FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2079348844> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2079348844 endingPage "544" @default.
• W2079348844 startingPage "533" @default.
• W2079348844 abstract "Article22 January 2009free access dMec: a novel Mi-2 chromatin remodelling complex involved in transcriptional repression Natascha Kunert Natascha Kunert Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Eugenia Wagner Eugenia Wagner Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Magdalena Murawska Magdalena Murawska Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Henrike Klinker Henrike Klinker Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Elisabeth Kremmer Elisabeth Kremmer Helmholtz Zentrum München, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH), Institut für Molekulare Immunologie, München, Germany Search for more papers by this author Alexander Brehm Corresponding Author Alexander Brehm Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Natascha Kunert Natascha Kunert Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Eugenia Wagner Eugenia Wagner Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Magdalena Murawska Magdalena Murawska Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Henrike Klinker Henrike Klinker Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Elisabeth Kremmer Elisabeth Kremmer Helmholtz Zentrum München, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH), Institut für Molekulare Immunologie, München, Germany Search for more papers by this author Alexander Brehm Corresponding Author Alexander Brehm Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Author Information Natascha Kunert1, Eugenia Wagner1, Magdalena Murawska1, Henrike Klinker1, Elisabeth Kremmer2 and Alexander Brehm 1 1Institut für Molekularbiologie und Tumorforschung, Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany 2Helmholtz Zentrum München, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH), Institut für Molekulare Immunologie, München, Germany *Corresponding author. Institute for Molecular Biology and Tumour Research, University of Marburg, Emil-Mannkopffstr. 2, Marburg 35032, Germany. Tel.: +49 06421 286 6840; Fax: +49 06421 286 6842; E-mail: [email protected] The EMBO Journal (2009)28:533-544https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.3 PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures. ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures & Info The ATP-dependent chromatin remodeller Mi-2 functions as a transcriptional repressor and contributes to the suppression of cell fates during development in several model organisms. Mi-2 is the ATPase subunit of the conserved Nucleosome Remodeling and Deacetylation (NuRD) complex, and transcriptional repression by Mi-2 is thought to be dependent on its associated histone deacetylase. Here, we have purified a novel dMi-2 complex from Drosophila that is distinct from dNuRD. dMec (dMEP-1 complex) is composed of dMi-2 and dMEP-1. dMec is a nucleosome-stimulated ATPase that is expressed in embryos, larval tissues and adult flies. Surprisingly, dMec is far more abundant than dNuRD and constitutes the major dMi-2-containing complex. Both dNuRD and dMec associate with proneural genes of the achaete–scute complex. However, despite lacking a histone deacetylase subunit, only dMec contributes to the repression of proneural genes. These results reveal an unexpected complexity in the composition and function of Mi-2 complexes. Introduction ATP-dependent chromatin remodelling and histone modification are central processes underlying the dynamic regulation of chromatin structure. A classic example of a multisubunit protein complex combining ATP-dependent chromatin remodelling and histone modification activities is the Nucleosome Remodeling and Deacetylation (NuRD) complex. NuRD complexes have been purified from several vertebrates, and NuRD subunits are highly conserved in metazoans (Bowen et al, 2004). They include an Mi-2 nucleosome remodelling ATPase, one or two type I histone deacetylases, members of the metastasis-associated (MTA) and p66 protein families, the histone-binding proteins RbAp46 and RbAp48, and a subunit containing a methylated DNA-binding domain (MBD). NuRD complexes likely also exist in invertebrates. Mi-2 (dMi-2), MTA (dMTA), p66 (dp66), HDAC1 (dRPD3), RbAp48 (CAF1p55) and MBD (dMBD2/3) all have a homologue in Drosophila, many of which interact (Nan et al, 1998; Brehm et al, 2000; Ballestar et al, 2001; Marhold et al, 2004; Kon et al, 2005). However, dMi-2-containing complexes have so far not been biochemically purified from Drosophila. Recombinant Mi-2 is sufficient to remodel nucleosomes in vitro (Brehm et al, 2000; Wang and Zhang, 2001; Bouazoune et al, 2002; Bouazoune and Brehm, 2005). The additional subunits present in NuRD complexes are believed to contribute to targeting of NuRD to its sites of action and to regulate its activity. NuRD