Red flag on the white reporter: a versatile insulator abuts the white gene in Drosophila and is omnipresent in mini-white constructs

Much of the research on insulators in Drosophila has been done with transgenic constructs using the white gene (mini-white) as reporter. Hereby we report that the sequence between the white and CG32795 genes in Drosophila melanogaster contains an insulator of a novel kind. Its functional core is within a 368 bp segment almost contiguous to the white 3′UTR, hence we name it as Wari (white-abutting resident insulator). Though Wari contains no binding sites for known insulator proteins and does not require Su(Hw) or Mod(mdg4) for its activity, it can equally well interact with another copy of Wari and with unrelated Su(Hw)-dependent insulators, gypsy or 1A2. In its natural downstream position, Wari reinforces enhancer blocking by any of the three insulators placed between the enhancer and the promoter; again, Wari–Wari, Wari–gypsy or 1A2–Wari pairing results in mutual neutralization (insulator bypass) when they precede the promoter. The distressing issue is that this element hides in all mini-white constructs employed worldwide to study various insulators and other regulatory elements as well as long-range genomic interactions, and its versatile effects could have seriously influenced the results and conclusions of many works.     

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.     

NURF301 contributes to gypsy chromatin insulator-mediated nuclear organization

Chromatin insulators are DNA-protein complexes that can prevent the spread of repressive chromatin and block communication between enhancers and promoters to regulate gene expression. In Drosophila, the gypsy chromatin insulator complex consists of three core proteins: CP190, Su(Hw), and Mod(mdg4)67.2. These factors concentrate at nuclear foci termed insulator bodies, and changes in insulator body localization have been observed in mutants defective for insulator function. Here, we identified NURF301/E(bx), a nucleosome remodeling factor, as a novel regulator of gypsy insulator body localization through a high-throughput RNAi imaging screen. NURF301 promotes gypsy-dependent insulator barrier activity and physically interacts with gypsy insulator proteins. Using ChIP-seq, we found that NURF301 co-localizes with insulator proteins genome-wide, and NURF301 promotes chromatin association of Su(Hw) and CP190 at gypsy insulator binding sites. These effects correlate with NURF301-dependent nucleosome repositioning. At the same time, CP190 and Su(Hw) both facilitate recruitment of NURF301 to chromatin. Finally, Oligopaint FISH combined with immunofluorescence revealed that NURF301 promotes 3D contact between insulator bodies and gypsy insulator DNA binding sites, and NURF301 is required for proper nuclear positioning of gypsy binding sites. Our data provide new insights into how a nucleosome remodeling factor and insulator proteins cooperatively contribute to nuclear organization.     

1A2 Insulator can interact with promoter of hsp70 gene in D. melanogaster

Insulators are regulatory DNA elements that participate in the modulation of the interactions between enhancers and promoters. Depending on the situation, insulators can either stabilize or destroy the contacts between enhancers and promoters. A possible explanation for the activity of insulators is their ability to directly interact with gene promoters. In the present study, it was demonstrated that, in model systems, a 1A2 insulator could interact with the core sequence of an hsp70 promoter. In this case, the insulator protein CP190 is found on the hsp70 promoter, which depends on the presence of an insulator in the transgene. The data obtained are consistent with the model, which implies that direct contacts between insulators and promoters make a considerable contribution to the modulation of the interactions between insulators and promoters.     

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.     

EAST affects the activity of Su(Hw) insulators by two different mechanisms in <Emphasis Type="Italic">Drosophila melanogaster</Emphasis>

Recent data suggest that insulators organize chromatin architecture in the nucleus. The best characterized Drosophila insulator, found in the gypsy retrotransposon, contains 12 binding sites for the Su(Hw) protein. Enhancer blocking, along with Su(Hw), requires BTB/POZ domain proteins, Mod(mdg4)-67.2 and CP190. Inactivation of Mod(mdg4)-67.2 leads to a direct repression of the yellow gene promoter by the gypsy insulator. Here, we have shown that such repression is regulated by the level of the EAST protein, which is an essential component of the interchromatin compartment. Deletion of the EAST C-terminal domain suppresses Su(Hw)-mediated repression. Partial inactivation of EAST by mutations in the east gene suppresses the enhancer-blocking activity of the gypsy insulator. The binding of insulator proteins to chromatin is highly sensitive to the level of EAST expression. These results suggest that EAST, one of the main components of the interchromatin compartment, can regulate the activity of chromatin insulators.     

Genomic context modulates insulator activity through promoter competition.

Chromatin insulators regulate gene expression by preventing inappropriate enhancer-promoter interactions. Our previous study showed that insulators do not merely function as rigid blockers, rather their activities are quantitative and selective. We have investigated the factors and mechanisms that determine the effectiveness of the suHw insulator in transgenic Drosophila. We show that the suHw-mediated blockage of the AE1 enhancer from a downstream promoter depends on the ability of the promoter to compete for AE1. Promoters that are highly competitive for the enhancer are blocked less effectively. Moreover, blockage of AE1 from its cognate ftz promoter can range from virtually complete to non-detectable, depending on the property of the neighboring upstream promoter. A highly competitive neighboring promoter enhances the suHw-mediated blockage, whereas a less competitive promoter reduces the insulator effectiveness. The influence on insulator effectiveness by both the interacting and the neighboring competing promoters correlates with their ability to compete for the enhancer, which was previously shown to depend on core promoter sequences. Our findings suggest a mechanism at the level of gene organization that modulates insulator effectiveness through promoter competition. The dependence of insulator function on its cis contexts may provide it with more regulatory flexibility while imposing organizational restraints on eukaryotic gene complexes.     

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.