domains. It is conceivable that these domains not only block inappropriate enhancers but also facilitate interaction between distant enhancers and the target promoter. References and Notes 1. A. C. Bell, G. Felsenfeld, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9, 191 (1999). 2. T. I. Gerasimova, V. G. Corces, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 6, 185 (1996). 3. P. K. Geyer, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 7, 242 (1997). 4. R. Kellum, S. C. Elgin, Curr. Biol. 8, R521 (1998). 5. J. Mihaly et al., Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 54, 60 (1998). 6. A. C. Bell, G. Felsenfeld, Nature 405, 482 (2000). 7. A. T. Hark et al., Nature 405, 486 (2000). 8. J. Zhou, M. Levine, Cell 99, 567 (1999). 9. K. C. Scott, A. D. Taubman, P. K. Geyer, Genetics 153, 787 (1999). 10. K. Hagstrom, M. Muller, P. Schedl, Genes Dev. 10, 3202 (1996). 11. R. R. Roseman, V. Pirrotta, P. K. Geyer, EMBO J. 12, 435 (1993). 12. H. Cai, M. Levine, Nature 376, 533 (1995). 13. , EMBO J. 16, 1732 (1997). 14. J. Kim, B. Shen, C. Rosen, D. Dorsett, Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 3381 (1996). 15. P. K. Geyer, V. G. Corces, Genes Dev. 6, 1865 (1992). 16. T. I. Gerasimova, D. A. Gdula, D. V. Gerasimov, O. Simonova, V. G. Corces, Cell 82, 587 (1995). 17. S. Small, R. Kraut, T. Hoey, R. Warrior, M. Levine, Genes Dev. 5, 827 (1991). 18. H. N. Cai, D. N. Arnosti, M. Levine, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 9309 (1996). 25. B. Shen, J. Kim, D. Dorsett, Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 5645 (1994). 26. C. Spana, V. G. Corces, Genes Dev. 4, 1505 (1990). 27. R. Kellum, P. Schedl, Cell 64, 941 (1991). 28. N. Saitoh et al., EMBO J. 19, 2315 (2000). 29. J. Zhou, H. Ashe, C. Burks, M. Levine, Development 126, 3057 (1999). 30. D. Tautz, C. Pfeifle, Chromosoma 98, 81 (1989). 31. We thank V. Corces for female mod(mdg4)u1 stock and M. Levine, V. Pirrotta, and G. Felsenfeld for discussion, communication of unpublished results, and reading of the manuscript. Supported by NIH grant 5RO158458-02 (H.N.C.). 4 October 2000; accepted 15 December 2000 Loss of Insulator Activity by Paired Su(Hw) Chromatin Insulators Ekaterina Muravyova,1 Anton Golovnin,1,2,3 Elena Gracheva,1 Aleksander Parshikov,1 Tatiana Belenkaya,1 Vincenzo Pirrotta,3* Pavel Georgiev1 Chromatin insulators are regulatory elements that block the action of tran- scriptional enhancers when interposed between enhancer and promoter. The Drosophila Suppressor of Hairy wing [Su(Hw)] protein binds the Su(Hw) insu- lator and prevents enhancer-promoter interaction by a mechanism that is not understood. We show that when two copies of the Su(Hw) insulator element, instead of a single one, are inserted between enhancer and promoter, insulator activity is neutralized and the enhancer-promoter interaction may instead be facilitated. This paradoxical phenomenon could be explained by interactions between protein complexes bound at the insulators. The Drosophila gypsy retrotransposon con- tains a chromatin insulator that consists of cluster of 12 binding sites for the Su(Hw) zinc-finger protein (1–6). In the presence of Su(Hw) protein binding, the insulator blocks the activity of an enhancer separated from the promoter by an Su(Hw) binding region. However, this insulator action fails in certain genetic rearrangements that introduce more than one gypsy retrotransposon in the region of the yellow gene (7). The loss of insulator activity might result from intrachromosomal pairing between the two gypsy retrotrans- posons, causing chromatin to fold and allow- ing the enhancer to contact the promoter. Alternatively, interaction between the pro- Fig. 4. Insulator-mediated loop formation. (A) A suHw insulator (S) may interact with other nuclear sites/insulators (I), separating the en- hancer (E) and the promoter (P) into distinct domains and blocking their interaction. (B) In- teractions between two tandem suHw insula- tors fail to sequester the enhancer and may even facilitate enhancer-promoter interaction by “looping out” the intervening DNA. (C) En- hancer blocking may be strengthened by the preferred interactions between two suHw insu- lators flanking the enhancer. www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 291 19 JANUARY 2001 49 245, R339 (1983). 14. F. K. Stephan, G. Becker, Physiol. Behav. 46, 731 (1989). 15. K.-A. Stokkan, S. Yamazaki, H. Tei, Y. Sakaki, M. Menaker, unpublished data. 16. Serum concentrations of corticosterone were measured with a commercial radioimmunoassay kit (Coat-A- Count, Diagnostic Products, Los Angeles). One rat showed 207.9 and 41.0 ng/ml and another showed 105.8 and 68.9 ng/ml at 3 hours after lights were turned on (“prefeeding”) and 9.5 hours after lights were turned on (“basal”), respectively. The difference between our results and those reported in (13) may be due to the fact that our animals were just weaned and growing rapidly, so that any restrictions in food access may be stressful. Aging markedly reduces the prefeeding corti- costerone secretion in rats exposed to RF [S. Honma et al., Am. J. Physiol. 