercaptoethanol). Bound proteins were eluted by boiling in sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) loading buffer, resolved by electrophoresis, and detected by autoradiography. For electrophoretic mobility shift assay, AFX and MLL-AFX fusion proteins were synthesized by in vitro transcription and translation as described above except in the absence of [35S]methionine. In vitro-translated proteins were preincubated for 15 min at room temperature in buffer B [20 mM HEPES, pH 7.4; 50 mM KCl; 1 mM ß-mercaptoethanol; 10% glycerol; 1 µg of poly(dI-dC); 100 µg of bovine serum albumin] to allow proper protein folding before they were incubated with
-32P-end-labeled complementary oligonucleotides corresponding to either Fas ligand site encompassing the IGFBP1 IRS (Fas ligand promoter, 5'-ATTAGATCTTAAATAAATAGATCTTTA-3') (8) or a mutated IRS (Am2Bm2, 5'-CACTAGCAACCATGCCATGGTTGAACAC-3') of the IGFBP-1 (33). Binding reactions were preformed for 30 min at room temperature and 4°C, respectively. Protein-DNA complexes were resolved in 6% polyacrylamide nondenaturing gel equilibrated with 0.5x Tris-borate-EDTA and visualized by autoradiography.
Apoptosis assays. Ba/F3 cells stably expressing FKHRL1 (A3):ER* have been described previously (13). For transient transfection, Ba/F3 cells were electrophorated with 5 µg of enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) construct, together with 15 µg of empty MSCV-puro vector or DNA expression constructs encoding MLL fusion protein, truncated 5' MLL/3' AFX or cyclin E. At 2 h after electroporation, dead cells were removed by Ficoll gradient centrifugation. Cells were then cultured in RPMI supplemented with 10% FCS and 20% WEHI-conditioned medium in the absence or presence of 0.1 µM 4-hydroxy tamoxifen (4-OHT) for 24 h. Cells were washed twice in binding buffer (10 mM HEPES, pH 7.4; 140 mM NaCl; 2.5 mM CaCl2) before staining with phycoerythrin (PE)-conjugated Annexin V (Pharmingen). After incubation at room temperature for 15 min, cells were washed and resuspended in binding buffer with 1 µg of PI/ml, and immediately analyzed by FACS. Dead cells were gated out by PI staining, and 5,000 GFP-positive cells were analyzed for PE staining.
IP and Western blots.
Both Western blots and immunoprecipitation (IP) were performed as previously described (30). Briefly, transfected cells were lysed and denatured in lysis buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 6.8; 2% SDS; 10% glycerol) at 100°C for 5 min. Genomic DNA was sheared by passage of samples through a 28-gauge needle. After polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, proteins were transferred to ECL (Amersham) or polyvinylidene difluoride membranes (Bio-Rad) and blotted with monoclonal MLL antibody (N4.4), monoclonal p27kip-1 antibody (BD Transduction Laboratories), monoclonal Gal4 DBD antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), or rabbit polyclonal FKHRL1 antibody (Upstate Biotechnology). For IP-Western blotting, COS7 cells were transfected in 90-mm dishes with 3 µg each of CMV-CBP and pcDNA MLL-AFX or Gal4-AFX constructs and then washed in detachment buffer (40 mM Tris, pH 7.6; 150 mM NaCl; 1 mM EDTA) before lysis in buffer A (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.9; 10 mM KCl; 1 mM EDTA; 1 mM dithiothreitol [DTT]; 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride; 0.1% NP-40) on ice for 1 min. Nuclear pellets were recovered after centrifugation and resuspended in buffer B (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.9; 0.4 mM NaCl; 1 mM EDTA; 1 mM DTT; 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride) for 20 min incubation at 4°C. Nuclear extracts were obtained by centrifugation at 12,000 x g for 15 min and brought to 20% glycerol for IP. Then, 3 µg of
MLL-N4.4 or
Gal4 DBD antibodies were added to the nuclear extracts and incubated at 4°C for 3 h. Next, 20 µl of protein G-Sepharose beads (Pharmacia) were then added to the extracts and incubated for additional 2 h at 4°C before they were washed five times in buffer D (0.5 M KCl, 0.1% Tween 20, 0.5 mM DTT, 0.2 mM EDTA). Precipitated proteins were then denatured at 100°C for 5 min and separated by PAGE before transfer to polyvinylidene difluoride membranes and blotting with polyclonal CBP antibody (Upstate Biotechnology).
