1 Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
2 Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk
630090, Russia
* Present address: Pharmacia, Chesterfield, MO 63017, USA
Author for correspondence (e-mail:
Icherbas{at}bio.indiana.edu)
Accepted 15 October 2002
![]() |
SUMMARY |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: EcR, AF1, Ecdysone, Nuclear receptors, Isoforms, Dominant-negative
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
An attractive inference is that these differing AF requirements reflect the diversity of the rate-limiting steps that can be involved in the assembly of functional transcription complexes. If so, it is interesting to consider how these requirements are organized globally. One plausible hypothesis is that AF requirements are simply promoter specific. According to this idea, the set of hormone-responsive promoters in any given cell type may approximate a random sample of AF requirements. A corollary is that, if AF1-requiring promoters are prevalent, every cell type should require AF1, and if the receptor exists in multiple isoforms with different AF1s, every cell should require multiple isoforms.
A very different hypothesis is suggested by observations on receptors with
alternative, isoform-specific AF1s and particularly by the behavior of such
receptors in developmental systems. Many nuclear receptors exist as
functionally distinct isoforms differing only in their N-terminal domains
[e.g. RARs , ß and
(Zelent et al., 1991
), RXRs
, ß and
(Fleischhauer
et al., 1992
; Liu and Linney,
1993
; Nagata et al.,
1994
), TRß (Langlois et
al., 1997
), GR (Yudt and
Cidlowski, 2001
), PR (Kastner
et al., 1990
; Giangrande and
McDonnell, 1999
; Shyamala et
al., 2000
), ER
(Flouriot et al., 2000
) and
EcR (Talbot et al., 1993
)]. In
addition, receptor isotypes, generated from distinct genes, most often differ
in their N-terminal domains [e.g. TR
(Hollenberg et al., 1995
) and
ER (Delaunay et al., 2000
;
Saville et al., 2000
;
Weatherman and Scanlan,
2001
)]. Where a receptor exists in several isoforms or isotypes,
these are generally distributed in a strongly tissue-specific manner
(Hodin et al., 1989
;
Zelent et al., 1991
;
Giangrande and McDonnell,
1999
; Flouriot et al.,
2000
; Mollard et al.,
2000
). Differences in isoform titers can be quite striking, and
for some nuclear receptors there is a strong and unmistakable correlation with
developmental fate (e.g. Zelent et al.,
1991
). Given that alternative AF1s have distinct transcriptional
effects and that they can activate distinct sets of target genes
(Richer et al., 2002
), it is
reasonable to suppose that the availability of particular AF1s (in specific
receptor isoforms or isotypes) may regulate tissue-specific gene expression.
Taken to the extreme, this hypothesis would imply that promoters that are
induced in all tissues require only AF2, while promoters whose hormone
response is tissue-specific require AF1, and in any given cell type the
AF1-specific promoters share a requirement for a specific receptor
variant.
These alternatives lead to the following question: where isoform (hence
AF1) titers vary in a tissue-specific way, are they strongly correlated with
tissue-specific requirements for the corresponding AF1s? This question has
been addressed using mutant animals. For example, the phenotypes of
RXR-null mice and mice homozygous for a deletion of the AF1 region of
RXR
, were compared (Mascrez et al.,
2001
). Animals that lacked AF1 exhibited localized defects,
suggesting specific AF1 requirements, though most RXR
functions
occurred normally. In a parallel approach, the roles of individual isoforms
have been assessed by using isoform-specific mutations
(Mulac-Jericevic et al., 2000
;
Bender et al., 1997
;
Schubiger et al., 1998
). In
all these instances, the use of mutant organisms creates daunting interpretive
challenges, for it is difficult to decipher the direct, local consequences of
receptor failure in the face of numerous organism-wide defects. We have
adopted a different approach, arresting receptor function in targeted
developmental domains and then testing the abilities of particular receptor
isoforms to rescue development when expressed in those domains.
Our experiments involve components of the Drosophila ecdysone receptor. Ecdysone triggers molting and metamorphosis in insects. At metamorphosis, virtually every cell is a hormone target, with cells of different tissues proceeding down profoundly different developmental pathways. In addition, ecdysone plays an important role in oogenesis.
The ecdysone receptor is a heterodimer of two nuclear receptors: EcR and
the RXR ortholog USP (Koelle et al.,
1991; Yao et al.,
1992
; Yao et al.,
1993
; Thomas et al.,
1993
). In Drosophila, there are three EcR isoforms that
differ only in their N-terminal regions, the three isoforms being derived from
a single structural gene by both alternative promoter usage and alternative
splicing (Talbot et al.,
1993
). The potencies of the three isoforms have been tested in an
EcR-deficient Drosophila cell line (X. H., L. C. and P. C.,
unpublished), in yeast (Dela Cruz et al.,
2000
) and in mammalian cells
(Mouillet et al., 2001
). These
studies confirm that the individual isoforms (and their isolated N-terminal
regions tested as fusions) differ markedly in their abilities to activate
particular test promoters, and that each A/B region contains an AF1 that can
activate transcription in an appropriate experimental setting. For example,
AF1s from isoforms B1 and B2, but not from A, are active when tested in
Drosophila cells with an artificial promoter derived from the
Drosophila Eip71CD gene. It is important to note here that these
specific isoform requirements are absolute; that is, increasing the titer of
an inactive isoform does not increase its ability to activate transcription
(X. H., L. C. and P. C., unpublished).
Little is known about the distribution of isoform EcR-B2, but it is clear
that isoforms EcR-A and EcR-B1 have very different tissue distributions, and
their relative titers in different tissues are well correlated with the fates
of those tissues during metamorphosis
(Talbot et al., 1993;
Robinow et al., 1993
;
Truman et al., 1994
;
Hodin and Riddiford, 1998
).
For example, immunohistochemistry shows that in third-instar larvae, B1
predominates in larval tissues that will die during metamorphosis, while A
predominates in the imaginal discs.
