Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Molecular and Cellular Biology, May 2003, p. 3636-3645, Vol. 23, No. 10
0270-7306/03/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.23.10.3636-3645.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
McGill Cancer Centre,1 Division of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine,2 Departments of Biology,3 Oncology,4 Biochemistry, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3G 1Y65
Received 18 December 2002/ Accepted 11 February 2003
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Additional controls of HOX function have recently been brought to light. The subcellular localization of EXD is regulated throughout Drosophila embryonic development (4, 26). HTH, the MEIS homologue in flies, is required for the nuclear translocation of EXD (21, 31, 36). For example, EXD is expressed in both proximal and distal regions of the Drosophila leg imaginal disk; however, nuclear EXD is found only in the proximal region, where HTH is coexpressed (1, 19). Mammalian MEIS1, and the related PREP1, can substitute for fly HTH to induce EXD nuclear translocation in both cell culture and Drosophila embryos (2, 6, 21, 36, 37). We and others have shown that PBX1 is localized in the cytoplasm when transfected into Drosophila Schneider 2 (S2) cells, whereas cotransfection of MEIS1 or PREP1 induces PBX1 nuclear translocation (6, 37). Consistent with this, PBX is localized to the nucleus only in the proximal mouse limb bud, where Meis genes are expressed, and not in the distal portion, where Meis transcripts cannot be detected (12, 19, 28, 30, 37). These findings suggest that in Drosophila, as well as in vertebrates, the access of HOX to its cofactors is controlled by the nuclear localization of PBX/EXD, a process regulated by MEIS/HTH family proteins.
Interaction between PBX/EXD and MEIS/HTH maps to the N-terminal PBC-A and HM1/HM2 domains, respectively (14, 22). The PBX/EXD N terminus also directs their cytoplasmic localization in the absence of MEIS/HTH, via the activity of CRM1-mediated nuclear export. CRM-1 was identified as a receptor mediating the nuclear export of proteins containing leucine-rich nuclear export sequences (NESs) (17). It has been shown that the cytotoxin leptomycin B (LMB) specifically inhibits CRM-1 activity by blocking its binding to its target proteins (24). Two studies characterized a nonconsensus NES in EXD and PBX; however, nonoverlapping domains were proposed (2, 6). The NES localizes to the EXD PBC-B domain (residues 178 to 220) and the PBX1 PBC-A region (residues 1 to 96). In any case, the interaction between PBX/EXD and nuclear export receptors must be directly or indirectly disrupted in the presence of MEIS or HTH.
Previous results showed that PBX1 possesses two nuclear localization signals (NLSs) within its HD that are masked by intramolecular interaction with the N terminus (37). PBX-MEIS interaction induces a conformational change in PBX, which in turn shifts the balance between nuclear import and export. However, this does not explain all the observations of PBX subcellular distribution in vivo. First, no consensus NES has been identified in the PBX/EXD N terminus. Although NESs may be heterogeneous, the existence of NES-containing partners of PBC proteins cannot be excluded, since PBX/EXD may translocate to the cytoplasm through the binding of an intermediary protein that possesses an NES. The binding of this adapter to PBX/EXD could be regulated by MEIS/HTH. Second, inhibition of CRM1-mediated nuclear export by LMB does not induce full nuclear localization of EXD (2), indicating the possible involvement of cytoplasmic retention factors that are insensitive to LMB.