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (37K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Transformation of myeloid progenitors by MLL-AFX. (A) Schematic diagram of MLL-AFX and the retroviral constructs used in hematopoietic progenitor transformation assays (left). MTase, DNA methyltransferase homology region; AT hook, AT hook DBD; FK, forkhead DBD; S, consensus serine phosphorylation sites; PFK, post-forkhead homology region (1); CR2, conserved region 2, which contains three alpha helices shown as thin vertical bars; CR3, conserved region 3. The bar graph (right) represents corresponding numbers of colonies after each round of plating in methylcellulose (average of three independent assays). (B) Typical morphology of methylcellulose colonies generated from bone marrow cells transduced with retroviruses expressing the indicated constructs. (C) Phenotypic analysis of cells transduced by MLL-AFX. Red lines represent FACS staining obtained with antibodies specific for the indicated cell surface antigens. Blue lines represent staining obtained with isotype control antibodies.
|
![]() View larger version (49K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. MLL-AFX transformed cells induce acute myeloid leukemias. (A) Representative histology is shown for control and MLL-AFX mice. Paraffin sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin; blood smears were stained with MGG. In MLL-AFX mice, the spleen and liver were infiltrated with leukemic blasts. Bone marrow was densely packed with a homogeneous population of blasts. Leukemic cells are present in the peripheral blood. (B) Survival curves are shown for cohorts (n = 10) of sublethally irradiated C57BL/6 mice that were injected with MLL-AFX immortalized cells (MLL-AFX), AFX-3' immortalized cells, or mock injected (control).
|
![]() View larger version (25K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Mapping of transcriptional activation domains in AFX. Schematic diagram (top left) illustrates the conserved domains of AFX. The arrow indicates the fusion site with MLL in human leukemias. Thick horizontal black lines with amino acid numbers represent the AFX fragments fused to the Gal4-DBD for transactivation assays. ENL-C (477 to 559 aa) and ELL-C (496 to 621 aa) correspond to the minimal regions sufficient for immortalization of myeloid progenitors by MLL-ENL and MLL-ELL fusion proteins, respectively (15, 50). VP16-MTD encodes the minimal transcriptional activation domain (aa 413 to 453) of herpes simplex virus VP-16. Expression constructs were cotransfected with pcDNA-LacZ into 293 cells with a luciferase reporter gene under the control of the indicated promoters. TK, herpes simplex virus TK promoter; E1b, adenovirus E1b promoter; Myelomono, myelomonocytic growth factor promoter (described in Materials and Methods). Luciferase values were normalized for ß-galactosidase expression from the internal LacZ control construct. Similar expression level of the Gal4 constructs was confirmed by Western blot (data not shown).
|
![]() View larger version (24K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. The AFX CR3 interacts in vitro with the KIX domain of CBP. (A) GST pull-down experiments were conducted with in vitro translated [35S]methionine-labeled proteins indicated on the left. GST constructs are indicated at the top of gel lanes. GST-CBP constructs have been previously described (58). (B) Mapping of KIX interacting domain to CR3 of AFX. Various AFX fragments (indicated by horizontal bars on left) were in vitro translated with [35S]methionine and incubated with GST (lane 2) or GST-KIX (lane 3) fusion proteins. Bound proteins were washed, eluted, and subjected to SDS-PAGE after autoradiography. Protein inputs are shown in lane 1. (C) In vivo interaction between CBP and AFX proteins. Constructs used in cell transfection are shown at the top of each lane and their expression was confirmed by Western blots (bottom panel). Cell lysates were precipitated with antibodies to MLL or Gal4 DBD and then blotted with anti-CBP antibody. Specific 265-kDa CBP bands are indicated in the top panel.
