The suppressor of Hairy-wing binding region is required for gypsy mutagenesis

Summary We undertook a deletional analysis of the gypsy retrotransposon in order to determine which sequences of the element are required for its mutagenic effect. We show that a phenotype indistinguishable from that ofy ² flies can be generated by transformingy ^– flies with a construct containing theyellow gene and a gypsy element located at the same insertion site inyellow as found iny ² flies. When flies are transformed with similar constructs in which increasing amounts of the 5 transcribed untranslated region of gypsy have been removed, either a partialy ² revertant or a completely revertant phenotype is obtained. These results yield direct proof that the region of gypsy to which thesu(Hw) protein binds is required for the generation of mutant phenotypes by this retrotransposon.     

Interactions between su(Hw)-binding regions in neighboring y2 and scD1 alleles hinder trans-activation of the y2 promoter by yellow enhancers located on a homologous chromosome

The phenomenon of transvection has been well characterized for the yellow locus in Drosophila. Enhancers of a promoterless yellow locus in one homologous chromosome can activate the yellow promoter in the other when its own enhancers are blocked by the su(Hw) insulator introduced by the gypsy retrotransposon. Insertion of another gypsy into the neighboring scute locus hinders transvection presumably owing to disruption of chromosomal synapsis between the yellow alleles. We determined the sequences of gypsy required for inhibition of transvection. Two partial revertants of the scD1 mutation were obtained in which transvection between the yellow alleles was restored. Both sc revertants were generated by deletion of nine of the twelve su(Hw)-binding sites of gypsy inserted into the scute locus. This result suggests that the su(Hw) region is required for an interaction between two gypsy elements that disrupts trans activation of the yellow promoter by enhancers located on the homologous chromosome.     

A putative flavin electron transport pathway is differentially utilized in Xenopus CRY1 and CRY2

Xenopus laevis cryptochromes (xCRYs) can suppress xCLOCK/xBMAL1-mediated activation of a period E box-containing promoter. This suppression is a crucial part of the vertebrate circadian oscillator. Similar to CRYs in other species, as well as to the closely related photolyases, xCRYs have a conserved flavin binding domain. We show here that an intact flavin binding domain is required for normal function. However, it appears that each xCRY may utilize the bound flavin differently. Mutation in any of the three conserved tryptophan residues in the putative electron transport chain inhibits xCRY2b function, while only the mutation in the last of the three tryptophans significantly affects xCRY1 function. Although knockout studies in mice have suggested that CRY1 and CRY2 are not totally redundant [1] and [2], this is the first time that molecular/biochemical differences between CRY1 and CRY2 have been demonstrated. Both CRYs seem to require an intact flavin binding domain, suggesting that electron transport is important in their ability to suppress CLOCK/BMAL1 activation. However, only xCRY2b appears to depend on electron transport through the conserved tryptophan pathway.     

Dominant Effects of Suppressor of Hairy-Wing Mutations on Gypsy-Induced Alleles of Forked and Cut in Drosophila Melanogaster

Mutations induced by the gypsy retrotransposon in the forked (f) and cut (ct) loci render their expression under the control of the suppressor of Hairy-wing [su(Hw)] gene. This action is usually recessive, but su(Hw) acts as a dominant on the alleles fk, ctk and ctMRpN30. Molecular analysis of the gypsy element present in fk indicates that this allele is caused by the insertion of a modified gypsy in which the region normally containing twelve copies of the octamer-like repeat that interacts with the su(Hw) product is altered. Analysis of the gypsy element responsible for the ctk and ctMRpN30 mutations also reveals a correlation between the dominant action of su(Hw) and disruption of the octamer region. We propose that these disruptions alter the affinity and interaction of su(Hw) protein with gypsy DNA, thereby sensitizing the mutant phenotype to fluctuations in su(Hw) product.     

The su(Hw) protein insulates expression of the Drosophila melanogaster white gene from chromosomal position-effects.

Mutations in the suppressor of Hairy-wing [su(Hw)] locus reverse the phenotype of a number of tissue-specific mutations caused by insertion of a gypsy retrotransposon. The su(Hw) gene encodes a zinc finger protein which binds to a 430 bp region of gypsy shown to be both necessary and sufficient for its mutagenic effects. su(Hw) protein causes mutations by inactivation of enhancer elements only when a su(Hw) binding region is located between these regulatory sequences and a promoter. To understand the molecular basis of enhancer inactivation, we tested the effects of su(Hw) protein on expression of the mini-white gene. We find that su(Hw) protein stabilizes mini-white gene expression from chromosomal position-effects in euchromatic locations by inactivating negative and positive regulatory elements present in flanking DNA. Furthermore, the su(Hw) protein partially protects transposon insertions from the negative effects of heterochromatin. To explain our current results, we propose that su(Hw) protein alters the organization of chromatin by creating a new boundary in a pre-existing domain of higher order chromatin structure. This separates enhancers and silencers distal to the su(Hw) binding region into an independent unit of gene activity, thereby causing their inactivation.     

Location of a lepidopteran specificity region in insecticidal crystal protein CryllA from Bacillus thuringiensis

The Bacilius thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein CryllA has both high mosquito activity and gypsy moth activity; in contrast CryllB, which is 87% homologous, displays no mosquito activity and has a threefold lower gypsy moth activity. The regions responsible for specificity against gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) and mosquito (Aedes aegypti) larvae were located by introducing Mlul and Xhol sites into homologous positions within the putative domain ii of both cryllA and cryllB genes, which divided almost equally the respective second domains into three regions. Taking advantage of naturally occurring Nhel and Narl sites that border the putative domain II, a set of seven chimeric proteins were produced by exchanging all combinations of those regions Isetween CryllA and CryllB. Analysis of the toxicity of these chimeric proteins demonstrated that the lepidopteran and dipteran specificity regions of CryllA were not collnear. While the specificity region of CryllA against mosquito larvae involved region 1 and probably also region 2, the specificity region of CryllA against gypsy moth larvae was located within region 2.     

The LORE1 insertion mutant resource

Long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons are closely related to retroviruses, and their activities shape eukaryotic genomes. Here, we present a complete Lotus japonicus insertion mutant collection generated by identification of 640 653 new insertion events following de novo activation of the LTR element Lotus retrotransposon 1 (LORE1) ( http://lotus.au.dk ). Insertion preferences are critical for effective gene targeting, and we exploit our large dataset to analyse LTR element characteristics in this context. We infer the mechanism that generates the consensus palindromes typical of retroviral and LTR retrotransposon insertion sites, identify a short relaxed insertion site motif, and demonstrate selective integration into CHG‐hypomethylated genes. These characteristics result in a steep increase in deleterious mutation rate following activation, and allow LORE1 active gene targeting to approach saturation within a population of 134 682 L. japonicus lines. We suggest that saturation mutagenesis using endogenous LTR retrotransposons with germinal activity can be used as a general and cost‐efficient strategy for generation of non‐transgenic mutant collections for unrestricted use in plant research.