To identify additional factors controlling the subcellular distribution of PBX, we performed a yeast two-hybrid screen using the PBX1 N terminus as bait. One resulting clone encoded a fragment of nonmuscle myosin II heavy chain B (NMHCB). We verified the association between PBX1 and NMHCB in mammalian cells and revealed the colocalization of these two proteins in the cytoplasm of mouse distal limb bud cells. Overexpression of the NMHCB fragment induced cytoplasmic accumulation of PBX/EXD and MEIS in both mammalian cells and Drosophila S2 cells. Furthermore, the subcellular localization of EXD was deregulated in Drosophila zipper mutants, which have a defective nonmuscle myosin heavy chain. Together, these results suggest that NMHCB promotes the cytoplasmic localization of PBX and EXD in vivo.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
1-89)-HA, PBX1A(
172-219)-HA, PBX1A-HA(
172-295), pPacPLPBX1A-HA, and MEIS1A have been described previously (37). PBX1A(
90-219)-HA was constructed by subsequently cloning the coding region for PBX1A residues 1 to 89 and hemagglutinin-tagged residues 219 to 430 into the pCS2+ vector. Yeast two-hybrid screen and cloning. pAS2-1PBX1A1-232 was transformed into the yeast strain PJ69-2A and mated to strain Y187 expressing a cDNA prey library derived from 9.5-dpc mouse embryos. Colony selection, plasmid DNA isolation from positive clones, and specificity tests were performed according to the Clontech Matchmaker manual. Positive clones were sequenced and screened by BLAST analysis of the National Center for Biotechnology Information database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/BLAST/). The insert encoding the NMHCB fragment (fNMHCB; see Results) was excised and subcloned into the pGAL-O45 or pcDNA3 FLAG vector as pGAL-fNM and pFLAG-fNM, respectively. GAL-DBD and GAL-DBD-tagged fNMHCB were subsequently subcloned into the pPacPL vector.
Cell culture and transfection.
HEK293T and Cos-7 cells were cultured in
minimal essential medium and Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, respectively. Drosophila S2 cells were cultured in Schneider's Drosophila medium (GIBCO) with 10% fetal bovine serum. For immunoprecipitation, HEK293T cells were seeded at 3 x 106 per 100-mm-diameter dish. The cells were allowed to attach overnight and then transfected by the calcium phosphate coprecipitation method or by Lipofectamine 2000 reagent (Invitrogen). For immunostaining, cells were plated on glass coverslips in 35-mm-diameter dishes.
Antibodies. Rabbit polyclonal antibody against PBX1 and mouse monoclonal antibody against GAL-DBD were purchased from Santa Cruz. FLAG M2 agarose beads were purchased from Sigma. A monoclonal antibody against NMHCB was obtained from the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank. The anti-EXD monoclonal antibody and anti-ZIPPER antibodies were provided by R. A. White and D. Kiehart, respectively. The secondary antibodies were horseradish peroxidase-conjugated goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin G (IgG) (Santa Cruz) and goat anti-rabbit IgG (Sigma), fluorescein isothiocyanate-linked goat anti-rabbit IgG (Sigma), and rhodamine-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories Inc.). Anti-MEIS1 antibody was generated by the immunization of rabbits with a fusion of maltose binding protein to the first 34 residues of MEIS1. Antiserum was purified by immunoaffinity methods.
Immunoprecipitation assays. Forty to 48 h posttransfection, cells were harvested and lysed in 500 µl of EBC lysis buffer (120 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris-Cl [pH 8.0], 0.5% NP-40, and protease inhibitors) at 4°C for 30 min, followed by brief sonication. Whole-cell extracts were precleared with protein G-Sepharose for 30 min; 0.5 to 1 mg of precleared lysate was incubated with 0.5 to 1 µg of primary antibody from 2 h to overnight at 4°C, followed by the addition of 30 µl of a 50% slurry of protein G-Sepharose and further incubation for 2 h at 4°C. The precipitates were washed two times with high-salt NETN (20 mM Tris-Cl, pH 8.0, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5% NP-40, 0.5 M NaCl) and one time with NETN (without 0.5 M NaCl) and eluted with 1x sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) sample buffer. The eluted proteins were separated by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and analyzed by Western blotting. The secondary antibodies were conjugated with horseradish peroxidase and detected by enhanced chemiluminescence (MEN Life Science). To immunoprecipitate FLAG epitope-tagged proteins, lysates were incubated with Anti-FLAG M2 agarose beads (Sigma) instead of protein G-Sepharose. FLAG peptide (0.2 mg/ml; Sigma) was used to elute the precipitates for 1 h at 4°C.