is recruited to chromatin by interaction with methylated DNA or DNA-bound transcription factors, including BCL-6, FOG-1/GATA-1, Ikaros, Aiolos, Hunchback and Tramtrack 69 (TTK69) (Kehle et al, 1998; Kim et al, 1999; Murawsky et al, 2001; Hong et al, 2005; Jaye et al, 2007; Sridharan and Smale, 2007). In addition, NuRD binds the N-terminus of histone H3 in vitro, and binding is disrupted by methylation of lysine residue number 4 (H3K4me3) (Zegerman et al, 2002). Transcriptional repression of NuRD is thought to depend on its associated histone deacetylase activity. It has been proposed that the ATP-dependent chromatin remodelling activity provided by Mi-2 makes histone tails accessible for deacetylation by the HDAC subunits (Xue et al, 1998; Zhang et al, 1998). Mi-2 is an important regulator of cell fate during development (Fujita et al, 2003, 2004; Kon et al, 2005). During lymphocyte development, NuRD cooperates with BCL6 to repress plasma cell-specific genes and so favours differentiation into B cells (Fujita et al, 2004). In Drosophila, dMi-2 and Hunchback cooperate in the repression of homeotic genes during embryogenesis (Kehle et al, 1998). In addition, dMi-2 cooperates with Tramtrack 69 in the repression of neuronal cell fate, and it has been proposed that the dNuRD complex represses proneural genes (Murawsky et al, 2001; Yamasaki and Nishida, 2006). In this study, we have biochemically purified dMi-2-associated proteins from Drosophila. We have discovered a novel, stable two-subunit dMi-2 complex containing the dMEP-1 protein. We have termed this complex dMec (Drosophila MEP-1-containing complex). dMi-2 and dMEP-1 are coexpressed during development and colocalise in embryonic nuclei. dMec is distinct from dNuRD and, surprisingly, constitutes the major dMi-2-containing complex in Drosophila. Recombinant dMec displays nucleosome-stimulated ATPase activity. dMec and dNuRD co-occupy promoters of proneural genes of the achaete–scute complex (AS-C). However, despite the lack of an associated histone deacetylase, only dMec contributes to their repression. These results reveal an unexpected complexity in the composition and function of Mi-2 complexes. Results Purification of dMec We fractionated nuclear extracts from Kc cells by ion exchange chromatography to purify dMi-2-associated proteins (Figure 1A). The peak dMi-2 fraction eluting off the third column (Resource Q) was subjected to immunoaffinity purification using a monoclonal dMi-2 antibody (Murawska et al, 2008). This resulted in the copurification of two polypeptides, which migrated with apparent molecular weights of 220 and 170 kDa, respectively, during SDS–PAGE (Figure 1B, lane 2). Peptide mass fingerprint analysis identified these two polypetides as dMi-2 and dMEP-1 (encoded by CG1244), respectively (Supplementary Table 1). Proteins that were present in substoichiometric amounts also gave rise to tryptic peptides derived from dMi-2 and dMEP-1 and most likely represent degradation products. We generated a dMEP-1-specific monoclonal antibody to confirm the interaction of both proteins (see Materials and methods). Both dMi-2 and dMEP-1 copurified when anti-dMEP-1 antibody was used in the immunoaffinity purification step (Figure 1B, lane 1). We term this novel dMi-2 complex dMec. Figure 1.Purification of dMec. (A) Schematic representation of dMEP-1-containing complex (dMec) purification procedure. (B) The Resource Q dMi-2 peak fraction was immunopurified using anti-dMEP-1 and anti-dMi-2 antibodies, respectively, as indicated. Bound material was eluted with appropriate peptides and subjected to SDS–PAGE and colloidal Coomassie staining. Polypeptides identified by peptide mass fingerprinting are marked with solid black circles. Substoichiometric proteins were identified as degradation products of dMi-2 or dMEP-1 (Supplementary Table 1). SDS–PAGE size markers are shown on the right. dMEP-1 complex (dMec) subunits are indicated by arrows on the left. MW, molecular weight markers; IN, input. (C) Crude nuclear extracts of Kc cells (upper panel) and the Resource Q dMi-2 peak containing fraction (lower panel) were subjected to Superose 6 gel filtration. Fractions were analysed by western blot using specific antibodies as indicated on the right. Fraction numbers are denoted on top, size standards above. IN, input. Download figure Download PowerPoint We were surprised that no putative dNuRD subunits were associated with dMi-2 in our purification. We compared gel filtration profiles of crude and fractionated extracts to determine whether dNuRD subunits or other dMi-2-associated proteins had been lost during ion exchange fractionation (Figure 1C). Dissociation of dMi-2-associated proteins would be expected to result in a shift of the dMi-2 elution profile towards fractions corresponding to smaller molecular weights. However, when crude and fractionated extracts were applied to a Superose 6 column, in both cases dMi-2 and dMEP-1 