Genetic studies suggest that the isoforms have overlapping but distinct
functions during fly development. Mutations that eliminate all isoforms, only
isoform B1, or isoforms B1 and B2 have distinct lethal phases, leading to
death at hatching, at pupariation and during larval life, respectively
(Bender et al., 1997;
Schubiger et al., 1998
). It is
known that ectopic expression of any single EcR isoform can partially rescue
development in EcR- animals, with the extent of rescue
depending on the isoform (Li and Bender,
2000
).
We have used the GAL4 driver system of Brand and Perrimon
(Brand and Perrimon, 1993) and
dominant-negative mutant EcRs to arrest ecdysone receptor function in selected
developmental domains. Then, using the same driver system to express
individual EcR isoforms, we have asked which isoforms are sufficient to
restore and sustain development. Serendipitously, our experiments have
revealed a molting checkpoint a global block in development induced by
local lesions. The developmental arrest associated with that checkpoint is
noteworthy in its own right; in the present context it has proven
exceptionally useful for our experiments.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Eip602-GAL4 is identical to Eip657-GAL4, except that the promoter fragment was shortened to -602 to +11; this was accomplished by digesting Eip657-GAL4 with KpnI and SwaI, blunting the ends with T4 DNA polymerase, and re-ligating the resulting fragment.
Sgs3-GAL4 was a gift from Dr A. J. Andres and is described by Do et al. (T. V. Do, A. Biyasheva and A. J. Andres, unpublished). The promoter fragment is bases -1750 to +20 of Sgs3.
Plasmids for UAS responder stocks
The coding sequences from pCMA-EcR-F645A, pCMA-EcR-W650A and pCMA-EcR-C (X.
H., L. C. and P. C., unpublished) were excised as BamHI to
NheI fragments and inserted between the BglII and
XbaI sites of pUAST (Brand et
al., 1994) to make the P element transformation vectors
UAS-EcR-F645A, UAS-EcR-W650A and UAS-EcR-C.
Transformed fly lines
Drivers
Sgs-GAL4, Eip657-GAL4 and Eip602-GAL4 were inserted
into flies by P element transformation. The Eip657 and
Eip602 drivers had qualitatively similar properties in our assays;
Eip657-GAL4 was used to generate the photograph in
Fig. 5D; all other Eip driver
experiments reported here used Eip602-GAL4.
|
The GMR, dpp, Ser and act5C drivers were obtained from the Bloomington Stock Center. The Lsp2 driver was a gift from C. Antoniewski. The slbo driver was a gift from D. Montell. See Table 1 for more details about these drivers.
|
Responders
UAS-EcR-F645A, UAS-EcR-W650A, and UAS-EcR-C were inserted into flies by P
element transformation. Multiple UAS-EcR-F645A insertions were tested and
found to give qualitatively similar results; the data reported in this paper
were derived from an insertion of UAS-EcR-F645A on chromosome II. Two
UAS-EcR-C transformants were tested for their ability to rescue the F645A
phenotype and were found to have qualitatively similar effects; data are
reported for a single insertion on chromosome III. The UAS-EcR wild-type
responders (Lee et al., 2000)
were a gift from S. Robinow; all were inserted on chromosome III.
The UAS-lacZ.nls responder (chromosome II)
(Jacobsen et al., 1998) was a
gift from T. Jacobsen. The UAS-GFP.nls responder (chromosome II; B. Edgar,
personal communication to FlyBase) was obtained from the Bloomington Stock
Center.
lacZ staining
In order to ensure that all tissues of each larva were evenly exposed to
the stain, one tip of the larva was cut off and the remainder of the animal
was everted like a sock, using a blunt dissecting needle to push the intact
end through the longitudinal axis of the animal. The everted larva was then
fixed and stained essentially as described
(Hazelrigg, 2000).
EcR mutations
The mutations EcRM554fs, EcRQ50st,
EcRW53st (Bender et al.,
1997), EcR31 and EcR225
(Schubiger et al., 1998
) were
obtained from the Bloomington Stock Center. Each was recombined with the
UAS-F645A driver to generate a stock of the genotype
w1118; UAS-F645A EcR/CyO; +. In the experiments
reported in Table 2, at least
three independent recombinants were used for each EcR mutation;
results from the different recombinants were indistinguishable and are pooled
in the table.
|
Polytene chromosome analysis
Larvae were staged by the morphology of the salivary gland duct
(Zhimulev and Belyaeva, 1999).
Puff stages were assigned by inspection of all of the known puff sites as
described previously (Zhimulev and
Belyaeva, 1999
).
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Taking EcR-B1-C655 as our starting material, we created EcR-F645A
and EcR-W650A by altering highly conserved residues of helix 12.
Fig. 2 summarizes their
essential properties. When tested in L57-3-11 cells, neither mutant activates
transcription in response to ligand. In vitro, both dimerize with USP and bind
DNA normally, while F645A but not W650A binds ligand normally. As predicted by
these properties, EcR-F645A and EcR-W650A both act as competitive inhibitors
of wild-type EcR in cell culture assays (X. H., L. C. and P. C., unpublished);
therefore they are dominant-negative mutants (EcR-DNs) that interfere with
ecdysone-induced gene activation when expressed at high levels.
Effects of targeted EcR-DN expression
We generated numerous transformed fly stocks carrying the responder
transposons UAS-EcR-F645A and UAS-EcR-W650A, in which a GAL4-dependent
promoter expresses the coding sequences of the EcR-DNs. We then selected a
panel of driver stocks, each expressing GAL4 in a temporally and spatially
distinct developmental domain (Brand and
Perrimon, 1993) and crossed the stocks to yield hybrid progeny
with targeted EcR-DN expression.