|
The AFX CR3 domain is necessary but not sufficient for transformation of hematopoietic progenitors by MLL-AFX. To determine which portions of AFX were necessary for the oncogenic activity of MLL-AFX, various MSCV MLL-AFX constructs were transduced into primary hematopoietic progenitors, whose self-renewal potentials were then evaluated. Retroviral constructs used for these assays displayed similar transduction efficiencies as determined by enumeration of colony numbers in methylcellulose medium with or without G418 selection in the first round of plating. Expression of MLL-AFX constructs was confirmed in COS7 cells and in primary transduced hematopoietic progenitors by Western blot and reverse transcription-PCR analyses, respectively (data not shown). Replating assays demonstrated that the forkhead DBD and consensus PKB phosphorylation sites of AFX were not necessary for myeloid immortalization since a construct (MLL-AFX271-501) with deletion of these domains immortalized hematopoietic progenitors (Fig. 5). Conversely, constructs lacking CR3 (MLL-AFX271-454 and MLL-AFX271-393) were unable to enhance the self-renewal of progenitors under these conditions. These data indicated that CR3, the transcriptional activation and CBP interaction domain, was necessary for transformation. However, fusion of CR3 alone to MLL (MLL-AFX447-501) was not sufficient for hematopoietic cell transformation, failing to give rise to colonies after the second round of plating. This suggested that CR2 may also be necessary for transformation, prompting analysis of constructs with partial or complete CR2 deletion (MLL-AFX346-501 and MLL-AFX388-501, respectively). Although MLL-AFX346-501 with partial deletion of CR2 yielded significant numbers of colonies in the second round of plating, the colony number dropped dramatically in the third plating. Both constructs resulted in no colonies in the fourth round, indicating an inability to immortalize hematopoietic progenitors. These results suggested that fusion of a transcriptional activation domain per se to MLL was not sufficient for transformation of hematopoietic progenitors. To further test this conclusion, a synthetic construct containing MLL fused with the VP16 MTD (aa 413 to 453) was evaluated for its transformation abilities. MLL-VP16 (MTD) was unable to immortalize hematopoietic progenitors and failed to form colonies in the third plating (Fig. 5). Therefore, the strong transcriptional activation domain (CR3) of AFX is necessary but not sufficient for transformation by MLL-AFX, which appears to also require contributions from CR2.
![]() View larger version (23K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. CR2 and CR3 are both necessary for MLL-AFX-mediated transformation. Schematic diagram (left column) shows the deletion mutants of MLL-AFX used for hematopoietic transformation assays. A synthetic MLL-VP16 (MTD) construct was also included. Transformation abilities, transactivation properties, and in vitro binding to the CBP KIX domain are summarized in the middle. Bar graph (right) represents the number of colonies generated by the respective constructs in replating assays (mean ± the standard derivation, n = 3).
|
![]() View larger version (23K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 6. Potential dominant-negative effects of MLL-AFX fusion proteins. (A) MLL-AFX is unable to bind consensus forkhead DNA-binding sites. In vitro-translated proteins (indicated at tops of gel lanes) were incubated with 32P-labeled oligonucleotides encompassing the Fas ligand site corresponding to IGFBP1 IRS (Fas ligand promoter) or a mutated IRS (Am2Bm2) of the IGFBP-1. Reticulocyte lysate (lane 1) was used as a control for nonspecific binding. The arrow indicates specific DNA-binding complexes. (B) MLL-AFX antagonizes FKHRL1-mediated transcriptional activation. An expression construct encoding FKHRL1 was cotransfected into 293 cells with FKHRL1, MLL-AFX, or AFX expression constructs and a reporter gene driven by the Fas ligand promoter (FHRE promoter) or the p27kip-1 promoter (p27kip promoter). The fold induction was corrected for ß-galactosidase activity from an internal lacZ control construct in each transfection. (C) Comparable expression levels of MLL-AFX in leukemic (lane 2) and transfected (lane 3) cells. The control (lane 1) consisted of the REH pre-B cell line, which expressed wild-type MLL but not MLL-AFX. Specific bands corresponding to wild-type MLL, MLL-AFX, and FKHRL1 are indicated to the left.