coeluted and peaked in fraction 22. We probed Superose 6 fractions from crude nuclear extract with antibodies directed against dMec and dNuRD subunits to determine whether both complexes are separated by gel filtration (Supplementary Figure 1). Elution peaks of dMi-2 (fraction 21), dMEP-1 (fraction 21) and the dNuRD-specific subunit dp66 (fractions 19 and 21) were largely overlapping. We also subjected recombinant dMec (see below) to gel filtration chromatography (Supplementary Figure 2). dMi-2 and dMEP-1 of recombinant dMec exhibited the same elution profile as native dMec. Taken together, these analyses suggest that dMec is present in nuclear extracts of Kc cells, and that no subunits have been lost during fractionation. Furthermore, despite their different molecular masses, dNuRD and dMec have very similar gel filtration properties. dMec is a nucleosome-stimulated ATPase We reconstituted dMec by coinfecting Sf9 cells with recombinant baculoviruses expressing dMi-2 and FLAG-tagged dMEP-1. Recombinant dMec was purified by anti-FLAG immunoaffinity purification. Both subunits were recovered in stoichiometric amounts, confirming a strong interaction of dMi-2 and dMEP-1 (Figure 2A). We then subjected recombinant dMec to ATPase assays (Figure 2B). Recombinant dMec displayed a basal ATPase activity that was not significantly increased in the presence of DNA. However, addition of nucleosomes resulted in a robust stimulation of ATPase activity. This property of dMec is shared by the dNuRD complex and suggests that dMec has ATP-dependent nucleosome remodelling activity (Brehm et al, 2000). Figure 2.dMec is a nucleosome-stimulated ATPase. (A) Reconstitution of recombinant dMec. Extracts derived from baculovirus infected Sf9 cells expressing FLAG-tagged dMEP-1 (dMEP-1F) and untagged dMi-2 were immunopurified with anti-FLAG antibodies and eluted with FLAG peptide. The first two eluates (E1, E2) were subjected to SDS–PAGE and Coomassie staining. The position of dMi-2 and dMEP-1F are indicated on the left, and molecular weight markers are indicated on the right. (B) dMec has nucleosome-stimulated ATPase activity in vitro. dMec was incubated in the absence or presence of 100 ng DNA or nucleosomes (Nucl.) and 32P-ATP as indicated. Percentage of hydrolysed ATP was determined by thin layer chromatography and quantified by phosphoimager analysis. Three independent experiments were performed using two different protein preparations; standard deviations are indicated by error bars. (C) Schematic representation of dMEP-1 mutants used (top panel). Zinc-finger domains are indicated by black bars, and a C-terminal FLAG-tag is indicated by a grey bar. Extracts derived from Sf9 cells expressing untagged dMi-2 and a FLAG-tagged dMEP-1 mutant (ΔC-dMEP-1, ΔN-dMEP-1 and ΔNΔZn-dMEP-1), as indicated on the top, were immunoprecipitated with anti-FLAG antibodies and analysed by western blot using anti-dMi-2 and anti-FLAG mouse antibodies, as indicated on the right. The calculated molecular mass of each mutant is given in brackets. Molecular weight markers are shown on the left. IN, input; IP, immunoprecipitate. Download figure Download PowerPoint The dMi-2-binding domain of dMEP-1 resides in the N-terminus dMEP-1 contains seven zinc fingers in its C-terminal half. The zinc fingers are arranged in two groups of three and four, respectively, and are separated by a glutamine-rich region (Figure 2C). The N-terminal half of dMEP-1 does not contain recognizable domains. We created three recombinant baculoviruses expressing FLAG-tagged dMEP-1 deletion mutants. Sf9 cells were coinfected with baculoviruses expressing a dMEP-1 deletion mutant and untagged dMi-2, respectively. Extracts were then purified by anti-FLAG immunoprecipitation, and copurification of dMi-2 was assessed by western blot (Figure 2C). In the absence of dMEP-1 coexpression, dMi-2 was not detected in the immunoprecipitate (lane 2). Coexpression of a dMEP-1 fragment encompassing the N-terminal half of the protein (aa 1–679) resulted in efficient copurification of dMi-2 (lane 4). By contrast, coexpression of C-terminal dMEP-1 fragments containing all seven zinc fingers (aa 680–1152) or the three zinc fingers closest to the C-terminus (aa 770–1152) did not result in the copurification of detectable levels of dMi-2 (lanes 6 and 8). We conclude that the zinc fingers are dispensable for dMi-2 binding, and that the dMi-2 interaction domain resides within the N-terminal half of dMEP-1. dMec expression in embryos We subjected extracts from staged embryos to western blot analysis to determine the temporal expression of dMec subunits during embryogenesis. dMi-2 and dMEP-1 displayed remarkably similar expression profiles. Both dMi-2 and dMEP-1 were present in early embryos; their levels increased during the first 9 h of development and sharply decreased thereafter (Figure 3A). We have previously shown by immunofluorescence staining that dMi-2 is expressed in