Immunofluorescence staining. Cells were cultured on 12-mm-diameter circular coverslips and fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde. After incubation with appropriate primary antibodies for 2 h at room temperature, the cells were washed with 0.1% Tween 20 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and incubated with fluorescein isothiocyanate- or rhodamine-conjugated secondary antibody for 1 h at room temperature in the dark. DAPI (4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole; 1 µg/ml in PBS) was added to the last wash solution. Samples were analyzed under a Nikon ECLIPSE E800 fluorescence microscope with a Nikon DXM1200 digital camera. Mouse embryos (11.5 dpc) were sectioned by cryostat and immunolabeled with anti-PBX1 and anti-NMHCB antibodies. Samples were examined with a Zeiss LSM510 laser scanning confocal microscope. The images were further processed using Adobe PhotoShop.
Drosophila stocks The wild-type Drosophila stock used was Oregon R, and the zipper mutant stock used was zi ID16/CyO (P[w+mC= GAL4-Kr.C]DC3,P[w+mC= UAS-GFP.S65T]DC7). Homozygous zipper embryos were distinguished from their heterozygous siblings by the absence of green fluorescent protein signal.
Immunolabeling of Drosophila embryos. Eggs were collected from Oregon R and zipper mutant flies for 13 h and then dechorionated and fixed for 15 min in 4% paraformaldehyde in 1x PBS- 0.2% Tween 20 and heptane. The embryos were rehydrated, washed with 1x PBS-0.2% Tween 20, and blocked with 1x PBS- 1% bovine serum albumin- 0.2% Triton X-100 overnight. After being blocked, the embryos were incubated with anti-EXD and anti-ZIPPER primary antibodies. The secondary antibodies were Alexa Fluor-568-conjugated anti-mouse IgG and Alexa Fluor-633-conjugated anti-rabbit IgG (Molecular Probes). Immunostainings were visualized using a Leica TCS-SP2 confocal microscope.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
-helical tail, suggesting a means of interaction with a structurally similar domain in PBC-B.
|
|
|
The results described above suggest that the NMHCB fragment has cytoplasmic retention properties, since its overexpression causes PBX to accumulate in the cytoplasm. However, an alternative explanation could invoke nuclear export. For example, fNMHCB could harbor an NES or expose the NES in PBX. To test whether CRM1-mediated nuclear export plays a role in this process, we expressed GAL-fNM in HEK293T cells and treated them with a high concentration (200 nM) of LMB, an inhibitor of CRM1-dependent export. While LMB did cause a moderate shift toward nuclear accumulation of both GAL-fNM and PBX, a substantial fraction of cells showed a strict cytoplasmic accumulation of both proteins (Fig. 4d, e, and h and d', e', and h'). These results support a role for NMHCB that is independent of export functions.
fNMHCB competes with MEIS for translocation of PBX1A or EXD in Drosophila S2 cells. To determine whether the interaction between MEIS and PBX can be affected by fNMHCB, we used Drosophila S2 cells, in which endogenous EXD is localized in the cytoplasm due to the absence of HTH (Fig. 5A and B). After expression of MEIS1A in S2 cells, both EXD and MEIS1A localized to the nucleus (Fig. 5C to E). Similar to EXD, PBX1A localized to the cytoplasm of S2 cells in the absence of MEIS (Fig. 6A and B). Coexpression of MEIS1A led to nuclear accumulation of both PBX1A and MEIS1A (Fig. 6C to E). However, overexpression of GAL-fNM, but not GAL-DBD, induced cytoplasmic retention of EXD, PBX1A, and MEIS1A (Fig. 5C to H and Fig. 6F to N). A higher ratio of GAL-fNM to MEIS1A expression vector was required for cytoplasmic retention of PBX1A than for that of EXD and was likely due to the greater abundance of transfected PBX1A over endogenous EXD. Thus, fNMHCB can compete against the action of MEIS to direct the localization of PBX/EXD to the cytoplasm.
|
|
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
NMHCB functions through cytoplasmic retention, not as an NES-containing adapter.
