![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, March 2008, p. 1584-1595, Vol. 28, No. 5
0270-7306/08/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/MCB.00421-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology,1 Department of Biochemistry, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, Florida 32610,2 Division of Endocrinology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 221 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 021153
Received 11 March 2007/ Returned for modification 9 April 2007/ Accepted 26 November 2007
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
CtBP is a transcriptional corepressor that silences the tumor suppressor gene E-cadherin, which is essential for epithelial cell-cell adhesion (62). CtBP associates with transcriptional repressor complexes involved in gene regulation in varied developmental and oncogenic contexts (7, 15, 17, 19, 22, 29, 30, 39, 40, 41, 46). CtBP is targeted to promoters via sequence-specific DNA-binding transcription factors and, in turn, contributes to gene silencing by recruiting complexes with histone methyltransferase, demethylase, and deacetylase activities (16, 33, 41, 49, 51, 54). For example, CtBP can be recruited to the E-cadherin gene promoter by the repressor ZEB (7, 8, 15, 16, 41, 51, 61). Similarly, the corepressor mSin3A has been demonstrated to interact with CtBP in vivo (23) and target the E-cadherin promoter via its interaction with Snail (38) and as part of the CoREST complex (14, 51).
A distinguishing structural feature of CtBP is a conserved NAD(H)-binding motif. NAD(H) binds to CtBP and regulates its function, thereby promoting tumor cell migration under hypoxic conditions (62). In addition, CtBP-mediated repression and the interaction with transcriptional proteins are regulated by levels of NAD(H), thereby linking CtBP activity to the local metabolic state (4, 13, 22, 26, 32, 55, 57, 61).
Pinin/DRS (Pnn/DRS) is a multifunctional protein that promotes epithelial adhesion properties (20, 35, 36, 47, 50, 52). Pnn also influences the expression of a number of tumor suppressor genes (48, 50). In the nucleus, Pnn interacts with multiple mRNA processing factors such as SRm300, SRp75, SRrp130, and RNPS1 and is involved in mRNA splicing (27, 44, 58, 63). Pnn also associates with the components of the basal transcriptional machinery, such as Mediator and CA150 (45, 53). We have shown that Pnn modulates E-cadherin promoter activity through its NADH-dependent interaction with the corepressor CtBP (1), thus supporting Pnn's role in transcription-specific mechanisms in the context of tumorigenesis.
Here, we investigated the potential mechanism by which the CtBP/Pnn functional interaction can influence E-cadherin gene expression. We demonstrate that CtBP can recruit Pnn to CtBP-associated silencing complexes, in turn resulting in Pnn-dependent effects on chromatin remodeling at the E-cadherin promoter. We also demonstrate that Pnn interacts with the transcriptionally competent form of Pol II and positively influences E-cadherin mRNA splicing, whereas CtBP negatively affects the splicing possible through its modulatory effect on the amount of initiation- and elongation-specific Pol II. These findings carry intriguing implications, that CtBP and Pnn may be involved in tumor progression through both promoter-dependent regulatory events and posttranscriptional mRNA processing.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Cells were transfected by utilizing 3 µl of 1 mg/ml of 25-kDa branched polyethyleneimine (Sigma-Aldrich) per 1 µg of DNA. Polyethyleneimine and DNA were incubated in serum-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium for 10 min in separate tubes. Following incubation, the contents of two tubes were combined, incubated for an additional 10 min, and applied onto cells.
Expression vectors. pCMV-CtBP1-Flag, expressing human CtBP1, and pcDNA3.1-Pnn-myc/His, expressing human Pnn (hPnn), were based on pCMV-Flag (Stratagene) and pcDNA3.1-myc/His (Invitrogen), respectively. The Pnn-His-glutathione S-transferase (GST) fusion construct was based on the Pet 42b(+) vector (Novagen). The ZEB1-myc vector was a gift from A. A. Postigo and D. C. Dean (Washington University). The mSin3A-myc vector was a gift from E. Seto (University of South Florida).
RNA Pol II antibodies. Mouse anti-RNA Pol II H14 antibody recognizes the phosphoserine 5 form of initiation-specific Pol II (Covance), mouse anti-RNA Pol II H5 antibody recognizes the phosphoserine 2 form of elongation-specific Pol II (Covance), mouse anti-RNA Pol II 8WG16 antibody recognizes the hypophosphorylated form of preinitiation Pol II (Covance), and rabbit N-20 antibody recognizes the N terminus of Pol II (Santa Cruz).
Coimmunoprecipitation and immunoblotting. HEK293 cells were transfected with 4 µg of the expression plasmid ZEB1-myc or mSin3A-myc and CtBP1-Flag in the presence or absence of 4 µg of Pnn-green fluorescent protein (GFP). Twenty-four hours posttransfection, cells were washed with cold phosphate-buffered saline and lysed in immunoprecipitation buffer (20 mM HEPES [pH 7.9], 200 mM NaCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM EDTA, 10 mM KCl, 25% glycerol [vol/vol], 2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and complete cocktail of protease inhibitors [Roche]).