the nuclei of early embryos and the syncytial blastoderm stage (Murawska et al, 2008). Likewise, we found dMEP-1 to be expressed in the nuclei of early embryos, including the pole cell nuclei and the syncytial blastoderm stage (Figure 3B, upper panels). As we have previously observed for dMi-2, dMEP-1 staining was nuclear during interphase but became diffuse when the nuclei underwent mitosis (Figure 3B, lower panels; Murawska et al (2008)). This indicates that both subunits of dMec lose interaction with chromatin during metaphase. Within nuclei, both dMi-2 and dMEP-1 were detected in partially overlapping speckles (Figure 3C). Figure 3.dMec expression in embryos. (A) Protein extracts were prepared from embryos at different developmental stages as indicated (lanes 1–4) and analysed by western blotting using anti-dMEP-1 (top panels), anti-dMi-2 (middle panels) and anti-tubulin (bottom panels) antibodies. Molecular weights are indicated on the left. (B) Confocal micrographs of immunofluorescence-stained embryos. Top panel: early embryo; second to fourth panels: syncytial blastoderm stage embryos; third panel: interphase nuclei; bottom panel: metaphase nuclei. Embryos were stained with DAPI (first column) and anti-dMEP-1 antibody (second column, green). The third column shows overlays of DAPI and dMEP-1 stainings. Pole cells are indicated by arrows. Scale bars in the two top panels: 100 μm; scale bars in the two bottom panels: 10 μm. (C) Confocal micrographs of immunofluorescence-stained syncytial blastoderm embryos. Embryos were stained with DAPI (first column), anti-dMi-2 antibody (second column, red) and anti-dMEP-1 antibody (third column, green). The fourth column shows an overlay of dMi-2 and dMEP-1 signals. The second panel shows an enlargement of the micrographs in the first panel. Scale bars: 5 μm. (D) Protein extracts were prepared from embryos at the developmental stages indicated and analysed by western blotting after immunoprecipitation with the indicated antibodies. Beads, antibody was omitted from precipitation; AED, after egg deposition. Download figure Download PowerPoint The close temporal and spatial coexpression of dMi-2 and dMEP-1 during embryogenesis suggests that the dMec complex exists in embryos. To test this, we subjected extracts from staged embryos to coimmunoprecipitation using dMi-2- and dMEP-1-specific antibodies, respectively (Figure 3D). dMi-2 and dMEP-1 were efficiently coimmunoprecipitated from extracts of all stages, where expression of these proteins could be detected. These results strongly suggest that dMi-2 and dMEP-1 form a complex in Drosophila embryos. dMec expression in larvae and adult flies Although the overall levels of dMi-2 and dMEP-1 sharply decrease 9 h after egg deposition (Figure 3A), coexpression and interaction of both proteins can be detected in several larval tissues, including brains and wing imaginal discs (data not shown). Analysis of extracts from adult flies revealed that dMEP-1 is more strongly expressed in female flies compared with male flies (Figure 4A). We have previously shown that the same is true for dMi-2 (Murawska et al, 2008). Immunofluorescence analysis of ovaries showed that dMi-2 and dMEP-1 are strongly expressed in nurse cells and the germinal vesicle of the oocyte (Figure 4B). This provides a potential explanation for the differential expression of dMi-2 and dMEP-1 in both sexes. Coimmunoprecipitation experiments from ovary extracts confirmed that dMi-2 and dMEP-1 form a complex in this tissue (Figure 4C). These results suggest that both dMi-2 and dMEP-1 are expressed in ovaries and maternally contributed to the oocyte. Figure 4.dMec expression in ovaries. (A) Proteins extracts were immunoprecipitated with rat anti-dMEP-1 antibody and immunoprecipitates were subjected to western blotting using rabbit anti-dMEP-1 antibody. (B) Confocal micrographs of immunofluorescence-stained Drosophila ovaries. Ovaries were stained with DAPI (left panel), anti-dMi-2 antibody (second panel, red) and anti-dMEP-1 antibody (third panel, green). The fourth panel shows an overlay of dMi-2 and dMEP-1 staining. The germinal vesicle of the oocyte is indicated by an arrow. Scale bar: 50 μm. (C) Protein extracts from Drosophila ovaries were immunoprecipitated with anti-dMEP-1 antibody and subjected to western blot analysis using anti-dMi-2 (top panel) and anti-dMEP-1 (bottom panel) antibodies. Beads, antibody was omitted from precipitation. Download figure Download PowerPoint dMec is the major dMi-2-containing complex in Drosophila Our purification of dMi-2-associated proteins from nuclear extracts did not result in the copurification of putative Drosophila NuRD subunits (Figure 1). Probing the eluates of the initial fractionation steps (Q-Sepharose FF, Biorex 70) with anti-dMi-2 and -dMEP-1 antibodies demonstrated that both proteins cofractionated quantitatively (Supplementary Figure 4). To determine the fate of dNuRD subunits