The putative NES in PBX may function alternatively as a docking site for NES-containing partners. We first mapped NMHCB interaction to the PBC-B domain of PBX, which includes the putative NES, suggesting that NMHCB could be such a partner. However, a region in PBC-B (residues 172 to 219) largely coextensive with the putative NES of EXD (residues 178 to 220) is not required for interaction with NMHCB. In addition, NMHCB is unlikely to ever act in the nuclear compartment, since its large molecular mass (
220 kDa) would prohibit diffusion through the nuclear pore complex, and its distribution is not affected by LMB treatment (our unpublished observation). This is in contrast to the CRM1-sensitive compartmentalization of actin (40). Additional findings also argue against export-based mechanisms in the action of NMHCB, since the cytoplasmic localization of GAL-fNM and the cytoplasmic targeting of PBX by GAL-fNM are both largely refractory to LMB treatment. Despite the predominantly cytoplasmic localization of GAL-fNM in mammalian cells, the original VP16-fNM prey construct isolated in a yeast two-hybrid screen must have some access to the yeast nucleus. This may be due to the NLS supplied by the VP16 vector or because yeast cells do not express endogenous PBX, which may be required for the mutual retention of PBX and fNMHCB in the cytoplasm (see below).
NMHCB and PBX interact through coiled-coil motifs. The tail region of NMHC is characterized by a coiled-coil motif involved in self-dimerization. However, this coiled-coil motif may also bridge the interaction between NMHCB and other partners. In this study, we defined the NMHCB interaction domain as residues 90 to 171 in PBX1 and showed that it overlapped with a potential coiled-coil motif (residues 161 to 177). Finer mutation of this region will help to elucidate its role in NMHCB-PBX interaction.
Multiple mechanisms control EXD subcellular localization in fly embryos. The BX-C group of homeotic genes (Ubx, abd-A, and Abd-B) has been shown to downregulate the nuclear accumulation of EXD through repression of exd and hth (5, 25, 34). The effects of downregulation would be exacerbated by the requirement for EXD in stabilization of HTH (1). Nonetheless, the normal functions of Ubx and abd-A still require EXD activity (5, 13, 19, 32, 35). Thus, the amount of available nuclear EXD in abdominal segments is tightly regulated within narrow limits.
In addition to the influences of gene expression, protein stability, nuclear import, and nuclear export, we show here that cytoplasmic retention by nonmuscle myosin provides yet another level of control of EXD subcellular localization. The loss of ZIPPER results in nuclear accumulation of EXD in the first abdominal segment. The same phenotype (increased nuclear localization of EXD in A1) is seen in Ubx mutants (5), suggesting that ZIPPER and UBX make equally important contributions to the control of EXD compartmentalization. ZIPPER's role in this process may extend well beyond A1 but could be obscured by perduring maternal product. The lethality of zipper mutants precludes examination at later stages, when maternal stores might be further depleted. Together, these findings emphasize that multiple nonredundant controls govern EXD/PBX subcellular localization. They also demonstrate that interaction with nonmuscle myosin is an evolutionarily conserved strategy for controlling the intracellular distribution of EXD/PBX.
The role of NMHCB in MEIS and PBX interaction. While a number of investigations have focused on elucidating the mechanism of PBX/EXD localization, the regulation of MEIS subcellular distribution has not been well studied. However, one recent report suggests that zebrafish MEIS3 must interact with PBX in order to translocate to the nucleus (39). Two leucine-rich regions, LFPLLALIF (residues 83 to 91) and LDNLMIQVL (residues 143 to 151), in the conserved PBX interaction domains of MEIS1 (HM1 and HM2) may function as NESs. The heterodimerization of PBX and MEIS may therefore mask NESs in both partners. PBX-MEIS interaction could also expose one or more NLSs within the MEIS HD, as has been demonstrated for PBX (37).