Coimmunoprecipitations were performed using anti-Flag (Sigma-Aldrich) or anti-myc agarose beads (Sigma-Aldrich). Immunoprecipitates were eluted with sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) sample buffer and fractionated by electrophoresis on 8% SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) gels, followed by Western blotting.
ChIP assays. Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) was performed according to guidelines from Upstate Biotechnology. ChIPs were performed using Flag M2 agarose (Sigma-Aldrich) or the following antibodies: rabbit anti-acetylated histone H3 at lysine 9 (Upstate), rabbit anti-dimethylated histone 3 at lysine 9 (diMeH3K9) (Upstate), rabbit anti-acetylated histone H at lysine 14 (Upstate), N-20 anti-Pol II (Santa Cruz), and rabbit anti-CBP (Abcam). For the real-time PCRs, primers spanning the E-cadherin promoter region, the E-cadherin intragenic region, the GAPDH (glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase) promoter region, and the GAPDH intragenic region were utilized.
Isolation of the endogenous Pnn-Pol II complex. sHeLa nuclear (200 µl) lysates were brought up to 500 µl with equilibration buffer (20 mM HEPES [pH 7.9], 150 mM NaCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM EDTA, 10 mM KCl, 25% glycerol [vol/vol]) and incubated with rabbit N-20 (Santa Cruz) or control immunoglobulin G (IgG) for 2 h, followed by a 1-h incubation with protein A-Sepharose Fast Flow (Amersham Biosciences). Beads were then washed with equilibration buffer and resuspended in SDS loading buffer. Proteins were resolved by 8% SDS-PAGE followed by Western blotting.
Pnn and RNA Pol II complex isolation. Nuclear extracts from sHeLa Pnn-Flag-HA cells expressed tagged Pnn at a ratio to the endogenous Pnn of 1:1 and were prepared as described previously (34). Nuclear extracts from 4 liters of cells were incubated with anti-FLAG M2 monoclonal antibody-conjugated agarose beads (Sigma-Aldrich), followed by washes until no Pnn was released and elution with SDS loading buffer. The samples were subjected to SDS-PAGE followed by Western blotting.
Lysate-dependent kinase and binding reactions. Kinase reactions were performed as described previously (31), with modifications. Isolated nuclei were resuspended in kinase buffer (20 mM HEPES [pH 7.4], 50 mM NaCl, 10 mM MgCl2, 0.02% NP-40, 1 mM dithiothreitol) and briefly sonicated. Lysates, which also served as the "input" for pull-down experiments, were centrifuged and applied onto recombinant C-terminal domain (CTD)-GST or Pnn-GST immobilized on glutathione agarose in the presence of 1 mM ATP. Reaction mixtures were incubated at 30°C for 1 h with shaking. Control reaction mixtures contained kinase buffer instead of nuclear lysates. Beads were washed three times in kinase buffer and resuspended in SDS buffer. The samples were subjected to SDS-PAGE followed by Western blotting.
Splicing reporters and splicing assays. The E-cadherin exon 4-intron-exon 5 segment was PCR amplified using Pfu polymerase (Stratagene) and genomic DNA as a template. Splicing reporter constructs were based on the pGL-3 basic luciferase reporter (Promega) carrying the –427 +53 E-cadherin basal promoter or the simian virus 40 (SV40) promoter. Luciferase cDNA was excised and replaced with the cassette, which included intact exon 4 (144 bp) and exon 5 (156 bp) of the E-cadherin gene linked by the native intronic sequence (124 bp). E-cadherin[E-cadEx4-Ex5] or SV40[E-cadEx4-Ex5] splicing reporters contained E-cadherin or SV40 promoters driving the E-cadherin exon 4-intron-exon 5 cassette, which was followed by the SV40 poly(A) signal sequence carried over with the pGL-3 backbone.