during fractionation, we used antibodies directed against the histone deacetylase dRPD3 and dp66. Western blotting of fractions eluting from the final Resource Q column revealed that the bulk of dMi-2 coeluted with dMEP-1 (Figure 5A, fraction 20). dRPD3 and dp66 peaked in an earlier fraction that contained only little dMi-2 but no detectable dMEP-1 (fraction 18). It is notable that the dRPD3/dp66 and the dMi-2/dMEP-1 peaks are only separated by two fractions. Indeed, prolonged exposure of western blots allowed the detection of dRPD3 in the dMi-2/dMEP-1 peak fraction (Supplementary Figure 3, lane 1). However, affinity purification of dMec from this fraction using either dMi-2 or dMEP-1 antibodies, according to the scheme shown in Figure 1A, did not result in copurification of dRPD3 (lanes 2 and 3). This shows that the low levels of dRPD3 that are present in the dMi-2/dMEP-1 peak fraction are not associated with dMec. These findings suggest that dNuRD and dMec are distinct complexes, the bulk of dMi-2 resides in dMec and only a minor fraction of dMi-2 is present in dNuRD. Figure 5.dMec is the major dMi-2-containing complex in Drosophila. (A) Kc cell nuclear extract was fractionated as shown in Figure 1A, and Resource Q column eluates were analysed by western blot using specific antibodies, as indicated on the right. Fraction numbers are shown on top. IN, input. (B) Serial immunodepletion experiments with anti-dMi-2 antibody (α-dMi-2 IP) or anti-dMEP-1 antibody (α-dMEP-1 IP) from Drosophila embryo nuclear extract. Supernatants from subsequent immunodepletions (s1, s2, s3) were subjected to western blotting using antibodies, as shown on the left. (C) Kc cell nuclear extract was immunoprecipitated with anti-dp66, -dRPD3, -dMi-2 and -dMEP-1 antibodies, as indicated on top. Immunoprecipitates were analysed by western blotting using antibodies indicated on the left. IP, immunoprecipitate; Beads, antibody was omitted from the precipitation. Download figure Download PowerPoint To estimate the amount of dMi-2 associated with dMEP-1 in nuclear extracts derived from embryos, we performed serial immunodepletion experiments (Figure 5B). Successive depletion of extract with dMEP-1-specific antibody resulted in efficient codepletion of dMi-2 (lanes 5–7). Depletion with dMEP-1 antibody removed as much dMi-2 from the extract as depletion with dMi-2 antibody (compare lanes 2–4 with lanes 5–7). We performed this serial immunodepletion also with nuclear extracts from cell lines and obtained the same results (data not shown). These findings support the view that dMec is the major dMi-2-containing complex in Drosophila. We used coimmunoprecipitations to further characterise the relation between dNuRD and dMec in nuclear extracts (Figure 5C). Antibodies directed against dp66 and dRPD3 coprecipitated dp66, dRPD3 and dMi-2 but not dMEP-1 (lanes 3 and 4). Anti-dMEP-1 antibody coprecipitated dMi-2 but not the dNuRD subunits dp66 and dRPD3 (lane 6). Anti-dMi-2 antibody coprecipitated dMEP-1, dp66 and dRPD3 (lane 5). We conclude that dNuRD and dMec are distinct complexes that do not physically associate in soluble nuclear extracts. dMec binds to proneural genes within the AS-C locus dMi-2 and the transcriptional repressor Tramtrack 69 (TTK69) cooperate in the suppression of neuronal cell fate during development (Murawsky et al, 2001; Yamasaki and Nishida, 2006). TTK69 represses proneural genes of the AS-C in non-neuronal cells (Badenhorst et al, 2002). We used chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) followed by end-point PCR to assess the association of dNuRD and dMec subunits with the four proneural genes of AS-C (achaete (ac), scute (sc), lethal-of-scute (l'sc) and asense (ase)) (Figure 6A). We also investigated binding to pepsinogen-like (pcl), a gene that resides in the AS-C locus but has no function in neurogenesis (Badenhorst et al, 2002). dMi-2 and dp66 immunoprecipitates were enriched for promoter fragments of the four proneural genes as well as the pcl gene (lanes 2 and 4). By contrast, no binding of dMi-2 or dp66 to the unrelated hsp70 promoter was detected (last panel). In addition, no association of dMi-2 and dp66 with a region located 1.3 kb downstream of the ac transcriptional start site (ac-p1) was detected. Figure 6.dMec contributes to the repression of AS-C genes. (A) Top panel: schematic representation of the AS-C locus. Position of amplicons is denoted on top, genes are indicated by black boxes, the direction of transcription is shown with arrows (modified from Badenhorst et al, 2002). Middle panels: Drosophila embryos were subjected to ChIP analysis using anti-dMi-2-specific, anti-dMEP-1-specific, anti-dp66-specific and anti-GST-specific (NS Ab, used as control antibody) antibodies, as shown on top. Specific primers were used to amplify sequences derived from the AS-C locus and the hsp70 gene by end-point PCR, as indicated on the right. Bottom panels: Chromatin