In this study, we showed that overexpression of GAL-fNM leads to the cytoplasmic localization of both PBX and MEIS. Thus, GAL-fNM may disrupt PBX-MEIS interaction in the cytoplasm, resulting in the intramolecular masking of NLSs in both partners. Our data argue against a cytoplasmic NMHCB-PBX complex retaining MEIS in this compartment. No potential coiled-coil structure has been identified in MEIS, suggesting that it is unlikely to interact with NMHCB in the same manner as PBX. Moreover, yeast two-hybrid assays indicate that the MEIS1 N terminus (residues 1 to 231) does not interact with fNMHCB (data not shown), and MEIS is not coimmunoprecipitated with NMHCB-PBX complexes (Fig. 3B).
In the normal course of development, NMHCB may retain PBX in the cytoplasm, or stabilize the conformation through which the PBX N terminus masks the NLSs in the HD (37). Entry to the nucleus would therefore depend on sufficient levels of MEIS (or PREP1) proteins to effectively compete with NMHCB for interaction with PBX. PBX-MEIS interaction would then lead to unmasking of their NLSs, occlusion of their NESs, and stable nuclear accumulation of both partners. This competition between nonmuscle myosin and MEIS family members could be influenced by patterning signals, such as DPP (3).
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
H.H. is the recipient of an Internal Scholarship of the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. M.P. holds a Doctoral Research Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). P.L. is a CIHR Investigator. M.F. is a Chercheur-National of the Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec. This work was funded by grants to P.L. from the National Cancer Institute of Canada and to M.F. from the CIHR.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Abu-Shaar, M., H. D. Ryoo, and R. S. Mann. 1999. Control of the nuclear localization of Extradenticle by competing nuclear import and export signals. Genes Dev. 13:935-945.
3. Arquier, N., L. Perrin, P. Manfruelli, and M. Semeriva. 2001. The Drosophila tumor suppressor gene lethal(2)giant larvae is required for the emission of the Decapentaplegic signal. Development 128:2209-2220.
4. Aspland, S. E., and R. A. White. 1997. Nucleocytoplasmic localisation of extradenticle protein is spatially regulated throughout development in Drosophila. Development 124:741-747.[Abstract]
5. Azpiazu, N., and G. Morata. 1998. Functional and regulatory interactions between Hox and extradenticle genes. Genes Dev. 12:261-273.
6. Berthelsen, J., C. Kilstrup-Nielsen, F. Blasi, F. Mavilio, and V. Zappavigna. 1999. The subcellular localization of PBX1 and EXD proteins depends on nuclear import and export signals and is modulated by association with PREP1 and HTH. Genes Dev. 13:946-953.
7. Bürglin, T. 1997. Analysis of TALE superclass homeobox genes (MEIS, PBC, KNOX, Iroquois, TGIF) reveals a novel domain conserved between plants and animals. Nucleic Acids Res 25:4173-4180.