HEK293 cells were cotransfected with 500 ng of splicing reporters and 1 and 2 µg of Pnn expression vector or 1 µg of Pnn RNA interference (RNAi) short hairpin vector (20) or the GFP RNAi vector as a control. One microgram of the CtBP expression vector was used in the splicing experiments. The total amount of DNA was equalized using an unrelated vector. Twenty-four hours posttransfection, total RNA was isolated using a NucleoSpin kit (BD Biosciences). RNA was additionally treated with RQ1 DNase (Promega) for 1 h, followed by phenol-chloroform extraction. An equal amount of RNA was subjected to reverse transcription (RT) using a cMaster RT kit (Eppendorf) primed with an SV40-specific primer. The resulting cDNA was 26-cycle PCR amplified utilizing E-cadherin exon 4- and exon 5-specific primers. In the case of CD44 splicing assays, 3 µg of total RNA was subjected to RT, followed by 30 cycles of PCR utilizing primers specific for variant and constant exons. The linear amplification range of the PCR products was determined in pilot experiments. PCR products were resolved utilizing a 5% Tris-borate-EDTA-polyacrylamide Criterion gel system followed by staining for detection using SYBR green dye (Molecular Probes). Gels were scanned on a Typhoon 8600 apparatus (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). The band intensities of the amplicons were quantified utilizing ImageQuant software (Molecular Dynamics). In addition, PCR products corresponding to spliced and unspliced E-cadherin message were excised from the gel and verified by sequencing. For endogenous E-cadherin splicing, 3 µg of total RNA from both wild type (wt/wt) mouse embryonic stem cells and Pnn(3f/3f) (hypomorh) mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells was subjected to RT, followed by 30-cycle PCR to detect intronic and spliced E-cadherin signal and 25-cycle PCR to detect GAPDH message. PCRs were resolved on a 1.5% agarose gel and stained with ethidium bromide. The band intensities of the amplicons were quantified using ImageJ software.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
Next, we determined whether the binding to CtBP is essential for Pnn's presence at the silencing complexes. HEK293 cells were cotransfected with ZEB1-myc (Fig. 2A) or mSin3A-myc (Fig. 2B) in the presence of RNAi vectors directed against either CtBP1 (Fig. 2B, lanes 2 and 4) or GFP (lanes 1 and 3) as a control. The transient transfection of the RNAi vector for CtBP1 resulted in an approximately 60% reduction in CtBP1 protein levels. Immunoprecipitations from the extracts of the RNAi-treated cells were performed using anti-myc agarose, followed by Western blotting using anti-Pnn-143 and anti-myc antibodies. These experiments revealed that endogenous Pnn was detected in anti-ZEB1-myc and anti-mSin3A-myc immunoprecipitates from control RNAi-treated cells. On the other hand, the amount of Pnn was significantly diminished in the anti-ZEB-myc and anti-mSin3A-myc immunoprecipitates from the extracts of cells treated with CtBP RNAi. These data are consistent with the contention that the association of Pnn with the ZEB1/CtBP and mSin3A/CtBP repressor complexes may be CtBP dependent, as depicted in Fig. 1B.
|
|
|
CtBP can affect the Pol II phosphorylation status. Because Pnn interacts with both CtBP and Pol II, we wanted to determine whether or not CtBP can affect the Pnn/Pol II association. We performed coimmunoprecipitations using antibodies against initiation- and elongation-specific Pol II from the nuclear extracts of HeLa or HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA cells. However, we consistently found less phosphorylated Pol II in the precipitates from the HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA cells than in control HeLa cells (data not shown). Therefore, in order to determine whether CtBP can affect the degree of Pol II phosphorylation, we lysed the same number of nuclei from HeLa cells or HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA cells in SDS-containing buffer and subjected samples to SDS-PAGE. Interestingly, lysates of HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA nuclei contained moderately smaller amounts of initiation-specific Pol II and significantly less elongation-specific Pol II than did lysates of control HeLa nuclei (Fig. 4C). N-20 antibody against the N terminus of Pol II, which recognizes both hyperphosphorylated (IIo) and hypophosphorylated (IIa) forms of Pol II, demonstrated an increase in the ratio of hypophosphorylated to hyperphosphorylated forms of Pol II in HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA nuclei compared to control HeLa cell nuclei (Fig. 4C).
Next, we determined if CtBP has an effect on the phosphorylation status of the C-terminal domain of Pol II in vitro. We adopted the protocol based on the in vitro phosphorylation reaction of the C-terminal domain of Pol II, which utilizes the recombinant CTD as a substrate and nuclear extract as a source of kinase activity (31). We incubated recombinant CTD-GST and Pnn-GST, which served as substrates, with either HeLa or HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA nuclear extracts, which served as sources of kinase activity, in the presence of kinase buffer. We chose Pnn as a control substrate because it is a known SR-like phosphoprotein that carries a C-terminal stretch of serine residues, which are heavily phosphorylated on SR protein family members. Antibody against GST was used on Western blots to detect a CTD molecular weight shift after incubation with nuclear extracts due to lysate-dependent posttranslational modifications (Fig. 4D). Interestingly, incubation with HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA nuclear extracts resulted in a smaller shift of the CTD than that elicited by control HeLa nuclear extracts. Consistent with the SDS-PAGE gel shift, Western blots for CTD phosphorylated at Ser-5 detected less Ser-5 CTD phosphorylation subsequent to incubation with HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA nuclear extracts than did control HeLa nuclear extracts. Unfortunately, anti-phosphorylated Ser-2 antibody exhibited possible cross-reactivity to GST and was therefore omitted during the experiments. In contrast, when we utilized recombinant Pnn-GST as a substrate, we detected a more prominent molecular weight shift of Pnn in reactions utilizing HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA nuclear extracts than in those utilizing control HeLa nuclear extracts. These data suggest that CtBP might have a specific negative effect on the Pol II-CTD phosphorylation status.