immunoprecipitated DNA was analysed in triplicate by qPCR with primers for promoter sequences of genes from the AS-C locus (from left to right: ac, sc, l'sc, pcl, ase) and an indicated control region (sc-p2). Mean values are expressed as percentage of input (% input). (B) Extracts from SL2 cells treated with different double-stranded RNAs (dsRNA), as indicated on top, were analysed by western blot using specific antibodies, as indicated on the left. Mock: untreated cells. Download figure Download PowerPoint dMEP-1 immunoprecipitates were enriched for promoter fragments derived from the four proneural genes ac, sc, l'sc and ase (lane 3). In contrast to dMi-2 and dp66, dMEP-1 did not show significant association with the pcl promoter. Furthermore, we failed to detect an interaction of dMEP-1 with the hsp70 promoter and the region 1.3 kb downstream of the ac transcriptional start site. Taken together, the analysis of ChIP by end-point PCR indicated a preferential association of dNuRD and dMec, with promoter sequences within the AS-C locus. To refine this analysis, we also measured chromatin binding by ChIP followed by quantitative PCR (qPCR; Figure 6A). This allowed the detection of dMi-2, dMEP-1 and dp66 binding to control regions such as sequences downstream of transcriptional start sites that were not detected by end-point PCR (sc-p2; compare with anti-GST signals). Again, promoters of proneural genes displayed stronger association of dMi-2, dMEP-1 and dp66. In addition, preferential binding of dMi-2 and dp66 to the pcl promoter over the control region was detected. By contrast, the dMEP-1 association with the pcl promoter was not significantly greater than the dMEP-1 association with the control region. In summary, ChIP followed by end-point or qPCR suggests a preferential association of dNuRD and dMec with gene promoters of the AS-C locus. dMec contributes to repression of proneural genes We depleted dMi-2, dMEP-1 and dp66 from SL2 cells by RNA interference (RNAi) to assess the contribution of dNuRD and dMec to transcriptional repression of the AS-C locus (Figure 6B). We noted that the depletion of dMi-2 led to a decrease of dMEP-1 levels and vice versa (lanes 3 and 6). This suggests that the stability of both proteins depends on their mutual association. We used qRT–PCR to determine changes in gene expression following depletion of dMi-2, dMEP-1 and dp66. Transcription of the four proneural genes of the AS-C locus was increased from two- to four-fold following depletion of dMEP-1 or dMi-2 (Figure 6C). Depletion of dMi-2 and dMEP-1 affected gene transcription to similar extents, and codepletion of both proteins did not result in an additional increase of expression (Supplementary Figure 5). Reduction of dp66 levels did not result in significant changes in transcription of the four proneural genes. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that dMec—but not dNuRD—contributes to gene repression even though both complexes are bound to proneural gene promoters. Figure 7.(C) Total RNA isolated from SL2 cells shown in (B) (as indicated on the left) was analysed by qRT–PCR for expression levels of genes from the AS-C locus (from left to right: ac, sc, l'sc, pcl, ase). RNA levels determined for untreated samples (Mock) were set to 1. (D) Total RNA isolated from SL2 cells treated for 18 h with 1 μM TSA (dissolved in DMSO) or control cells treated with DMSO, as indicated at the bottom, was analysed by qRT–PCR for expression levels of genes from the AS-C locus (from left to right: l'sc, pcl) and of the CG8399 gene as a positive control for the effectiveness of the TSA treatment. RNA levels determined for DMSO treated samples (DMSO) were set to 1. Download figure Download PowerPoint Transcription of the pcl gene was not significantly affected by depletion of dMi-2, dMEP-1 or dp66. This result confirms that depletion of the three factors did not result in an unspecific general increase in transcription. As was the case with the proneural genes, the presence of dNuRD at the pcl promoter does not seem to make a major contribution to gene regulation. HDAC inhibition does not lead to derepression of transcription The lack of a histone deacetylase implies that dMec uses an HDAC-independent repression mechanism. To test this hypothesis, we treat" @default.
• W2079348844 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2079348844 creator A5004036054 @default.
• W2079348844 creator A5038574935 @default.
• W2079348844 creator A5041217280 @default.
• W2079348844 creator A5065576952 @default.
• W2079348844 creator A5069596885 @default.
• W2079348844 creator A5088925749 @default.
• W2079348844 date "2009-01-22" @default.
• W2079348844 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2079348844 title "dMec: a novel Mi-2 chromatin remodelling complex involved in transcriptional repression" @default.
