Sp1 Regulates Chromatin Looping between an Intronic Enhancer and Distal Promoter of the Human Heme Oxygenase-1 Gene in Renal Cells

HO-1 (heme oxygenase-1) is an inducible microsomal enzyme that catalyzes the degradation of pro-oxidant heme. The goal of this study was to characterize a minimal enhancer region within the human HO-1 gene and delineate its role in modulating HO-1 expression by participation with its promoter elements in renal epithelial cells. Deletion analysis and site-directed mutagenesis identified a 220-bp minimal enhancer in intron 1 of the HO-1 gene, which regulates hemin-mediated HO-1 gene expression. Small interfering RNA, decoy oligonucleotides, site-directed mutagenesis, and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays confirmed the functional interaction of Sp1 with a consensus binding sequence within the 220-bp region. Mutations of regulatory elements within the −4.5 kb promoter region (a cyclic AMP response and a downstream NF-E2/AP-1 element, both located at −4.0 kb, and/or an E-box sequence located at −44 bp) resulted in the loss of enhancer activity. A chromosome conformation capture assay performed in human renal epithelial (HK-2) cells demonstrated hemin-inducible chromatin looping between the intronic enhancer and the −4.0 kb promoter region in a time-dependent manner. Restriction digestion with ApaLI (which cleaves the 220-bp enhancer) led to a loss of stimulus-dependent chromatin looping. Sp1 small interfering RNA and mithramycin A, a Sp1 binding site inhibitor, resulted in loss of the loop formation between the intronic enhancer and the distal HO-1 promoter by the chromosome conformation capture assay. These results provide novel insight into the complex molecular interactions that underlie human HO-1 regulation in renal epithelial cells.     

The Promoter of the Immunoglobulin J Chain Gene Receives Its Authentic Enhancer Activity through the Abutting MEF2 and PU.1 Sites in a DNA-Looping Interaction

Immunoglobulin J chain (IgJ) promoter had previously been dissected in the context of a heterologous enhancer and/or promoter because its strength was weak and its authentic enhancer was not available at that time. Thus, it has been questioned whether the previous dissection of the IgJ promoter might also be relevant in the context of its authentic enhancer. Now that the authentic IgJ enhancer has been identified, redelineation of the IgJ promoter could be performed in the context of this authentic enhancer. In this redelineation, the previously identified MEF2 and PU.1 sites were shown to be critical for communicating with its authentic enhancer and thereby for receiving enhancer activity. In accordance with this finding, a DNA-looping interaction between the IgJ promoter and its enhancer was demonstrated using chromosome conformation capture assays not only in IgJ-expressing S194 plasma cells but also during interleukin-2-induced BCL1 B-cell terminal differentiation. Furthermore, MEF2 was shown to be reciprocally coimmunoprecipitated with E47, which had been identified to bind to the IgJ enhancer, suggesting that the DNA-looping interaction between the IgJ promoter and its enhancer might be mediated by these proteins. However, the previously identified USF and BSAP sites were shown to be not important for IgJ promoter activity in the context of its authentic enhancer. These findings were further supported by in vivo footprinting and/or chromatin immunoprecipitation assays, which showed the binding of MEF2 and PU.1—but not the binding of USF and BSAP—to the IgJ promoter.     

CRX controls retinal expression of the X-linked juvenile retinoschisis (RS1) gene

X-linked juvenile retinoschisis is a heritable condition of the retina in males caused by mutations in the RS1 gene. Still, the cellular function and retina-specific expression of RS1 are poorly understood. To address the latter issue, we characterized the minimal promoter driving expression of RS1 in the retina. Binding site prediction, site-directed mutagenesis, and reporter assays suggest an essential role of two nearby cone-rod homeobox (CRX)-responsive elements (CRE) in the proximal −177/+32 RS1 promoter. Chromatin immunoprecipitation associates the RS1 promoter in vivo with CRX, the coactivators CBP, P300, GCN5 and acetylated histone H3. Transgenic Xenopus laevis expressing a green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter under the control of RS1 promoter sequences show that the −177/+32 fragment drives GFP expression in photoreceptors and bipolar cells. Mutating either of the two conserved CRX binding sites results in strongly decreased RS1 expression. Despite the presence of sequence motifs in the promoter, NRL and NR2E3 appear not to be essential for RS1 expression. Together, our in vitro and in vivo results indicate that two CRE sites in the minimal RS1 promoter region control retinal RS1 expression and establish CRX as a key factor driving this expression.     