Most interestingly, when CTD-bound material from the nuclear lysate-dependent kinase reactions was Western blotted for Pnn and members of the SR family of splicing factors, we found less Pnn and SR proteins associated with Pol II-CTD in HeLa CtBP-Flag-HA lysates than in control HeLa lysates (Fig. 4E). Because Pnn and SR proteins target predominantly phosphorylated CTD, it is tempting to speculate that CtBP negatively affects these interactions by either directly or indirectly inhibiting CTD phosphorylation.
CtBP and Pnn differentially affect mRNA splicing. Because Pnn is involved in pre-mRNA processing (27, 58), we considered the possibility that Pnn expression can impact the efficiency of E-cadherin mRNA splicing. To examine this, we created splicing reporter constructs, which carried the intact E-cadherin exon 4-intron-exon 5 cassette driven by either the E-cadherin promoter or the SV40 promoters (Fig. 5). HEK293 cells were cotransfected with splicing reporters along with increasing amounts of Pnn. Increasing the expression of Pnn resulted in a greater ratio of spliced to total mRNA when the reporter was driven by the E-cadherin promoter (Fig. 5A, left). However, no Pnn-induced increase of splicing was observed with SV40 promoter-driven constructs (Fig. 5A, right). Consistent with these observations, splicing assays conducted in the presence of Pnn RNAi demonstrated a reduction in the ratio of spliced to total mRNA with the E-cadherin-driven vectors (Fig. 5B, left) but not with SV40 promoter-containing constructs (Fig. 5B, right). These data suggest that Pnn may be capable of modulating E-cadherin mRNA splicing efficiency in a promoter-specific manner. Next, we wanted to determine if Pnn has an effect on endogenous E-cadherin splicing. For this purpose, we utilized mouse ES cells carrying the insertion of a neomycin resistance cassette into intron 8 of Pnn (3f/3f cells), which results in a hypomorphic knockdown of Pnn (approximately 90%) (21). Splicing assays were performed using RT-PCR, where unspliced message was detected using primers against E-cadherin intron 2, whereas total spliced E-cadherin message was detected using primers spanning the region between exons 4 and 8 (Fig. 5C). The 3f/3f cells exhibited lower levels of E-cadherin message than did wild-type (wt/wt) ES cells, supporting the role of Pnn in the regulation of E-cadherin expression. Furthermore, the 3f/3f cells displayed an accumulation of the intronic amplicon, which resulted in an increased ratio of unspliced to total mRNA message compared to wt/wt cells (Fig. 5C, bottom). These data suggest that in 3f/3f cells, splicing is hindered compared to that in wt/wt cells. For cotranscriptional splicing to occur, splicing factors are recruited to the processive RNA Pol II as it progresses along the transcribed gene. Thus, we determined whether Pnn is present within the E-cadherin open reading frame. HeLa Pnn-Flag-HA cells were subjected to ChIP utilizing anti-Flag affinity agarose followed by qPCR using E-cadherin intragenic primers or GAPDH intragenic primers as a control (Fig. 5D). Pnn was enriched in the E-cadherin intragenic region but not in the GAPDH intragenic region. These data, together with Pnn/Pol II interaction studies, support Pnn's role in E-cadherin mRNA processing, possibly through its interaction with transcribing Pol II.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In the complex set of events which govern the regulation of E-cadherin gene expression, we were able to track functional interactions of the corepressor CtBP and Pnn at the promoter via the repressors ZEB1 and mSin3A, which are known to associate with CtBP, and target E-cadherin (7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 23, 38, 41, 51, 61).
The fact that Pnn, a protein with no known role in transcriptional repression, is recruited to the CtBP-dependent complexes implies that the composition of the repression apparatus may not be limited to proteins involved directly in gene silencing but rather may include proteins that function in mRNA processing and even factors capable of reversing the silencing effect. Indeed, we demonstrate that the presence of Pnn at the E-cadherin promoter correlated with increased histone H4 acetylation, a decrease in histone H3K9 dimethylation, as well as the increased presence of RNA Pol II, which are correlated with transcriptionally active chromatin. These findings provide indirect support for the context-dependent effect of regulatory complexes on a target gene. For example, a protein complex can deliver a silencing or activating effect on the gene promoter, depending on its factor composition. Indeed, this postulate parallels a newly described model showing a cofactor-mediated specificity for histone demethylation exerted by a CtBP-associated factor, LSD1 (49). For instance, LSD1 may act as an activator or repressor depending on the constituents of the LSD1-associated protein complex (59). Therefore, Pnn might be capable of attenuating CtBP-mediated repression by being recruited to the CtBP complex, where CtBP serves as a bridging molecule.
