Antp-type homeodomains have distinct DNA binding specificities that correlate with their different regulatory functions in embryos.

Much of the functional specificity of Drosophila homeotic selector proteins, in their ability to regulate specific genes and to assign specific segmental identities, appears to map within their different, but closely related homeodomains. For example, the Drosophila Dfd and human HOX4B (Hox 4.2) proteins, which have extensive structural similarity only in their respective homeodomains, both specifically activate the Dfd promoter. In contrast, a chimeric Dfd protein containing the Ubx homeodomain (Dfd/Ubx) specifically activates the Antp P1 promoter, which is normally targeted by Ubx. Using a variety of DNA binding assays, we find significant differences in DNA binding preferences between the Dfd, Dfd/Ubx and Ubx proteins when Dfd and Antp upstream regulatory sequences are used as binding substrates. No significant differences in DNA binding specificity were detected between the human HOX4B (Hox 4.2) and Drosophila Dfd proteins. All of these full-length proteins bound as monomers to high affinity DNA binding sites, and interference assays indicate that they interact with DNA in a way that is very similar to homeodomain polypeptides. These experiments indicate that the ninth amino acid of the recognition helix of the homeodomain, which is glutamine in all four of these Antp-type homeodomain proteins, is not sufficient to determine their DNA binding specificities. The good correlation between the in vitro DNA binding preferences of these four Antp-type homeodomain proteins and their ability to specifically regulate a Dfd enhancer element in the embryo, suggests that the modest binding differences that distinguish them make an important contribution to their unique regulatory specificities.     

Regulation of Hox target genes by a DNA bound Homothorax/Hox/Extradenticle complex.

To regulate their target genes, the Hox proteins of Drosophila often bind to DNA as heterodimers with the homeodomain protein Extradenticle (EXD). For EXD to bind DNA, it must be in the nucleus, and its nuclear localization requires a third homeodomain protein, Homothorax (HTH). Here we show that a conserved N-terminal domain of HTH directly binds to EXD in vitro, and is sufficient to induce the nuclear localization of EXD in vivo. However, mutating a key DNA binding residue in the HTH homeodomain abolishes many of its in vivo functions. HTH binds to DNA as part of a HTH/Hox/EXD trimeric complex, and we show that this complex is essential for the activation of a natural Hox target enhancer. Using a dominant negative form of HTH we provide evidence that similar complexes are important for several Hox- and exd-mediated functions in vivo. These data suggest that Hox proteins often function as part of a multiprotein complex, composed of HTH, Hox, and EXD proteins, bound to DNA.     

Interchange of DNA-binding modes in the deformed and ultrabithorax homeodomains: a structural role for the N-terminal arm

The deformed (Dfd) and ultrabithorax (Ubx) homeoproteins regulate developmental gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster by binding to specific DNA sequences within its genome. DNA binding is largely accomplished via a highly conserved helix-turn-helix DNA-binding domain that is known as a homeodomain (HD). Despite nearly identical DNA recognition helices and similar target DNA sequence preferences, the in vivo functions of the two proteins are quite different. We have previously revealed differences between the two HDs in their interactions with DNA. In an effort to define the individual roles of the HD N-terminal arm and recognition helix in sequence-specific binding, we have characterized the structural details of two Dfd/Ubx chimeric HDs in complex with both the Dfd and Ubx-optimal-binding site sequences. We utilized hydroxyl radical cleavage of DNA to assess the positioning of the proteins on the binding sites. The effects of missing nucleosides and purine methylation on HD binding were also analyzed. Our results show that both the Dfd and Ubx HDs have similar DNA-binding modes when in complex with the Ubx-optimal site. There are subtle but reproducible differences in these modes that are completely interchanged when the Dfd N-terminal arm is replaced with the corresponding region of the Ubx HD. In contrast, we showed previously that the Dfd-optimal site sequence elicits a very different binding mode for the Ubx HD, while the Dfd HD maintains a mode similar to that elicited by the Ubx-optimal site. Our current methylation interference studies suggest that this alternate binding mode involves interaction of the Ubx N-terminal arm with the minor groove on the opposite face of DNA relative to the major groove that is occupied by the recognition helix. As judged by hydroxyl radical footprinting and the missing nucleoside experiment, it appears that interaction of the Ubx recognition helix with the DNA major groove is reduced. Replacing the Dfd N-terminal arm with that of Ubx does not elicit a complete interchange of the DNA-binding mode. Although the position of the chimera relative to DNA, as judged by hydroxyl radical footprinting, is similar to that of the Dfd HD, the missing nucleoside and methylation interference patterns resemble those of the Ubx HD. Repositioning of amino acid side-chains without wholesale structural alteration in the polypeptide appears to occur as a function of N-terminal arm identity and DNA-binding site sequence. Complete interchange of binding modes was achieved only by replacement of the Dfd N-terminal arm and the recognition helix plus 13 carboxyl-terminal residues with the corresponding residues of Ubx. The position of the N-terminal arm in the DNA minor groove appears to differ in a manner that depends on the two base-pair differences between the Dfd and Ubx-optimal-binding sites. Thus, N-terminal arm position dictates the binding mode and the interaction of the recognition helix with nucleosides in the major groove.