Table 1 summarizes the
expression domains of the nine GAL4 drivers we used. For each driver stock, we
verified and/or defined its expression domain by crosses to UAS-GFP.nls and
(in most cases) UAS-lacZ.nls responder stocks. The GFP-expressing
progeny were used to define stages of substantial expression, the
lacZ-expressing stocks to define spatial patterns at higher
resolution and sensitivity. Previously undescribed expression patterns for the
dpp and GMR drivers are illustrated in a supplemental
on-line figure (see
http://dev.biologists.org/supplemental/).
Most of the drivers we selected are first expressed during metamorphosis. Some
(Eip, Sgs3 and Lsp2) first become active at the mid-instar
transition midway through the third larval instar
(Andres and Cherbas, 1992;
Andres et al., 1993
). Others
(GMR, dpp and Ser) first show strong expression about 10
hours later, at a stage when the animals leave the food and the well-known
ecdysone-induced puffing cycle begins in the salivary glands.
In initial experiments using the GMR, Eip and dpp drivers, we crossed each driver stock to several independent responder lines for both UAS-EcR-F645A and UAS-EcR-W650A. These tests revealed that each driver yields a qualitatively clear pattern, irrespective of insertion site or choice of EcR-DN, although the results from independent insertions were quantitatively distinguishable. Therefore, in all of the experiments reported here we employed a single F645A responder stock.
The effects of expressing EcR-F645A in each domain are illustrated in Figs 3 and 4, and are summarized below.
|
|
act5C
The act5C driver is expressed ubiquitously beginning early in
embryonic development. Expression of F645A under its control is lethal, either
during embryonic development (stages not defined) or soon after hatching.
GMR
Most animals cease development after pupariation. Escapers have defective
eyes, with irregular and poorly pigmented ommatidia and large necrotic,
melanized patches (Fig. 3B).
When the level of F645A expression was varied by using different responder
insertions or different temperatures, the efficiency of developmental arrest
(measured as the fraction of animals failing to reach adulthood) was well
correlated with the severity of the morphological defects in escapers (judged
qualitatively, not shown). In short, lethality (arrest) provides a convenient
quantitative measure of the EcR-F645A phenotype.
dpp
At 25°C, most animals fail to pupate. At 20°C, some animals arrest
before pupation; most pupate, but die during adult development. Escapers are
morphologically normal save for the orientation and, sometimes, the length of
the posterior scutellar bristles.
Ser
All animals fail to pupate; there are no escapers.
Eip
Pupariation is defective. The animals fail to shorten, and tanning occurs
only at the extremities, where the driver is not expressed
(Fig. 3D). Their development
does not progress beyond the stage shown in the figure and the imaginal discs
do not evert. At low temperatures, a few animals escape, becoming
morphologically normal adults.
Sgs3
The salivary glands synthesize a small amount of glue (their normal
secretory product), but ecdysone-induced glue secretion does not occur
(Fig. 3F). The glands histolyse
on schedule at pupation and the animals are fully viable. The polytene
chromosomes are normal in size, but their puffing pattern remains blocked at
puff stage 1' (PS1') (Fig.
4) a stage normally observed only early in the last larval
instar, in chromosomes too small to be suitable for cytogenetic analysis
(Zhimulev and Belyaeva, 1999).
PS1' is characterized by small puffs at sites encoding glue proteins
(3C8-12, 68C, 90D), at other sites that normally regress in the presence of
ecdysone (42A4-18, 43E, 53C, 56E1-2), at several sites not correlated with
development (47A9-16, 58E, 67B, 71CE, 72D, 88D, 88E) and at the
PS1'-specific sites 78E and 80A3
(Becker, 1959
,
Ashburner, 1967
;
Ashburner and Berendes, 1978
;
Zhimulev, 1999
). In
PS1', there is no puff at 85F1-6, a region which puffs continuously
during the subsequent stages PS1 to PS11.
Lsp2
The fat body cells fail to dissociate at pupation
(Fig. 3H). Most animals die
late in adult development. Viability is lower in females than in males.
EH
Most animals molt into adults but fail to expand their wings a
phenotype previously observed after genetic cell ablation in the EH domain
(McNabb et al., 1997).
slbo
Metamorphosis appears normal, but the resulting females are sterile. In the
developing egg chambers, border cell migration is delayed or fails completely
(Fig. 3J). The chorions are
fragile and eggs collapse soon after oviposition. Dorsal appendages are
frequently broad or branched, reminiscent of the bullwinkle phenotype
(Rittenhouse and Berg, 1995),
and operculum structures are poorly developed.
These diverse observations can be summarized as follows: in a cell expressing an EcR-DN, all ecdysone-dependent development is arrested. The complete abrogation of ecdysone-dependent development is shown most clearly by the dramatic arrest of the polytene chromosomes in PS1'. In some domains, EcR-DN expression blocks development globally at the next ecdysone-dependent step. Thus, expression in the Eip, GMR, Ser or dpp domain prevents any sign of pupation. We propose that this blockade illustrates the existence of a `molting checkpoint', which will be described in more detail in the Discussion.
The EcR-DN phenotypes are due to insufficient functional EcR
We have ascribed these phenotypes to arrested ecdysone signaling. In
principle, they might be due to any other dominant effect of EcR-DN
expression. For example, because crosstalk among nuclear receptors is common,
EcR-F645A might disrupt other nuclear receptor signaling pathways. To test
whether the phenotypes result from insufficient functional ecdysone receptor
we tested the effects of reducing the background concentration of wild-type
EcR.
In Table 2, the leftmost
data columns compare the effects of targeted EcR-DN expression in wild-type
flies and flies heterozygous for the null mutation
EcRM554fs (Bender et
al., 1997). EcRM554fs is fully recessive;
thus, in the absence of EcR-DN expression, the heterozygotes are viable and
morphologically normal. Targeted EcR-DN expression reduces viability (a
combination of checkpoint effects and more direct lethality). For each of the
four drivers tested, reduction in wild-type EcR enhances this phenotype by one
to two orders of magnitude. These results are fully consistent with the
hypothesis that there is a competition in target cells between EcR-DN and
wild-type EcR.