The idea that CtBP and Pnn may directly or indirectly coordinate various aspects of gene expression is substantiated by our findings that Pnn and CtBP have differential effects on the mRNA splicing efficiency. By utilizing a splicing reporter construct driven by the basal promoter of E-cadherin and containing the exon 4-intron-exon 5 cassette, we demonstrated that Pnn expression enhances E-cadherin mRNA splicing efficiency. Unexpectedly, yet perhaps more interestingly, we found that CtBP inhibits the correct splicing of E-cadherin mRNA and promotes the inclusion of alternative exons of the CD44 gene. Furthermore, CtBP inhibited Ser-5 and Ser-2 phosphorylation of the C-terminal domain of RNA Pol II, leading to the depletion of the nuclear pool of initiation-specific and elongation-specific Pol II. We speculate that in addition to its silencing effect through chromatin remodeling, CtBP can affect gene expression through altering Pol II phosphorylation and preventing the assembly of regulators of splicing, such as Pnn, on the elongating Pol II. The fact that Pnn has indeed been described as being part of the Pol II-associated complexes involved in transcriptional initiation and elongation, such as Mediator and CA150 (45, 53), further supports the idea of the CtBP-dependent influence on basal transcriptional machinery.
Therefore, CtBP and Pnn might have differential effects on E-cadherin gene expression through the association with regulatory complexes at the E-cadherin promoter as well as through their effect on splicing, linking promoter-related events and transcription-coupled mRNA processing. These findings resonate recent data describing the promoter-dependent control of splicing decisions exerted by hormone receptor coregulators (3, 24) as well as regulation of splicing by the chromatin-remodeling factor Brm (5, 25).
The conceptual mechanism of transcription-coupled splicing involving CtBP and Pnn can be visualized as efficiency-driven equilibrium, where CtBP modulates gene expression through transcriptional as well as splicing-related protein interactions. In this situation, gene repression can be coordinated through a CtBP-mediated effect at the gene promoters along with its negative influence on the recruitment of the splicing machinery by Pol II. This coupling delivers an efficient "brake" control to the CtBP target genes. It is unclear at this point whether the CtBP-mediated recruitment of the silencing factors to the gene promoters proceeds with a similar or equal rate compared to the dissociation of splicing factors from Pol II. However, it is likely that because CtBP serves as a common interface between these two events, these processes may progress in a compatible manner and are subject to orchestrated regulation by CtBP.
The CtBP-mediated effect on the splicing apparatus carries an important implication with respect to the mechanisms involved in the control of tumor suppressor genes such as E-cadherin and CD44. The fact that CtBP inhibits mRNA processing of a major tumor suppressor gene, E-cadherin, stresses the importance of thorough examinations of tumor-promoting transcriptional repressors that might in fact confer metastatic potential to the transformed cells through both transcriptional inhibition and modulation of mRNA splicing. In addition, by promoting the inclusion of the CD44 alternative exons, CtBP might also influence tumor progression. It is widely accepted that CD44 splice variants heavily influence the metastatic states of numerous tumors (5, 6). Our observations that CtBP influences the inclusion of some of the alternative CD44 exons provide additional evidence of CtBP-mediated posttranscriptional events known to be involved in tumorigenesis. Further detailed analysis of CtBP's impact on the splicing of CD44 and its consequences with respect to cellular metastasis is certainly in order. Importantly, in this context, gene expression profiles of various tumors based on microarray technology alone, which may not provide significant insight into the differential gene expression patterns, might not adequately address the possibility that a significant number of genes may also be regulated through posttranscriptional mRNA processing events. Therefore, approaches such as splice variant-specific microarrays might become increasingly relevant in correlative gene expression profiling, which links transcriptional repressors, such as CtBP, and the tumor-specific potential to metastasize.
Taken together, our data suggest that the differential regulation of tumor suppressor genes, especially under pathological conditions such as cancer, might be heavily influenced by the transcription-associated bridging proteins that are capable of coordinating promoter-specific and mRNA splicing events.
In conclusion, we propose the concept of the functional coupling of processes governing gene expression where CtBP and Pnn serve as an example of unique protein factors that contribute to promoter-related complex interactions as well as impact mRNA processing (Fig. 7). This idea provides an exciting opportunity for pharmacological targeting of various cancers, whereby a carefully designed targeting strategy directed toward a single key regulatory molecule will have a cumulative and hopefully beneficial effect at multiple control points.
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank A. A. Postigo and D. C. Dean (Washington University) for the ZEB1-myc vector and E. Seto (University of South Florida) for the mSin3A-myc vector.
This work was supported by NIH grant EY07883 to S.P.S.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Published ahead of print on 17 December 2007.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
2. Auboeuf, D., D. H. Dowhan, X. Li, K. Larkin, L. Ko, S. M. Berget, and B. W. O'Malley. 2004. CoAA, a nuclear receptor coactivator protein at the interface of transcriptional coactivation and RNA splicing. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24:442-453.