271, R1514 (1996)]. as intraperitoneal injections for 7 days. Control ani- mals received 0.2 ml of DMSO. 18. On the seventh day of treatment, the serum level of corticosterone, 30 min after injection, was 581 Ϯ 174 (SEM) ng/ml (n ϭ 6) and 39 Ϯ 17 ng/ml (n ϭ 6) in animals receiving corticosterone and DMSO injec- tions, respectively. 19. A. Balsalobre et al., Science 289, 2344 (2000). 20. Both ad lib feeding and food access restricted to the light period are probably highly abnormal for rats in the field. 21. S.-I. Inouye, H. Kawamura, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76, 5962 (1979). 22. S. Yamazaki, M. C. Kerbeshian, C. G. Hocker, G. D. Block, M. Menaker, J. Neurosci. 18, 10709 (1998). 23. R. Y. Moore, D. C. Klein, Brain Res. 71, 17 (1974). 25. J. D. Plautz, M. Kaneko, J. C. Hall, S. A. Kay, Science 278, 1632 (1997). 26. D. Whitmore, N. S. Foulkes, P. Sassone-Corsi, Nature 404, 87 (2000). 27. F. Damiola et al., Genes Dev. 14, 2950 (2000). 28. We thank M. Quigg for measuring corticosterone concentrations and K. M. Greene and S. C. Miller for technical assistance. This work was supported in part by the NSF Center for Biological Timing, NIH grant MH 56647 (to M.M.); by travel grant 130173/410 from the Norwegian Research Council (to K.-A.S.); and by a research grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture and the Japa- nese Ministry of Health and Welfare (to H.T.). 26 September 2000; accepted 13 December 2000 Effects of cis Arrangement of Chromatin Insulators on Enhancer-Blocking Activity Haini N. Cai* and Ping Shen Chromatin boundary elements or insulators are believed to regulate gene activity in complex genetic loci by organizing specialized chromatin structures. Here, we report that the enhancer-blocking activity of the Drosophila suHw insulator is sensitive to insulator copy number and position. Two tandem copies of suHw were ineffective in blocking various enhancers from a downstream promoter. Moreover, an enhancer was blocked more effectively from a pro- moter by two flanking suHw insulators than by a single intervening one. Thus, insulators may modulate enhancer-promoter interactions by interacting with each other and facilitating the formation of chromatin loop domains. Insulators regulate gene activity in diverse or- ganisms (1–8). The defining feature of insula- tors as a class of regulatory elements is their ability to block enhancer-promoter interactions when positioned interveningly. One of the best characterized insulators is suHw, a 340–base pair (bp) element from the Drosophila gypsy retrotransposon. It protects transgenes from chromosomal position effects and blocks vari- ous enhancer-promoter interactions (9–13). SUHW, a zinc-finger DNA binding protein, and MOD(MDG4), a BTB domain protein, are essential for suHw function (13–16). Using divergently transcribed reporter genes in trans- genic Drosophila embryos, we have shown that skipped stripe 2 enhancer, directs reporter ex- pression in a composite pattern of broad dorsal activation and dominant ventral repression of the E2 stripe (Fig. 1, A and D) (13, 17, 18). A single 340-bp suHw insulator element in the VS2 transgene partially blocked the upstream VRE enhancer (Fig. 1, B and D). Two tandem suHw elements (arranged as direct repeats) were inserted between VRE and E2, resulting in VSS2. Instead of enhanced blockage, VSS2 em- bryos exhibited a loss of suHw insulator activ- ity (Fig. 1, C and D). This was observed in most VSS2 embryos (Fig. 1D) and in all 10 indepen- dent VSS2 lines, indicating that it is unlikely to be caused by chromosomal position effects. (Fig. 2, B and H), whereas two tandem suHw elements (NSSH) did not block the NEE en- hancer (Fig. 2, C and H). A second group of transgenes uses a twist mesoderm enhancer (PE) and an evenskipped stripe 3 enhancer (E3) (13). Both enhancers are active when separated by the L spacer (PL3) (Fig. 2, D and H). Insertion of a suHw element in the PS3 trans- gene blocked the upstream PE enhancer (Fig. 2, E and H), whereas two tandem suHw elements (PSS3) did not block the PE enhancer (Fig. 2, F and H). Replacing one of the two suHw ele- ments in PSS3 with a spacer of comparable size (A) restored the enhancer-blocking activity of the remaining suHw in PSA3 embryos (Fig. 2G), indicating that loss of insulator activity with two suHw elements is not due to the spacing change but to the presence of the addi- tional insulator. Genomic PCR with individual NSH, NSSH, PS3, and PSS3 lines indicated that the transgenes were structurally intact (Fig. 2I). These results suggest that the loss of insulator activity with tandemly arranged suHw is inde- pendent of the enhancer tested. The enhancer-blocking activity of suHw may require its interaction with other sites (or insulators) within the nucleus. A second suHw nearby may compete dominantly for the existing suHw and affect the neighboring