8. Bürglin, T. R. 1998. The PBC domain contains a MEINOX domain: coevolution of Hox and TALE homeobox genes? Dev. Genes Evol. 208:113-116.[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Bürglin, T. R., and G. Ruvkin. 1992. A new motif in PBX genes. Nat. Genet. 1:319-320.[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Calvo, K. R., P. Knoepfler, S. McGrath, and M. P. Kamps. 1999. An inhibitory switch derepressed by pbx, hox, and Meis/Prep1 partners regulates DNA-binding by pbx1 and E2a-pbx1 and is dispensable for myeloid immortalization by E2a-pbx1. Oncogene 18:8033-8043.[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Capdevila, J., T. Tsukui, C. Rodriquez Esteban, V. Zappavigna, and J. C. Izpisua Belmonte. 1999. Control of vertebrate limb outgrowth by the proximal factor Meis2 and distal antagonism of BMPs by Gremlin. Mol. Cell 4:839-849.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Cecconi, F., G. Proetzel, G. Alvarez-Bolado, D. Jay, and P. Gruss. 1997. Expression of Meis2, a Knotted-related murine homeobox gene, indicates a role in the differentiation of the forebrain and the somitic mesoderm. Dev. Dynam. 210:184-190.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Chan, S. K., L. Jaffe, M. Capovilla, J. Botas, and R. S. Mann. 1994. The DNA binding specificity of Ultrabithorax is modulated by cooperative interactions with extradenticle, another homeoprotein. Cell 78:603-615.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Chang, C. P., Y. Jacobs, T. Nakamura, N. A. Jenkins, N. G. Copeland, and M. L. Cleary. 1997. Meis proteins are major in vivo DNA binding partners for wild-type but not chimeric Pbx proteins. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17:5679-5687.[Abstract]
15. Dong, C., Z. Li, R. Alvarez, Jr., X. H. Feng, and P. J. Goldschmidt-Clermont. 2000. Microtubule binding to Smads may regulate TGF beta activity. Mol. Cell 5:27-34.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Featherstone, M. HOX proteins and their cofactors in transcriptional regulation. In T. Lufkin (ed.), Murine homeobox gene control of embryonic patterning and organogenesis, in press. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
17. Fornerod, M., M. Ohno, M. Yoshida, and I. W. Mattaj. 1997. CRM1 is an export receptor for leucine-rich nuclear export signals. Cell 90:1051-1060.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Gineitis, D., and R. Treisman. 2001. Differential usage of signal transduction pathways defines two types of serum response factor target gene. J. Biol. Chem. 276:24531-24539.
19. Gonzalez-Crespo, S., M. Abu-Shaar, M. Torres, A. C. Martinez, R. S. Mann, and G. Morata. 1998. Antagonism between extradenticle function and Hedgehog signalling in the developing limb. Nature (London) 394:196-200.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Graba, Y., D. Aragnol, and J. Pradel. 1997. Drosophila Hox complex downstream targets and the function of homeotic genes. Bioessays 19:379-388.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Jaw, T. J., L. R. You, P. S. Knoepfler, L. C. Yao, C. Y. Pai, C. Y. Tang, L. P. Chang, J. Berthelsen, F. Blasi, M. P. Kamps, and Y. H. Sun. 2000. Direct interaction of two homeoproteins, homothorax and extradenticle, is essential for EXD nuclear localization and function. Mech. Dev. 91:279-291.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Knoepfler, P. S., K. R. Calvo, H. Chen, S. E. Antonarakis, and M. P. Kamps. 1997. Meis1 and pKnox1 bind DNA cooperatively with Pbx1 utilizing an interaction surface disrupted in oncoprotein E2a-Pbx1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:14553-14558.
23. Krumlauf, R. 1994. Hox genes in vertebrate development. Cell 78:191-201.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Kudo, N., N. Matsumori, H. Taoka, D. Fujiwara, E. P. Schreiner, B. Wolff, M. Yoshida, and S. Horinouchi. 1999. Leptomycin B inactivates CRM1/exportin 1 by covalent modification at a cysteine residue in the central conserved region. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:9112-9117.