3. Auboeuf, D., A. Honig, S. M. Berget, and B. W. O'Malley. 2002. Coordinate regulation of transcription and splicing by steroid receptor coregulators. Science 298:416-419.
4. Balasubramanian, P., L. J. Zhao, and G. Chinnadurai. 2003. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide stimulates oligomerization, interaction with adenovirus E1A and an intrinsic dehydrogenase activity of CtBP. FEBS Lett. 537:157-160.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Batsche, E., M. Yaniv, and C. Muchardt. 2006. The human SWI/SNF subunit Brm is a regulator of alternative splicing. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 13:22-29.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Cheng, C., and P. A. Sharp. 2006. Regulation of CD44 alternative splicing by SRm160 and its potential role in tumor cell invasion. Mol. Cell. Biol. 26:362-370.
7. Chinnadurai, G. 2002. CtBP, an unconventional transcriptional corepressor in development and oncogenesis. Mol. Cell 9:213-224.[CrossRef][Medline]
8. Comijn, J., G. Berx, P. Vermassen, K. Verschueren, L. van Grunsven, E. Bruyneel, M. Mareel, D. Huylebroeck, and F. van Roy. 2001. The two-handed E box binding zinc finger protein SIP1 downregulates E-cadherin and induces invasion. Mol. Cell 7:1267-1278.[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Cramer, P., J. F. Caceres, D. Cazalla, S. Kadener, A. F. Muro, F. E. Baralle, and A. R. Kornblihtt. 1999. Coupling of transcription with alternative splicing: RNA pol II promoters modulate SF2/ASF and 9G8 effects on an exonic splicing enhancer. Mol. Cell 4:251-258.[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Cramer, P., C. G. Pesce, F. E. Baralle, and A. R. Kornblihtt. 1997. Functional association between promoter structure and transcript alternative splicing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:11456-11460.
11. Cramer, P., A. Srebrow, S. Kadener, S. Werbajh, M. de la Mata, G. Melen, G. Nogues, and A. R. Kornblihtt. 2001. Coordination between transcription and pre-mRNA processing. FEBS Lett. 498:179-182.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Dowhan, D. H., E. P. Hong, D. Auboeuf, A. P. Dennis, M. M. Wilson, S. M. Berget, and B. W. O'Malley. 2005. Steroid hormone receptor coactivation and alternative RNA splicing by U2AF65-related proteins CAPERalpha and CAPERbeta. Mol. Cell 17:429-439.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Fjeld, C. C., W. T. Birdsong, and R. H. Goodman. 2003. Differential binding of NAD+ and NADH allows the transcriptional corepressor carboxyl-terminal binding protein to serve as a metabolic sensor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:9202-9207.
14. Grimes, J. A., S. J. Nielsen, E. Battaglioli, E. A. Miska, J. C. Speh, D. L. Berry, F. Atouf, B. C. Holdener, G. Mandel, and T. Kouzarides. 2000. The co-repressor mSin3A is a functional component of the REST-CoREST repressor complex. J. Biol. Chem. 275:9461-9467.
15. Grooteclaes, M., Q. Deveraux, J. Hildebrand, Q. Zhang, R. H. Goodman, and S. M. Frisch. 2003. C-terminal-binding protein corepresses epithelial and proapoptotic gene expression programs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:4568-4573.
16. Grooteclaes, M. L., and S. M. Frisch. 2000. Evidence for a function of CtBP in epithelial gene regulation and anoikis. Oncogene 19:3823-3828.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Hildebrand, J. D., and P. Soriano. 2002. Overlapping and unique roles for C-terminal binding protein 1 (CtBP1) and CtBP2 during mouse development. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22:5296-5307.
18. Hirose, Y., and J. L. Manley. 2000. RNA polymerase II and the integration of nuclear events. Genes Dev. 14:1415-1429.
19. Izutsu, K., M. Kurokawa, Y. Imai, K. Maki, K. Mitani, and H. Hirai. 2001. The corepressor CtBP interacts with Evi-1 to repress transforming growth factor beta signaling. Blood 97:2815-2822.
20. Joo, J. H., R. Alpatov, G. C. Munguba, M. R. Jackson, M. E. Hunt, and S. P. Sugrue. 2005. Reduction of Pnn by RNAi induces loss of cell-cell adhesion between human corneal epithelial cells. Mol. Vis. 11:133-142.[Medline]
21. Joo, J. H., Y. J. Lee, G. C. Munguba, S. Park, T. J. Taxter, M. Y. Elsagga, M. R. Jackson, S. P. Oh, and S. P. Sugrue. 2007. Role of Pinin in neural crest, dorsal dermis, and axial skeleton development and its involvement in the regulation of Tcf/Lef activity in mice. Dev. Dyn. 236:2147-2158.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Kim, J. H., E. J. Cho, S. T. Kim, and H. D. Youn. 2005. CtBP represses p300-mediated transcriptional activation by direct association with its bromodomain. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 12:423-428.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Koipally, J., and K. Georgopoulos. 2000. Ikaros interactions with CtBP reveal a repression mechanism that is independent of histone deacetylase activity. J. Biol. Chem. 275:19594-19602.