en- hancer-promoter interactions, depending on the cis arrangement of these elements. To test this hypothesis, we constructed the SVS2 transgene in which the VRE enhancer is flanked by two suHw elements. In contrast to the loss of insu- on October 24, 2016 http://science.sciencemag.org/ Downloaded from of suHw were ineffective in blocking various enhancers from a downstream promoter. Moreover, an enhancer was blocked more effectively from a pro- moter by two flanking suHw insulators than by a single intervening one. Thus, insulators may modulate enhancer-promoter interactions by interacting with each other and facilitating the formation of chromatin loop domains. Insulators regulate gene activity in diverse or- ganisms (1–8). The defining feature of insula- tors as a class of regulatory elements is their ability to block enhancer-promoter interactions when positioned interveningly. One of the best characterized insulators is suHw, a 340–base pair (bp) element from the Drosophila gypsy retrotransposon. It protects transgenes from chromosomal position effects and blocks vari- ous enhancer-promoter interactions (9–13). SUHW, a zinc-finger DNA binding protein, and MOD(MDG4), a BTB domain protein, are essential for suHw function (13–16). Using divergently transcribed reporter genes in trans- genic Drosophila embryos, we have shown that an enhancer blocked from the downstream pro- moter by suHw is fully competent to activate an upstream promoter (12). To probe the insulator mechanism, we test- ed the effect of suHw copy number on its insulator strength in Drosophila embryos. The zerknullt enhancer VRE (ventral repression el- ement) has been shown to be partially blocked by suHw (12). In blastoderm embryos, the V2 transgene containing VRE and E2, an even- skipped stripe 2 enhancer, directs reporter ex- pression in a composite pattern of broad dorsal activation and dominant ventral repression of the E2 stripe (Fig. 1, A and D) (13, 17, 18). A single 340-bp suHw insulator element in the VS2 transgene partially blocked the upstream VRE enhancer (Fig. 1, B and D). Two tandem suHw elements (arranged as direct repeats) were inserted between VRE and E2, resulting in VSS2. Instead of enhanced blockage, VSS2 em- bryos exhibited a loss of suHw insulator activ- ity (Fig. 1, C and D). This was observed in most VSS2 embryos (Fig. 1D) and in all 10 indepen- dent VSS2 lines, indicating that it is unlikely to be caused by chromosomal position effects. Genomic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of independent VS2 and VSS2 lines further verified the structural integrity of the transgenes in vivo (Fig. 1E) (19). To determine whether the loss of insulator function in VSS2 embryos is enhancer-specific, we constructed transgenes using a rhomboid neuroectodermal enhancer (NEE) and a hairy stripe 1 enhancer (H1) (13). The NLH embryos containing NEE and H1 enhancers separated by a 1.4-kb neutral spacer (L) exhibited a compos- ite lacZ pattern directed by both enhancers (Fig. 2, A and H). A single suHw element in the NSH transgene blocked the upstream NEE enhancer (A) restored the enhancer-blocking activity of the remaining suHw in PSA3 embryos (Fig. 2G), indicating that loss of insulator activity with two suHw elements is not due to the spacing change but to the presence of the addi- tional insulator. Genomic PCR with individual NSH, NSSH, PS3, and PSS3 lines indicated that the transgenes were structurally intact (Fig. 2I). These results suggest that the loss of insulator activity with tandemly arranged suHw is inde- pendent of the enhancer tested. The enhancer-blocking activity of suHw may require its interaction with other sites (or insulators) within the nucleus. A second suHw nearby may compete dominantly for the existing suHw and affect the neighboring en- hancer-promoter interactions, depending on the cis arrangement of these elements. To test this hypothesis, we constructed the SVS2 transgene in which the VRE enhancer is flanked by two suHw elements. In contrast to the loss of insu- lator function seen in VSS2 embryos, the VRE enhancer is more effectively blocked in SVS2 embryos than in VS2 embryos (Fig. 3, A, B, and D). Thus, it is the tandem arrangement rather than physical proximity that causes the loss of insulator activity. VRE-mediated dorsal activa- tion of the divergently transcribed miniwhite is also diminished in SVS2 embryos (19), indicat- ing that VRE is blocked from promoters on either side. suHw-mediated blockage of VRE is significantly reduced in SVS2/mod(mdg4)u1 embryos (Fig. 3C), indicating that a MOD- (MDG4)-mediated complex is required for the enhanced insulator activity (13, 16, 20). VSS2, Department of Cellular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 291 19 JANUARY 2001 493
jxtx
camel_404
konakalab
nobushimi
yasumuusan
aronwalsh
techmathproject
tagtag
eltociear
ynakano
dscs
mansuy
aleyda
dougneiner
shlominoach
garrettdimon
wjessup
mongodb
eileencodes
stephaniewalter
chrisshort
kastner
pedronauck
brianwarren