|
![]() View larger version (30K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 7. MLL-AFX suppresses FKHRL1-mediated apoptosis in Ba/F3 cells. (A) Ba/F3 cells stably expressing FKHRL1 (A3): ER* were cotransfected with EGFP and various expression constructs (left). Cells were treated with or without 0.1 µM 4-OHT for 24 h before analysis of apoptosis by Annexin V staining. EGFP was used as a marker to identify transfected cells for apoptosis analysis. Bars (right) represent the percentage change in apoptosis after the induction of FKHRL1 (A3) expression in the absence or presence of various DNA constructs. (B) FACS data of Ba/F3 cells from a representative transfection experiment. The results are shown for EGFP-positive, PI-negative gated cells. Black lines represent controls transfected with EGFP only and treated with 4-OHT for 24 h. Shadow profiles represent either the control without 4-OHT treatment or cells transfected with various constructs and treated with 4-OHT. Expression of FKHRL1 (A3)*ER was detected by Western blot, as shown by the small insert in the left top panel. (C) MLL-AFX- or MSCV-transfected cells were sorted into GFP-positive and -negative populations. Cell lysates from 105 cells were analyzed by Western blotting with antibodies specific for p27kip-1 or actin.
|
|
|
|---|
An unexpected observation in the current study is that fusion of a strong transcriptional activation domain to MLL is not sufficient to activate its oncogenic properties. We localized a strong transactivation domain (CR3) to the C terminus of AFX and showed that it interacts with the KIX domain of coactivator CBP. CR3, which has features of an acidic activation domain, was required but not sufficient for in vitro immortalization of myeloid progenitors by MLL-AFX. Further evidence that acquisition of an acidic transactivation domain per se is not sufficient for MLL-mediated transformation is provided by MLL-VP16, a synthetic construct encoding the potent MTD of VP16, which failed to transform hematopoietic progenitors. This may not necessarily be predicted to be effective since different transcriptional scaffolds are organized by different proteins, which may result in activation in different ways. Nevertheless, this contrasts with MLL fusion partners ENL and ELL, whose minimal domains required for transcriptional activation correlate with those necessary and sufficient for oncogenic transformation (15, 50). The C-terminal activation domain of ELL has been shown to interact with EAF1, which itself is capable of conferring oncogenic potential when fused with MLL (38). Our current findings suggest that there are qualitative differences in the transcriptional effector domains that activate the oncogenic properties of MLL, which are not correlated with quantitative levels of activation measured on experimental reporter genes.
Two conserved AFX domains (CR3 and CR2) are required to achieve full oncogenicity of MLL-AFX. CR2 displays weak transactivation properties, equivalent to those of ELL and ENL, but nevertheless is not sufficient for transformation. CR2 displays primary sequence and predicted secondary structure conservation (three small conserved
-helical segments) with other mammalian forkhead subfamily proteins, but its molecular function is unknown. Prior studies of PAX-FKHR fusion proteins are consistent with an oncogenic requirement for CR2. As a result of chromosomal translocations in rhabdomyosarcomas, FKHR is fused with the paired box transcription factors PAX3 or PAX7 at an analogous point in the forkhead DBD as in MLL-AFX fusions (3, 12, 20). Structure-function analysis of PAX3-FKHR indicates that, like MLL-AFX, transactivation ability does not directly correlate with transformation, which also requires undefined FKHR sequences upstream of CR3 for efficient transformation (32, 34). Thus, the contributions of forkhead family proteins may be similar in MLL and PAX fusion proteins. Recent studies have revealed that fusion with FKHR deregulates normal transcriptional control by the N-terminal repression domain of PAX, suggesting that override of repression rather than strength of transactivation is critical for transformation by PAX-FKHR (4-6, 28). By analogy, the portion of MLL retained in all fusion proteins also contains a repression domain that interacts with histone deacetylases HDAC1 and HDAC2, which may antagonize the activation properties of MLL fusion partners (60). It remains to be determined whether override of MLL-mediated repression is a critical factor in transformation.
Covalent fusion of MLL with CBP in MLL-CBP is sufficient for in vitro immortalization and leukemic transformation of myeloid progenitors (35). This contrasts with our current results that a CBP interaction domain of AFX is not capable of activating the oncogenic potential of MLL in a similar myeloid transformation assay. There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy. Covalent fusion of CBP with MLL, which deletes amino-terminal portions of CBP, may remove regulatory regions of CBP that negatively modulate one or more of its effector properties resulting in its "activation." Another possibility is that the CR3 of AFX does not functionally interact with CBP on MLL target genes, despite its ability to interact with the CBP KIX domain in vitro and function as a potent transactivation domain in transient transfection assays. Alternatively, CR3 may not efficiently recruit CBP or result in a sufficiently stable interaction in the targeted transformation cell types. Indeed, previous studies have suggested that the mode of recruitment of a forkhead activation domain may be crucial for activation (43). One possibility for the requirement of CR2 is that it stabilizes or otherwise enhances the AFX-CBP interaction. Precedent for essential dual sites of CBP interaction is provided by the human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 Tax protein. It contains a KIX-C/H1 interaction domain, as well as an amphipathic helical region that interacts with the C-terminal region of CBP to mediate transcriptional activation (49). Mutation of the latter domain significantly compromises Tax-mediated transactivation despite an intact KIX-C/H1 interaction domain.