Rescuing EcR-DN phenotypes by expressing wild-type EcR isoforms
In the converse experiment, we sought to suppress the effects of targeted
EcR-DN expression by overexpression of single wild-type EcR isoforms. This
suppression should succeed only in domains that do not require a mixture of
isoforms. Thus, we sought to discover whether such domains exist and, where
they exist, to identify the required isoform. We reasoned that if both EcR-DN
and a wild-type EcR are expressed from similar GAL4-responsive promoters, the
two transgene-derived proteins should be present at comparable concentrations,
both far in excess of the normal products; under these circumstances, cell
culture data (X. H., L. C. and P. C., unpublished) predict that the EcR-DN
will compete poorly.
As a prelude, we tested whether simply overexpressing single EcR isoforms in small targeted domains deranges development in the absence of any EcR-DN. We used GAL4 drivers to target expression of each EcR isoform in the GMR, dpp, Ser and Eip domains and observed no significant effects on morphology or viability (data not shown). The sole exception to this pattern is the act5C domain, in which expression of any single isoform causes early lethality. Despite this exception, we find the result surprising and will return to it in the Discussion.
We then co-expressed EcR-F645A with each of the wild-type EcR isoforms (and EcR-C, containing only the sequences common to all isoforms) in targeted developmental domains. The results were domain specific: in numerous cases all of the phenotypes associated with EcR-DN expression are efficiently suppressed (Fig. 3C, Fig. 5, Table 3). Contrary to our expectation, efficient suppression occurs irrespective of isoform in several domains and strict EcR isoform specificity appears to be comparatively unusual.
|
Thus, any wild-type EcR isoform is able to rescue both normal viability and normal morphology in the GMR, Lsp2 and EH domains, and nearly complete viability in the dpp domain (Fig. 3C, Fig. 5). In the Sgs3 domain, each isoform rescued glue secretion partially (Table 3, and below). Given these results, it is not surprising that the common region `isoform' EcR-C (which lacks any potential AF1) affords substantial, though quantitatively weaker, rescue in the GMR, Lsp2, Sgs3 and dpp domains.
We observed requirements for specific EcR isoforms in only three domains (Fig. 5, Table 3). In the Ser domain, EcR-A appears to be required; it alone rescued completely, yielding fully viable, morphologically normal adults. In the Eip domain, only EcR-B2 provided significant rescue: About half of the animals reached adulthood; those that did were morphologically normal. Similarly, only EcR-B2 produced significant rescue of fertility when expressed in the slbo domain. In these flies, the border cells migrated normally in most egg chambers and about 25% of the eggs retained a normal shape once laid; a few gave rise to viable larvae. Although EcR-B2 rescue was incomplete in both the Eip and slbo domains, we note that in those domains neither EcR-A nor EcR-B1 afforded any detectable rescue. In fact, co-expression of EcR-A in the slbo domains slightly enhanced the EcR-F645A phenotype, decreasing egg yield and increasing egg fragility.
Remarkably, in every domain we tested (except for the ubiquitous act5C domain), a single isoform was able to support development, providing substantial rescue of the EcR-DN phenotypes. We found no evidence of any cell type that requires a mixture of isoforms to support normal development.
Salivary gland puffing under the influence of single EcR
isoforms
We also examined the ability of each isoform to rescue the complex
ecdysone-induced puffing pathway, expecting that individual early puffs would
be supported to different extents by the different EcR isoforms. In fact, each
isoform rescues both glue secretion and the puffing sequence
partially. A normal, coordinated progression of puffs occurs at a slower than
normal speed until the animal (though not the gland) reaches pupariation
(Fig. 6). Thus puffing lags
behind duct development, deranging the normally perfect correlation between
puffing and duct stage (Zhimulev and
Belyaeva, 1999).
|
In white puparia (normally PS10-11), salivary glands expressing EcR-DN in combination with any of the three isoforms display a puffing pattern characteristic of younger animals, or (more frequently) a mixture of puffs typical of PS10-11 and those of earlier puff stages. The pattern varies among individual animals, and typically includes some PS10-11 puffs (66B, 67B, 71B, 97C2, 85D1-2, 85F1-6) and some puffs characteristic of earlier larval stages (34A5-6, 56E1-2), combined with a reduction or loss of some PS10-11 puffs (47A9-16, 62E, 63E1-3, 71F1-2, 82F). Examples of these aberrant patterns are shown in Fig. 7.
|
Dominant enhancement of EcR-DN effects as a test of normal isoform
functions
When the host animals for targeted EcR-DN expression are heterozygous for
EcRM554fs, the EcR-DN phenotypes are exacerbated; i.e.
EcRM554fs, which contains a common region frame-shift and
is a true EcR null (Bender et
al., 1997), is a dominant enhancer of the EcR-DN effect. We also
tested four more selective EcR mutations, the B1-specific nulls
EcRW53st and EcRQ50st
(Bender et al., 1997
), and
EcR225 and EcR31, in which promoter
deletions abolish expression of both B1 and B2
(Schubiger et al., 1998
). The
results, summarized in Table 2,
support the following conclusions:
GMR and dpp drivers
Neither heterozygosity for EcR-B1 nor heterozygosity for both B isoforms
has any consistent strong effect on EcR-F645A lethality. As shown in
Table 2, the two EcR-B1
mutations exerted opposite effects in the GMR domain and had no
effect in the dpp domain, while the two mutations affecting B1+B2
enhanced EcR-F645A lethality very modestly in the GMR domain and
exerted small but opposite effects in the dpp domain. These results
imply that A is the dominant isoform in the GMR and dpp
domains, and are entirely consistent with our observations that all isoforms
are capable of supporting normal development in the GMR and
dpp domains (Fig. 5),
and with a published report that isoform A is prevalent in both domains
(Talbot et al., 1993).