• W2079348844 cites W1671585986 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W1784857457 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W1861549893 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W1970182744 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W1973672022 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W1976519371 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W1982159610 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W1985027918 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W1990612784 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2022586694 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2028480293 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2046108122 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2047553717 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2059138749 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2060053956 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2062403272 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2063304153 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2071859195 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2074380974 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2097836350 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2098273528 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2108244474 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2108342665 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2120422553 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2120689294 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2125822289 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2142414089 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2143142222 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2144414361 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2147921995 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2155833890 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2161331594 @default.
• W2079348844 cites W2168259925 @default.
• W2079348844 doi "https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.3" @default.
• W2079348844 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2657585" @default.
• W2079348844 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19165147" @default.
• W2079348844 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2079348844 type Work @default.
• W2079348844 sameAs 2079348844 @default.
• W2079348844 citedByCount "60" @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442012 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442013 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442014 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442015 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442017 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442018 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442019 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442020 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442021 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442022 @default.
• W2079348844 countsByYear W20793488442023 @default.
• W2079348844 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2079348844 hasAuthorship W2079348844A5004036054 @default.
• W2079348844 hasAuthorship W2079348844A5038574935 @default.
• W2079348844 hasAuthorship W2079348844A5041217280 @default.
• W2079348844 hasAuthorship W2079348844A5065576952 @default.
• W2079348844 hasAuthorship W2079348844A5069596885 @default.
• W2079348844 hasAuthorship W2079348844A5088925749 @default.
• W2079348844 hasBestOaLocation W20793488442 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C150194340 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C167227067 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C179926584 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C186310378 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C552990157 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C70721500 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C83640560 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C104317684 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C138885662 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C150194340 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C167227067 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C179926584 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C186310378 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C41895202 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C54355233 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C552990157 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C70721500 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C83640560 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C86803240 @default.
• W2079348844 hasConceptScore W2079348844C95444343 @default.
• W2079348844 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2079348844 hasLocation W20793488441 @default.

• next