The possibility that disruption of MLL partner protein functions may contribute to leukemogenesis is based in part on their putative growth suppressive properties (Abi-1, AF6, AFX, FKHRL1, and GAS7) and involvement in other malignances (AF10, GRAF, CBP, and p300). In the present study, we observed that MLL-AFX suppressed transcription and apoptosis mediated by the forkhead protein FKHRL1. Structure-function studies indicated that these interfering effects required the same portions of AFX (i.e., CR2 and CR3) necessary for transformation of hematopoietic progenitors. Furthermore, the proliferation of myeloid progenitors in vitro was enhanced by their transduction with a truncated form of AFX (AFX-3'). Although the mechanisms that mediate this hyperproliferative capability are not known, the absence of an intact forkhead DBD in AFX-3' and MLL-AFX suggests that they may act as dominant-negative mutants to compete for limiting amounts of transcriptional cofactors utilized by endogenous forkhead family proteins. Independent evidence that disruption of AFX-dependent pathways perturbs growth control is provided by studies of a dominant-negative form of AFX containing only the forkhead DBD, which induced a significant increase in colony formation by A14 cells and a decrease in the percentage of cells in G1 (41).
A dominant interfering function for MLL-AFX on AFX-dependent pathways does not exclude a gain-of-function effect on MLL target genes. Previous studies of PML-RAR
in acute promyelocytic leukemia demonstrate that it antagonizes PML-mediated apoptosis and the retinoic acid signaling pathway by sequestering the respective wild-type proteins and their interacting partners (e.g., RXR) (31, 44), in addition to its role as a transcriptional repressor on retinoid target genes. Similar effects have been reported for the variant PLZF-RAR
and NPM-RAR
proteins in acute promyelocytic leukemia (10, 51). Analogously, the AML1-ETO fusion protein resulting from t(8;21) inhibits the functions of AML1 and ETO by sequestering the respective wild-type proteins and their interacting partners (9, 55), in addition to directly repressing AML1 target genes (19, 39, 42, 58). In our studies, the dominant-negative AFX-3' was considerably less effective compared to MLL-AFX in perturbing the growth of myeloid progenitors, suggesting that disruption of MLL-dependent pathways has a greater role in leukemogenesis.
In summary, our data indicate that the strength of transcriptional activation is not directly correlated with MLL-AFX-mediated transformation, which requires additional functions contributed by CR2. This region is also critical for transformation mediated by PAX3-FKHR fusion proteins that maintain a constitutive transactivation status by subverting normal transcriptional repression of the PAX protein (28, 59). Although the actual function of CR2 remains to be determined, the presence of weak transactivation activity and conserved helical structures suggest that it may interact with the transcriptional machinery. CR2 along with CR3 is also necessary for the dominant-negative effect of MLL-AFX on normal forkhead protein function. This suggests a model in which MLL-AFX requires and competes for accessory proteins utilized by wild-type forkhead transcription factors to facilitate its positive and negative effects on MLL and forkhead-dependent pathways, respectively.
C. W. So is the recipient of a Croucher Foundation Fellowship. This work was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (CA55209) and in part by a Croucher Foundation Research grant to C. W. So.
|
|
|---|
B (AML1/Cbfa2) to stimulate polyomavirus DNA replication is related to its affinity for the nuclear matrix. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18:4165-4176.
and NPM-RAR
. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:6318-6323.
, PML-, PLZF-, and NPM-RAR
fusion proteins towards transcriptional co-activator, RIP-140, on retinoic acid responses in acute promyelocytic leukemia. Leukemia 14:77-83.[CrossRef][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»