25. Kurant, E., C. Y. Pai, R. Sharf, N. Halachmi, Y. H. Sun, and A. Salzberg. 1998. Dorsotonals/homothorax, the Drosophila homologue of meis1, interacts with extradenticle in patterning of the embryonic PNS. Development 125:1037-1048.[Abstract]
26. Mann, R. S., and M. Abu-Shaar. 1996. Nuclear import of the homeodomain protein extradenticle in response to Wg and Dpp signalling. Nature 383:630-633.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Mann, R. S., and M. Affolter. 1998. Hox proteins meet more partners. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 8:423-429.[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Mercader, N., E. Leonardo, N. Azpiazu, A. Serrano, G. Morata, C. Martinez, and M. Torres. 1999. Conserved regulation of proximodistal limb axis development by Meis1/Hth. Nature 402:425-429.[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Mercader, N., E. Leonardo, M. E. Piedra, A. C. Martinez, M. A. Ros, and M. Torres. 2000. Opposing RA and FGF signals control proximodistal vertebrate limb development through regulation of Meis genes. Development 127:3961-3970.[Abstract]
30. Oulad-Abdelghani, M., C. Chazaud, P. Bouillet, V. Sapin, P. Chambon, and P. Dollé. 1997. Meis2, a novel mouse Pbx-related homeobox gene induced by retinoic acid during differentiation of P19 embryonal carcinoma cells. Dev. Dyn. 210:173-183.[CrossRef][Medline]
31. Pai, C. Y., T. S. Kuo, T. J. Jaw, E. Kurant, C. T. Chen, D. A. Bessarab, A. Salzberg, and Y. H. Sun. 1998. The Homothorax homeoprotein activates the nuclear localization of another homeoprotein, extradenticle, and suppresses eye development in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 12:435-446.
32. Peifer, M., and E. Wieschaus. 1990. Mutations in the Drosophila gene extradenticle affect the way specific homeo domain proteins regulate segmental identity. Genes Dev. 4:1209-1223.
33. Rambaldi, I., E. Nagy Kovàcs, and M. S. Featherstone. 1994. A proline-rich transcriptional activation domain in murine HOXD-4 (HOX-4.2). Nucleic Acids Res. 22:376-382.
34. Rauskolb, C., M. Peifer, and E. Wieschaus. 1993. extradenticle, a regulator of homeotic gene activity, is a homolog of the homeobox-containing human proto-oncogene pbx1. Cell 74:1101-1112.[CrossRef][Medline]
35. Rauskolb, C., and E. Wieschaus. 1994. Coordinate regulation of downstream genes by extradenticle and the homeotic selector proteins. EMBO J. 13:3561-3569.[Medline]
36. Rieckhof, G. E., F. Casares, H. D. Ryoo, M. Abu-Shaar, and R. S. Mann. 1997. Nuclear translocation of extradenticle requires homothorax, which encodes an extradenticle-related homeodomain protein. Cell 91:171-183.[CrossRef][Medline]
37. Saleh, M., H. Huang, N. C. Green, and M. S. Featherstone. 2000. A conformational change in PBX1A is necessary for its nuclear localization. Exp. Cell Res. 260:105-115.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. Sotiropoulos, A., D. Gineitis, J. Copeland, and R. Treisman. 1999. Signal-regulated activation of serum response factor is mediated by changes in actin dynamics. Cell 98:159-169.[CrossRef][Medline]
39. Vlachakis, N., D. R. Ellstrom, and C. G. Sagerstrom. 2000. A novel pbx family member expressed during early zebrafish embryogenesis forms trimeric complexes with Meis3 and Hoxb1b. Dev. Dyn. 217:109-119.[CrossRef][Medline]
40. Wada, A., M. Fukuda, M. Mishima, and E. Nishida. 1998. Nuclear export of actin: a novel mechanism regulating the subcellular localization of a major cytoskeletal protein. EMBO J. 17:1635-1641.[CrossRef][Medline]
41. Young, P. E., A. M. Richman, A. S. Ketchum, and D. P. Kiehart. 1993. Morphogenesis in Drosophila requires nonmuscle myosin heavy chain function. Genes Dev. 7:29-41.
42. Ziegelbauer, J., B. Shan, D. Yager, C. Larabell, B. Hoffmann, and R. Tjian. 2001. Transcription factor MIZ-1 is regulated via microtubule association. Mol. Cell 8:339-349.[CrossRef][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| J. Bacteriol. | J. Virol. | Eukaryot. Cell |
|---|
| Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. | Clin. Vaccine Immunol. | All ASM Journals |
|---|