Regulation of Sox2 in the pre‐placodal cephalic ectoderm and central nervous system by enhancer N‐4

The development of various tissues originating from the cephalic placodes is accompanied by the expression of the Sox2 gene. This Sox2 expression initiates in the pre‐placodal cephalic ectoderm, and is regulated by enhancer N‐4, which also regulates Sox2 in the embryonic central nervous system (CNS) posterior to the diencephalon. As the regulation of enhancer N‐4 in the ectoderm likely reflects that of the pre‐placodal cell state, its regulatory elements were characterized. A 110‐bp minimal and essential sequence of N‐4 (mini‐N‐4) was determined. By mutational and deletion analyses, nine regulatory elements were determined in the mini‐N‐4 sequence: three elements involved in activation in both the cephalic ectoderm and CNS, three elements specifically involved in activation in the cephalic ectoderm, three elements individually involved in activation in the mesencephalon, repression in the prosencephalon, and retinoic acid response in the rhombomeric region. The cephalic ectoderm‐specific elements include two potential sites for the binding of nuclear receptors, suggestive of a nuclear receptor‐dependent regulation. Multimers of the 3′ half of the mini‐N‐4 sequence, including all of the cephalic ectodermal elements, show strong and selective activity in the cephalic ectoderm, providing a powerful genetic tool for the manipulation of gene activities in the placodal lineages.     

Highly interactive nature of flower‐specific enhancers and promoters,and its potential impact on tissue‐specific expression and engineering of multiple genes or agronomic traits

Molecular stacking enables multiple traits to be effectively engineered in crops using a single vector. However, the co‐existence of distinct plant promoters in the same transgenic unit might, like their mammalian counterparts, interfere with one another. In this study, we devised a novel approach to investigate enhancer–promoter and promoter–promoter interactions in transgenic plants and demonstrated that three of four flower‐specific enhancer/promoters were capable of distantly activating a pollen‐ and stigma‐specific Pps promoter (fused to the cytotoxic DT‐A gene) in other tissues, as revealed by novel tissue ablation phenotypes in transgenic plants. The NtAGI1 enhancer exclusively activated stamen‐ and carpel‐specific DT‐A expression, thus resulting in tissue ablation in an orientation‐independent manner; this activation was completely abolished by the insertion of an enhancer‐blocking insulator (EXOB) between the NtAGI1 enhancer and Pps promoter. Similarly, AGL8 and AP1Lb1, but not AP1La, promoters also activated distinct tissue‐specific DT‐A expression and ablation, with the former causing global growth retardation and the latter ablating apical inflorescences. While the tissue specificity of the enhancer/promoters generally defined their activation specificities, the strength of their activity in particular tissues or developmental stages appeared to determine whether activation actually occurred. Our findings provide the first evidence that plant‐derived enhancer/promoters can distantly interact/interfere with one another, which could pose potential problems for the tissue‐specific engineering of multiple traits using a single‐vector stacking approach. Therefore, our work highlights the importance of adopting enhancer‐blocking insulators in transformation vectors to minimize promoter–promoter interactions. The practical and fundamental significance of these findings will be discussed.     

Enhancer trap infidelity in Drosophila optomotor-blind

Reporter gene activity in enhancer trap lines is often implicitly assumed to mirror quite faithfully the endogenous expression of the “trapped” gene, even though there are numerous examples of enhancer trap infidelity. optomotor-blind (omb) is a 160 kb gene in which 16 independent P-element enhancer trap insertions of three different types have been mapped in a range of more than 60 kb. We have determined the expression pattern of these elements in wing, eye-antennal and leg imaginal discs as well as in the pupal tergites. We noted that one pGawB insertion (omb^P4) selectively failed to report parts of the omb pattern even though the missing pattern elements were apparent in all other 15 lines. We ruled out that omb^P4 was defective in the Gal4 promoter region or had inactivated genomic enhancers in the integration process. We propose that the Gal4 reporter gene in pGawB may be sensitive to orientation or promoter proximity effects.