Eip driver
Heterozygosity for EcR-B1 has a very modest effect, but heterozygosity for
both B isoforms strongly enhances DN-induced lethality. Although isoform B1 is
present at relatively high titer in the larval epidermis
(Talbot et al., 1993), only
isoform B2 is capable of supporting normal development
(Fig. 7). The results suggest
that EcR-B2 is the dominant isoform in this domain.
Lsp2 driver
Heterozygosity for loss of both B1+ B2, but not for B1 alone, enhances the
EcR-DN effect. This is surprising, as isoform B1 is present at relatively high
titer in the fat body (Talbot et al.,
1993) and all isoforms are capable of supporting normal
development (Fig. 7). These
data suggest that EcR-B2 is also present in the fat body at high
concentration. Thus, heterozygous loss of EcR-B1 causes at most a modest
reduction in the level of functional receptor, while heterozygous loss of both
B isoforms causes a severe reduction.
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Our mutant EcRs retain the wild-type B1 N terminus, which has AF1 activity in the wild-type molecule (X. H., L. C. and P. C., unpublished). If AF1 in the mutant EcR mediated transcriptional activation, it would complicate the interpretation of our results. We are confident that this is not the case, for several reasons: (1) co-repressors block AF1 activity; (2) when tested in EcR-deficient cultured cells, under conditions where AF1 is functional in wild-type EcR-B1, EcR-F645A completely fails to activate transcription in response to ecdysone (X. H., L. C. and P. C., unpublished; L. C., unpublished); and (3) In flies, F645A and W650A proteins based on EcR-B2, EcR-A or EcR-C produce results that are qualitatively similar to those we have described here (L. C., unpublished).
Despite residual uncertainties about the molecular details, it is clear that the EcR-DNs block development in individual tissues much as one would expect if ecdysone action had been arrested (details below). Perhaps most telling is the abrogation of all hormone-induced puffing changes in the salivary gland polytene chromosomes. All the phenotypes we observe are associated with a reduction in the level of functional EcR/USP as they are strongly enhanced in a background of lowered wild-type EcR titer and strongly suppressed when extra wild-type EcR is supplied. Analysis in cultured cells (X. H., L. C. and P. C., unpublished) shows that these mutant EcRs interfere with wild-type EcR function only when they are present in substantial excess; we infer that this is the case in the targeted fly tissues. Crucial variables that affect the level of GAL4-mediated expression include temperature and the responder insertion site. In all of the experiments described here, we have used a single insertion of EcR-F645A in polytene division 23C. Alterations in the transposon insertion and in temperature cause variations in the severity of the phenotypes over a wide range (e.g. 0-100% escapers with the GMR and dpp drivers). This suggests that EcR-DN expression is not far above crucial levels and that the level of expression matters. We will return to these quantitative issues below.
EcR-DN phenotypes: a molting checkpoint
An unanticipated phenotypic consequence of targeted EcR-DN expression is
the global block that we refer to as a `molting checkpoint'. A full
description of this phenomenon awaits further studies, but a brief description
is necessary here because it has profound effects on the EcR-DN phenotypes and
on our ability to score them.
When EcR-DNs are expressed in some tissues, they cause both local phenotypes and a global effect: metamorphosis stops at the time of the next ecdysone-dependent event. This is most clearly illustrated by EcR-DN expression in the Ser domain; in this case, expression of the EcR-DN is restricted to the margins of the wing and leg discs, but development is blocked in the entire animal. We use the term `molting checkpoint' to describe the global block. A similar phenomenon occurs in all other cases where EcR-DN is expressed in epidermal cells. The expression patterns of the Eip, dpp and GMR drivers are more complex, opening the possibility that the global block results from localized malfunction of crucial tissues such as neurosecretory cells or tracheae; nonetheless, the similarity of the lethal phenotypes makes it attractive to hypothesize that the molting checkpoint is a general consequence of EcR-DN expression in epidermal cells.
A few basic properties of the molting check-point are important here.
The temporal progression of the cell cycle must be coordinated and this coordination is achieved by a series of checkpoints responding to aberrant events. Similarly, the complex multicellular events of molting and metamorphosis must be coordinated, and we suggest that the style of this coordination is similar: Progress is delayed by a checkpoint invoked by aberrant development. The checkpoint captured our attention because it revealed itself as a global effect in experiments designed to test purely local phenotypes. It seems likely that the same phenomenon occurs in experiments where targeted expression is not involved; i.e. mutations with diverse, local effects may, because they invoke the checkpoint, reveal themselves by the common phenotype of late larval or pupal lethality. We cannot assess how common this may be.
The checkpoint is important here because it provides a simple quantitative measure of EcR-DN phenotypes. We have used the frequency of adult eclosion as a quantitative indicator of the localized effects of EcR-DN action in several domains. It is the only available assay for the Ser domain, where the checkpoint acts so efficiently that we have observed no escapers under any conditions, and it is a convenient assay in the dpp domain. Its validity is clear in the GMR domain, where the morphological defects in escapers are proportional to the frequency of the block to pupation over a wide range of temperatures and responder insertions. We note that lethality caused by EcR-DN expression in the Lsp domain arises from a different mechanism; the animals die late in adult development rather than simply failing to molt.
Morphological phenotypes caused by targeted EcR-DN expression
For those drivers that yield viable, morphologically defective adults,
targeted expression of EcR-DNs provides a new way to identify
ecdysone-dependent developmental steps. Although we have not investigated any
of the EcR-DN-induced morphological phenotypes in detail, our results do
support several significant inferences.
In interpreting these data, it is important to consider that the EcR-DNs are effective only when present in large excess over the wild-type EcR (X. H., L. C. and P. C., unpublished); hence, it is unlikely that low-level expression of these drivers, below the level of detection of our reporter assays, plays a significant role in the observed phenotypes. This idea is supported by the fact that specific defects, when they are detected, are always restricted to the tissues in which the driver is known to be expressed.
