Direct competition between Brinker and Drosophila Mad in Dpp target gene transcription

Brinker is a nuclear protein that antagonizes Dpp signalling in Drosophila. Its expression is negatively regulated by Dpp. Here, we show that Brinker represses Ultrabithorax (Ubx) in the embryonic midgut, a HOX gene that activates, and responds to, the localized expression of Dpp during endoderm induction. We find that the functional target for Brinker repression coincides with the Dpp response sequence in the Ubx midgut enhancer, namely a tandem of binding sites for the Dpp effector Mad. We show that Brinker efficiently competes with Mad in vitro, preventing the latter from binding to these sites. Brinker also competes with activated Mad in vivo, blocking the stimulation of the Ubx enhancer in response to simultaneous Dpp signalling. These results indicate how Brinker acts as a dominant repressor of Dpp target genes, and explain why Brinker is a potent antagonist of Dpp.     

Characterization of a Smad motif similar to Drosophila mad in the mouse Msx 1 promoter

Mouse Msx 1 gene, orthologous of the Drosophila msh, is involved in several developmental processes. BMP family members are major proteins in the regulation of Msx 1 expression. BMP signaling activates Smad 1/5/8 proteins, which associate to Smad 4 before translocating to the nucleus. Analysis of Msx 1 promoter revealed the presence of three elements similar to the consensus established for Mad, the Smad 1 Drosophila counterpart. Notably, such an element was identified in an enhancer important for Msx 1 regulation. Gel shift analysis demonstrated that proteins from 13.5 dpc embryo associate to this enhancer. Remarkably, supershift assays showed that Smad proteins are present in the complex. Purified Smad 1 and 4 also bind to this fragment. We demonstrate that functional binding sites in this enhancer are confined to the Mad motif and flanking region. Our data suggest that this Mad motif may be functional in response to BMP signaling.     

Flexible interaction of Drosophila Smad complexes with bipartite binding sites

A subset of BMP-responsive enhancer elements are characterized by pairing of a GC-rich Smad1 binding site and an SBE-type Smad4 binding site. Such paired, or bipartite, sites are in some cases just 5 bp apart and thus might be contacted by a single Smad1-Smad4 complex. Other potential pairings are separated as much as 60 bp but it is not known whether such longer distances can be spanned by a Smad1-Smad4 complex, indeed binding of native Smad1-Smad4 complexes to any of these bipartite elements has yet to be reported. Here we report that a complex of the homologous Drosophila Smad proteins, Mad and Medea, is capable of concerted binding to GC-rich and SBE sites separated by as much as 20 bp. The wider the separation, the more severely binding affinity was reduced by shortening of the linker region that tethers the DNA binding domain of Medea. In contrast, length of the Mad linker did not affect the allowed distance between paired sites, rather it contributes specifically to Mad contact with the GC-rich site. Finally, we show that Smad1 and Smad4 can participate in binding to bipartite sites.     

Drosophila Smad2 Opposes Mad Signaling during Wing Vein Development

In the vertebrates, the BMP/Smad1 and TGF-β/Smad2 signaling pathways execute antagonistic functions in different contexts of development. The differentiation of specific structures results from the balance between these two pathways. For example, the gastrula organizer/node of the vertebrates requires a region of low Smad1 and high Smad2 signaling. In Drosophila, Mad regulates tissue determination and growth in the wing, but the function of dSmad2 in wing patterning is largely unknown. In this study, we used an RNAi loss-of-function approach to investigate dSmad2 signaling during wing development. RNAi-mediated knockdown of dSmad2 caused formation of extra vein tissue, with phenotypes similar to those seen in Dpp/Mad gain-of-function. Clonal analyses revealed that the normal function of dSmad2 is to inhibit the response of wing intervein cells to the extracellular Dpp morphogen gradient that specifies vein formation, as measured by expression of the activated phospho-Mad protein. The effect of dSmad2 depletion in promoting vein differentiation was dependent on Medea, the co-factor shared by Mad and dSmad2. Furthermore, double RNAi experiments showed that Mad is epistatic to dSmad2. In other words, depletion of Smad2 had no effect in Mad-deficient wings. Our results demonstrate a novel role for dSmad2 in opposing Mad-mediated vein formation in the wing. We propose that the main function of dActivin/dSmad2 in Drosophila wing development is to antagonize Dpp/Mad signaling. Possible molecular mechanisms for the opposition between dSmad2 and Mad signaling are discussed.