24. Kornblihtt, A. R. 2005. Promoter usage and alternative splicing. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 17:262-268.[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Kornblihtt, A. R. 2006. Chromatin, transcript elongation and alternative splicing. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 13:5-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Kumar, V., J. E. Carlson, K. A. Ohgi, T. A. Edwards, D. W. Rose, C. R. Escalante, M. G. Rosenfeld, and A. K. Aggarwal. 2002. Transcription corepressor CtBP is an NAD(+)-regulated dehydrogenase. Mol. Cell 10:857-869.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Li, C., R. I. Lin, M. C. Lai, P. Ouyang, and W. Y. Tarn. 2003. Nuclear Pnn/DRS protein binds to spliced mRNPs and participates in mRNA processing and export via interaction with RNPS1. Mol. Cell. Biol. 23:7363-7376.
28. Maniatis, T., and R. Reed. 2002. An extensive network of coupling among gene expression machines. Nature 416:499-506.[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Melhuish, T. A., and D. Wotton. 2000. The interaction of the carboxyl terminus-binding protein with the Smad corepressor TGIF is disrupted by a holoprosencephaly mutation in TGIF. J. Biol. Chem. 275:39762-39766.
30. Meloni, A. R., E. J. Smith, and J. R. Nevins. 1999. A mechanism for Rb/p130-mediated transcription repression involving recruitment of the CtBP corepressor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:9574-9579.
31. Moisan, A., C. Larochelle, B. Guillemette, and L. Gaudreau. 2004. BRCA1 can modulate RNA polymerase II carboxy-terminal domain phosphorylation levels. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24:6947-6956.
32. Nardini, M., S. Spano, C. Cericola, A. Pesce, A. Massaro, E. Millo, A. Luini, D. Corda, and M. Bolognesi. 2003. CtBP/BARS: a dual-function protein involved in transcription co-repression and Golgi membrane fission. EMBO J. 22:3122-3130.[CrossRef][Medline]
33. Nitta, E., K. Izutsu, Y. Yamaguchi, Y. Imai, S. Ogawa, S. Chiba, M. Kurokawa, and H. Hirai. 2005. Oligomerization of Evi-1 regulated by the PR domain contributes to recruitment of corepressor CtBP. Oncogene 24:6165-6173.[CrossRef][Medline]
34. Ogawa, H., K. Ishiguro, S. Gaubatz, D. M. Livingston, and Y. Nakatani. 2002. A complex with chromatin modifiers that occupies E2F- and Myc-responsive genes in G0 cells. Science 296:1132-1136.
35. Ouyang, P., and S. P. Sugrue. 1996. Characterization of pinin, a novel protein associated with the desmosome-intermediate filament complex. J. Cell Biol. 135:1027-1042.
36. Ouyang, P., and S. P. Sugrue. 1992. Identification of an epithelial protein related to the desmosome and intermediate filament network. J. Cell Biol. 118:1477-1488.
37. Pagani, F., C. Stuani, E. Zuccato, A. R. Kornblihtt, and F. E. Baralle. 2003. Promoter architecture modulates CFTR exon 9 skipping. J. Biol. Chem. 278:1511-1517.
38. Peinado, H., E. Ballestar, M. Esteller, and A. Cano. 2004. Snail mediates E-cadherin repression by the recruitment of the Sin3A/histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1)/HDAC2 complex. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24:306-319.
39. Phippen, T. M., A. L. Sweigart, M. Moniwa, A. Krumm, J. R. Davie, and S. M. Parkhurst. 2000. Drosophila C-terminal binding protein functions as a context-dependent transcriptional co-factor and interferes with both mad and groucho transcriptional repression. J. Biol. Chem. 275:37628-37637.
40. Postigo, A. A., and D. C. Dean. 2000. Differential expression and function of members of the zfh-1 family of zinc finger/homeodomain repressors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:6391-6396.
41. Postigo, A. A., and D. C. Dean. 1999. ZEB represses transcription through interaction with the corepressor CtBP. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:6683-6688.
42. Proudfoot, N. J., A. Furger, and M. J. Dye. 2002. Integrating mRNA processing with transcription. Cell 108:501-512.[CrossRef][Medline]
43. Reed, R. 2003. Coupling transcription, splicing and mRNA export. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 15:326-331.[CrossRef][Medline]
44. Sakashita, E., S. Tatsumi, D. Werner, H. Endo, and A. Mayeda. 2004. Human RNPS1 and its associated factors: a versatile alternative pre-mRNA splicing regulator in vivo. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24:1174-1187.