GMR domain
A morphogenetic furrow traverses the eye disc during the third larval
instar, leaving developmentally specified future retinal cells in its wake.
GMR expression in the eye disc is confined to these post-furrow cells and
precedes overt retinal differentiation, which continues during the pupal
period (Ghbeish and McKeown,
2002). Retinal differentiation is known to be ecdysone dependent:
In cultured discs of Drosophila (Li and
Meinertzhagen, 1997
) or Manduca
(Champlin and Truman, 1998
),
hormone is required for the differentiation of both lenses and interommatidial
bristles. Mosaic studies have shown that this differentiation requires EcR
(Brennan et al., 2001
) and USP
(Ghbeish and McKeown, 2002
).
After EcR-DN expression, we observe only abortive lens development, irregular
ommatidial arrays and, in most cases, considerable necrosis. The resulting
adult eyes are readily distinguishable from those that result when of cell
death genes like reaper are expressed from the same driver (L. C.,
unpublished); hence the phenotype is not simply a consequence of death of the
affected cells. More detailed analysis shows an early block to the ordered
cell death of excess interommatidial cells (R. Hays, personal communication)
and subsequent massive cell death in the retina (K. Moses, personal
communication). We infer that EcR/USP signaling is required for the apoptosis
that is an essential part of the establishment of the ommatidial array
(Rusconi et al., 2000
), and we
speculate that the subsequent necrosis is a secondary consequence of the
disordered array. Though the GMR driver is expressed in a few other tissues,
the excellent concordance between morphological rescue of the eyes and
checkpoint rescue suggests that it is the defective retinal development that
triggers the molting checkpoint.
slbo domain
A variety of evidence suggests that ecdysone plays a role in
Drosophila oogenesis. Ecdysone signaling in both germline and
follicle cells is required for egg chambers to pass stage 8. In particular,
EcR- germline clones do not progress beyond stage 8 and
stage-specific expression of certain `ecdysone hierarchy genes' (E75, E74,and
BR-C) is common to both germline and soma
(Buszczak et al., 1999). Our
results provide more direct evidence that EcR is, indeed, required in the
follicle cells.
The slbo driver is expressed, beginning in stage 9 egg chambers,
in three discrete groups of follicle cells: border cells, polar cells and
centripetal cells (Rørth et al.,
1998). At stage 9, the border cells begin to migrate between nurse
cells, coming to rest at the anterior end of the oocyte, where they form the
opening of the micropyle (Montell et al.,
1992
). That this migration is blocked by slbo-driven
EcR-DN expression strongly supports the idea that it is one of the
ecdysone-dependent steps associated with the transition described by Buszczak
et al. (Buszczak et al.,
1999
). A role for ecdysone in border cell migration was suggested
previously (Bai et al., 2000
),
because that process requires the p160 co-activator TAI, which can bind EcR in
vitro.
In addition, slbo-driven EcR-DN expression causes obvious defects
in the chorion that cannot be explained by the failure of border cell
migration, i.e. defects that do not occur when migration is prevented by
slbo mutation. They include both visible malformations of the
operculum and the nearby dorsal appendages, and generalized chorion fragility.
We infer that these chorion defects result from defective ecdysone signaling
in the polar and/or centripetal follicle cells. Although EcR has not
previously been implicated in choriogenesis, its heterodimer partner USP is
known to be a chorion gene transcription factor
(Shea et al., 1990), and is
thought to function in follicle cells as a heterodimer with an unidentified
partner (Christianson et al.,
1992
). Our data suggest that USP functions in choriogenesis as
part of the ecdysone receptor, EcR/USP. It is interesting to note that the
BR-C transcription factors, which play a crucial role in the ecdysone response
in other tissues, are also known to be essential for the formation of dorsal
appendages (Orr et al., 1989
;
Deng and Bownes, 1997
;
Tzolovsky et al., 1999
).
Eip
Eip driver expression is complex; it is strongest in the larval
epidermis and in scattered cells of the brain starting at the midinstar
transition. Ddc, a gene crucial for cuticle tanning, is known to be
induced by ecdysone (Chen et al.,
2002); thus, it is not surprising that Eip-driven EcR-DN
expression prevents the tanning associated with pupariation
(Fig. 5D). Failure of the
larvae to contract into the normal puparial barrel was unexpected, as that
change probably depends on underlying muscles that do not express the EcR-DN.
We consider it most likely that the normal transformation requires both muscle
contraction and shape changes in the epidermis, but we cannot eliminate the
alternative possibility that competent epidermal cells signal the muscles to
initiate the contraction.
Sgs3
The Sgs3 driver becomes active exclusively in the salivary glands
at the mid-third transition. At PS1', when the development of the
EcR-DN-expressing salivary gland stalls, all of the glue puffs, including 68C
(the source of the promoter used in the Sgs3 driver), are visible but very
small. Normally they become more active before their regression at
pupariation. Both the initial activation and the later repression of the glue
genes are thought to be ecdysone dependent
(Crowley and Meyerowitz, 1984;
Hansson and Lambertsson,
1989
). Thus, Sgs3-GAL4-driven EcR-DN expression provides
an example of EcR-DN expression under the control of an ecdysone-dependent
promoter. Using the puff at 68C as a guide, we conclude that both the glue
genes and the mutant EcR are expressed at a low steady-state level.
At least three separate ecdysone-responsive events can be monitored in the
salivary glands: the puffing sequence, glue secretion
(Boyd and Ashburner, 1977;
Biyasheva et al., 2001
) and
histolysis (Jiang et al.,
1997
). EcR-DN expression arrests the ecdysone-induced puffing
sequence at the earliest stage known. It blocks glue secretion. But histolysis
of the gland takes place normally in animals expressing EcR-DN from the Sgs3
driver. We attribute this to quantitative insufficiency of EcR-DN expression
in this setting. Indeed, histolysis is blocked when EcR-F645A expression in
the salivary glands is amplified and prolonged by the inclusion of a UAS-GAL4
transposon (B. Sell and L. C., unpublished).