A nonsense exon in the Tpm1 gene is silenced by hnRNP H and F

As well as generating protein isoform diversity, in some cases alternative splicing generates RNAs that harbor premature termination codons and that are subject to nonsense-mediated decay (NMD). We previously identified an apparent pseudo-exon in the rat α-tropomyosin (Tpm1) gene as a probable genuine alternatively spliced exon that causes NMD when spliced into Tpm1 RNA. Here, we report the analysis of cis-acting splicing regulatory elements within this “nonsense exon.” Guided by the data set of predicted splicing enhancer and silencer elements compiled by Zhang and Chasin, we made a series of mutations through the nonsense exon and found that like authentic exons it is densely packed with enhancer and silencer elements. Strikingly, 11 of 13 tested mutations behaved as predicted computationally. In particular, we found that a G-rich silencer at the 5′ end, which is crucial for skipping of the nonsense exon, functions by binding hnRNP-H and F.     

Regulatory potential of S/MAR elements in transient expression

S/MARs (scaffold/matrix attachment regions) are the DNA regions that are involved in the interaction with the nuclear matrix and are identified by in vitro methods. According to the available information, S/MARs possess an insulating activity, i.e., the ability to block the interaction between the enhancer and promoter in vivo, and are, probably, intact insulators or their fragments. Nevertheless, there is still no direct proof for this correspondence. To obtain additional information on the insulator activity of S/MARs, we selected five DNA fragments of different lengths and affinities for the nuclear matrix from a previously constructed library of S/MARs and tested their ability to serve as insulators. Two of five elements exhibited an insulator (enhancer blocking) activity upon the transient transfection of CHO cells. None of the S/MARs displayed either promoter or enhancer/silencer activities in these cells.Translated from Bioorganicheskaya Khimiya, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2005, pp. 77–81.Original Russian Text Copyright © 2005 by Sass, Ruda, Akopov, Snezhkov, Nikolaev, Sverdlov.     

Retrovirus silencer blocking by the cHS4 insulator is CTCF independent

Silencing of retrovirus vectors poses a significant obstacle to genetic manipulation of stem cells and their use in gene therapy. We describe a mammalian silencer blocking assay using insulator elements positioned between retrovirus silencer elements and an LCRβ-globin reporter transgene. In transgenic mice, we show that retrovirus silencers are blocked by the cHS4 insulator. Silencer blocking is independent of the CTCF binding site and is most effective when flanking the internal reporter transgene. These data distinguish silencer blocking activity by cHS4 from its enhancer blocking activity. Retrovirus vectors can be created at high titer with one but not two internal dimer cHS4 cores. cHS4 in the LTRs has no effect on expression in transduced F9 cells, suggesting that position effect blocking is not sufficient to escape silencing. The Drosophila insulators gypsy and Scs fail to block silencing in transgenic mice, but gypsy stimulates vector expression 2-fold when located in the LTRs of an infectious retrovirus. The silencer blocking assay complements existing insulator assays in mammalian cells, provides new insight into mechanisms of insulation and is a valuable tool to identify additional silencer blocking insulators that cooperate with cHS4 to improve stem cell retrovirus vector design.     

Several copies of insulator from MDG4 can determine the interaction between positively and negatively acting regulatory elements and promoter of the miniwhite gene of Drosophila melanogaster

Fine regulation of complex gene loci in higher eukaryotes is realized through the interaction of promoters with enhancers and repressors, which can be located long distance from the promoter regulated. A question arises, what mechanisms determine proper contacts between the regulatory elements over large distances in the genome. It is suggested that the important role in this process is played by a special class of regulatory elements, insulators, which block the interaction of enhancer and promoter, if they are positioned between them. Furthermore, enhancers do not directly inactivate the activities of enhancer and promoter. Nevertheless, an enhancer, isolated from one of the promoters by an insulator, can activate another, not isolated promoter. The best studied insulator of Drosophila melanogaster was found in the 5′ regulatory region of retrotransposon MDG4. It consists of 12 binding sites for the Su(Hw) protein, which is critical for the activity of this insulator. It was demonstrated that Su(Hw) insulator could protect the gene expression from the negative influence of heterochromatin and from repression, induced by the Polycomb group proteins (Pc proteins). In the present study, it was demonstrated that in transgenic lines, two or three copies of the Su(Hw) insulator could determine the interaction of the miniwhite enhancer and Pc dependant silencer with the miniwhite promoter. Thus, it was first demonstrated that insulators could participate in the regulation of the contacts between promoter and functionally opposite elements, responsible for either gene activation, or repression. Original Russian Text ? M.V. Kostyuchenko, E.E. Savitskaya, M.N. Krivega, P.G. Georgiev, 2008, published in Genetika, 2008, Vol. 44, No. 12, pp. 1693–1697.