45. Sato, S., C. Tomomori-Sato, T. J. Parmely, L. Florens, B. Zybailov, S. K. Swanson, C. A. Banks, J. Jin, Y. Cai, M. P. Washburn, J. W. Conaway, and R. C. Conaway. 2004. A set of consensus mammalian mediator subunits identified by multidimensional protein identification technology. Mol. Cell 14:685-691.[CrossRef][Medline]
46. Sewalt, R. G. A. B., M. J. Gunster, J. van der Vlag, D. P. E. Satijn, and A. P. Otte. 1999. C-terminal binding protein is a transcriptional repressor that interacts with a specific class of vertebrate Polycomb proteins. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19:777-787.
47. Shi, J., and S. P. Sugrue. 2000. Dissection of protein linkage between keratins and pinin, a protein with dual location at desmosome-intermediate filament complex and in the nucleus. J. Biol. Chem. 275:14910-14915.
48. Shi, Y., M. N. Simmons, T. Seki, S. P. Oh, and S. P. Sugrue. 2001. Change in gene expression subsequent to induction of Pnn/DRS/memA: increase in p21(cip1/waf1). Oncogene 20:4007-4018.[CrossRef][Medline]
49. Shi, Y., F. Lan, C. Matson, P. Mulligan, J. R. Whetstine, P. A. Cole, and R. A. Casero. 2004. Histone demethylation mediated by the nuclear amine oxidase homolog LSD1. Cell 119:941-953.[CrossRef][Medline]
50. Shi, Y., P. Ouyang, and S. P. Sugrue. 2000. Characterization of the gene encoding pinin/DRS/memA and evidence for its potential tumor suppressor function. Oncogene 19:289-297.[CrossRef][Medline]
51. Shi, Y., J. Sawada, G. Sui, B. el Affar, J. R. Whetstine, F. Lan, H. Ogawa, M. P. Luke, and Y. Nakatani. 2003. Coordinated histone modifications mediated by a CtBP co-repressor complex. Nature 422:735-738.[CrossRef][Medline]
52. Shi, Y., M. Tabesh, and S. P. Sugrue. 2000. Role of cell adhesion-associated protein, pinin (DRS/memA), in corneal epithelial migration. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 41:1337-1345.
53. Smith, M. J., S. Kulkarni, and T. Pawson. 2004. FF domains of CA150 bind transcription and splicing factors through multiple weak interactions. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24:9274-9285.
54. Srinivasan, L., and M. L. Atchison. 2004. YY1 DNA binding and PcG recruitment requires CtBP. Genes Dev. 18:2596-2601.
55. Sutrias-Grau, M., and D. N. Arnosti. 2004. CtBP contributes quantitatively to Knirps repression activity in an NAD binding-dependent manner. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24:5953-5966.
56. Tasic, B., C. E. Nabholz, K. K. Baldwin, Y. Kim, E. H. Rueckert, S. A. Ribich, P. Cramer, Q. Wu, R. Axel, and T. Maniatis. 2002. Promoter choice determines splice site selection in protocadherin alpha and gamma pre-mRNA splicing. Mol. Cell 10:21-33.[CrossRef][Medline]
57. Thio, S. S., J. V. Bonventre, and S. I. Hsu. 2004. The CtBP2 co-repressor is regulated by NADH-dependent dimerization and possesses a novel N-terminal repression domain. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:1836-1847.
58. Wang, P., P. J. Lou, S. Leu, and P. Ouyang. 2002. Modulation of alternative pre-mRNA splicing in vivo by pinin. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 294:448-455.[CrossRef][Medline]
59. Wysocka, J., T. A. Milne, and C. D. Allis. 2005. Taking LSD1 to a new high. Cell 122:654-658.[CrossRef][Medline]
60. Zhang, C., D. R. Dowd, A. Staal, C. Gu, J. B. Lian, A. J. van Wijnen, G. S. Stein, and P. N. MacDonald. 2003. Nuclear coactivator-62 kDa/Ski-interacting protein is a nuclear matrix-associated coactivator that may couple vitamin D receptor-mediated transcription and RNA splicing. J. Biol. Chem. 278:35325-35336.
61. Zhang, Q., D. W. Piston, and R. H. Goodman. 2002. Regulation of corepressor function by nuclear NADH. Science 295:1895-1897.
62. Zhang, Q., S. Wang, A. Nottke, J. V. Rocheleau, D. W. Piston, and R. H. Goodman. 2006. Redox sensor CtBP mediates hypoxia-induced tumor cell migration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103:9029-9033.
63. Zimowska, G., J. Shi, G. Munguba, M. R. Jackson, R. Alpatov, M. N. Simmons, Y. Shi, and S. P. Sugrue. 2003. Pinin/DRS/memA interacts with SRp75, SRm300 and SRrp130 in corneal epithelial cells. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 44:4715-4723.
64. Zorio, D. A., and D. L. Bentley. 2004. The link between mRNA processing and transcription: communication works both ways. Exp. Cell Res. 296:91-97.[CrossRef][Medline]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