Lsp
The Lsp driver is expressed exclusively in the fat body. Although
several genes are known to be ecdysone responsive in the fat body
(Lepesant et al., 1978;
Brodu et al., 2001
), the only
obvious morphological correlate of fat body metamorphosis is its dissociation
into single, unattached cells at pupation. This dissociation is prevented by
Lsp-driven EcR-DN expression. The late pupal lethality we observe may
be a downstream effect of the failure to dissociate. More likely it occurs
because undescribed biochemical defects in the developmentally arrested fat
body cells starve the developing adult tissues of nutrients. The gender
difference in lethality may be due to differences in the nutritional
requirements of the two sexes.
EH
The EH driver is expressed throughout development in two
neurosecretory cells that are responsible for synthesis of the eclosion
hormone. There has been no previous description of a role for ecdysone in the
development of these cells; our experiments imply that they require the
hormone at some stage for viability and/or development. Indeed, in animals
with targeted EcR-DN expression no eclosion hormone-containing cells can be
detected in late third-instar larvae (J. Truman, personal communication).
Given this, it is not surprising that the EH-driven EcR-DN phenotype is
indistinguishable from that observed when the eclosion-hormone-secreting cells
are ablated (McNabb et al.,
1997).
Identifying isoform requirements by targeted blockade and rescue
We have tested domain-specific isoform requirements by targeted blockade
and rescue, using the GAL4 system to direct the expression of both an EcR-DN
and a particular wild-type EcR isoform. We reasoned, from cell culture assays,
that a wild-type isoform would out-compete the EcR-DN when both were expressed
at comparable levels, and that this design would permit us to identify domains
where AF1 is dispensable or a single AF1 is sufficient to support normal
development.
Certain caveats are appropriate. First, we do not fully understand the
competition that is taking place. Intuition suggests that over-expressing a
single inappropriate wild-type isoform should interfere with signaling. In
some cases it does so. Ubiquitous overexpression of EcR-B1 or B2 a few hours
prior to pupariation (using a heat-shock promoter) leads to severe defects in
pupation (M. Schubiger, S. Tomita, C. Sung, S. Robinow and J. W. Truman,
unpublished), and ubiquitous overexpression of any single EcR isoform
throughout development (using an actin5C driver) leads to early lethality
(this paper). But most tissues, even those that display isoform-specific
rescue of the EcR-DN phenotype, show no apparent developmental abnormality
when any single isoform is expressed in the absence of EcR-DN. Though
surprising, this result is consistent with observations from our laboratory
and others: overexpression of EcR-A in Kc cells does not decrease ecdysone
activation of an EcR-B1/B2-responsive promoter (L. C., unpublished).
Expression of any single EcR isoform driven by a heat-shock promoter in
otherwise wild-type pupae causes no major phenotypic effects (S. Robinow,
personal communication). In the experiments reported here, highly expressed
EcR-DNs can compete with endogenous EcRs under conditions where wild-type EcR
isoforms fail to do so, and the presence of an EcR-DN sensitizes cells to
ectopic expression of an inappropriate EcR isoform. As protein-protein
interactions at target sites can control the exchange and shuttling of nuclear
receptors (Baumann et al.,
2001) perhaps an inability of EcR-DN to release co-repressors in
response to ligand locks it into position. In addition, feedback effects of
EcRs on expression of EcR isoforms from the endogenous EcR gene (M. Schubiger,
S. Tomita, C. Sung, S. Robinow and J. W. Truman, unpublished) may reduce the
effects of ectopic expression of an inappropriate EcR isoform.
Second, if specific isoform requirements are quantitative rather than qualitative, our experiments might underestimate the differences between domains. We think this unlikely because in a model cell culture system, the isoforms appear to have qualitatively different transcriptional activation capacities (X. H., L. C. and P. C., unpublished). Thus, when there is a requirement for particular isoforms it appears to be absolute rather than relative.
Third, because the rescuing isoforms are independent transgenes, they might be expressed at very different levels and their expression levels could be tissue specific. This could lead us to overestimate the differences in effectiveness of individual isoforms in any one domain and might lead us to overestimate differences between the requirements of different domains. Because of this uncertainty we are most impressed by the surprising result that the EcR isoforms are equivalent in numerous domains.
In the GMR, dpp, Lsp2 and EH domains any EcR isoform will
support metamorphosis, and, for at least the first three, so will EcR-C. This
is even more impressive because two of the domains (GMR and
dpp) include diverse cell types. In these four domains,
ecdysone-induced transcriptional changes may be mediated by EcR-AF2, by
release of EcR/USP-mediated inhibition, or by USP. There is structural
evidence to suggest that USP may not be capable of activation
(Clayton et al., 2001) and it
does not contribute to activation in our cell culture model system (X. H., L.
C. and P. C., unpublished), but the first two possibilities are entirely
plausible and cannot be distinguished by the experiments described here.
We have also observed the contrary result. In the Ser domain, only EcR-A gives full rescue, and in the Eip and slbo domains only EcR-B2 is effective. Although these effects may be exaggerated by differences in the levels of expression of the responders we used, the clear-cut nature of the differences suggest that they are real. If our interpretation is correct, then in each of these domains at least one crucial promoter requires an isoform-specific EcR AF1.
Salivary gland puffing might be expected to reveal gene-specific isoform
requirements with individual isoforms giving different uncoordinated
responses. Instead, we can characterize the rescued puffing response, at least
during its pre-puparial stages, by a single parameter: its rate. Each of the
three isoforms supports the normal, coordinate response. We think it simplest
to suppose that the AF1s play no role and that the puffing response is simply
a sensitive reporter of the expression levels for the three rescuing
transgenes. By contrast, earlier studies using heat shock pulses of single
isoforms in an EcR-null background, controlled approximately for protein
levels, observed the normal pattern rescued by B1>B2>>>A
(Bender et al., 1997).
Plainly, it will require a more sophisticated experiment to determine with
confidence whether the isoforms differ in their ability to support the puffing
pathway.
At pupariation, the rescued puffing responses become uncoordinated. This
probably reflects the superimposition of the still-in-progress early response
with new gene activities induced by the declining ecdysone titer at
pupariation (Richards,
1976).
The results reported here must be put into the context of previous work on
the tissue-specific properties of the EcR isoforms. Using different approaches
to local rescue, others have demonstrated that isoforms B1 and B2 (but not A)
can support the remodeling of mushroom-body neurons
(Lee et al., 2000
) and of the
SCP-staining neurons (Schubiger et al.,
1998
; M. Schubiger, S. Tomita, C. Sung, S. Robinow and J. W.
Truman, unpublished). When EcR mutations are examined at the level of
the whole organism, the effects tend to be widespread. Thus, common region EcR
nulls are early embryonic lethals, and EcR-B1 nulls are nonpupariating lethals
with defects in the leg discs, the imaginal cells of the midgut islands, the
larval gut and the histoblasts (Bender et
al., 1997
). Animals null for both EcR-B1 and -B2 are early larval
lethals (Schubiger et al.,
1998
). The widespread nature of the defects in these mutant
animals makes it impossible to judge the localized requirements for EcR
isoforms.
In addition to testing the capacity of individual isoforms to support
development in diverse tissues, our experiments contribute to the catalog of
isoform distribution in those tissues. The distribution of isoforms is complex
both in time and space (Truman et al.,
1994; Jindra et al.,
1996
). Previous experiments used immunostaining to examine the
relative levels of isoforms A and B1 in late third-instar tissues
(Talbot et al., 1993
) and in
the CNS (Robinow et al., 1993
;
Truman et al., 1994
). Our
measurements of the effects of isoform-specific mutations on EcR-DN phenotypes
contribute an estimate of the contribution of individual endogenous isoforms
in the particular times and places in which each driver is expressed. These
data imply major roles for isoform B2 in the larval fat body and epidermis. In
addition, only isoform B2 can rescue the EcR-DN effects in the slbo
domain, suggesting that it may also be the major isoform in the follicle
cells.
We began this paper by posing two alternative models for the distribution of AF1-specific promoters. According to one, individual domains should exhibit specific isoform requirements that can be predicted by their isoform contents. Our results lend no support to this idea. We do not know why isoform titers vary, but they do not appear to be good predictors of isoform requirements. Instead, our results and the previous results described above are consistent with the following picture: A small minority of promoters require specific isoforms. As each responding tissue may contain several (or many) critical promoters, specific AF1 requirements are not limited to a small minority of tissues. Still, it is remarkable that tissues lacking even one such critical promoter are not rare. In those tissues about half of our sample AF1 is dispensable, and ecdysone effects are mediated by AF2 or by relief of repression. In some cells, at least one critical promoter does require a specific AF1. When many tissues lack a specific isoform, developmental defects are likely and their phenotypes depend on both the missing isoform and the intervention of the molting checkpoint.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Andres, A. J. and Cherbas, P. (1992).
Tissue-specific ecdysone responses: regulation of the Drosophila genes
Eip28-29 and Eip40 during larval development.
Development 116,865
-876.
Andres, A. J. and Cherbas, P. (1994). Tissue-specific regulation by ecdysone: Distinct patterns of Eip28/29 expression are controlled by different ecdysone response elements. Dev. Genet. 15,320 -331.[Medline]
Andres, A. J. Fletcher, J. C., Karim, F. D. and Thummel, C. S. (1993). Molecular analysis of the initiation of insect metamorphosis: a comparative study of Drosophila ecdysteroid-regulated transcription. Dev. Biol. 160,388 -404.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ashburner, M. (1967). Patterns of puffing activity in the salivary gland chromosomes of Drosophila.Chromosoma 21,398 -428.[Medline]
Ashburner, M. (1973). Sequential gene activation by ecdysone in polytene chromosomes of Drosophila melanogaster. I. Dependence upon ecdysone concentration. Dev. Biol. 35,47 -61.[Medline]
Ashburner, M. and Berendes, H. D. (1978). Puffing of polytene chromosomes. In The Biology of Drosophila, Vol. 2B (ed. M. Ashburner and T. Wright), pp. 315-395. London: Academic Press.
Bai, J., Uehara, Y. and Montell, D. J. (2000). Regulation of invasive cell behavior by taiman, a Drosophila protein related to AIB1, a steroid receptor coactivator amplified in breast cancer. Cell 103,1047 -1058.[Medline]
Baumann, C. T., Maruvada, P., Hager, G. L. and Yen, P. M.
(2001). Nuclear cytoplasmic shuttling by thyroid hormone
receptors: Multiple protein interactions are required for nuclear retention.
J. Biol. Chem. 276,11237
-11245.
Becker, H. J. (1959). Die Puffs der Spiecheldrusenchromosomen von Drosophila melanogaster. Chromosoma 10,654 -678.
Bender, M., Imam, F. B., Talbot, W. S., Ganetzky, B. and Hogness, D. S. (1997). Drosophila ecdysone receptor mutations reveal functional differences among receptor isoforms. Cell 91,777 -788.[Medline]
Biyasheva, A., Do, T.-V., Lu, Y., Vaskova, M. and Andres, A. J. (2001). Glue secretion in the Drosophila salivary gland: a model for steroid-regulated exocytosis. Dev. Biol. 231,234 -251.[CrossRef][Medline]
Boyd, M. and Ashburner, M. (1977). The hormonal control of salivary gland secretion in Drosophila melanogaster: studies in vitro. J. Insect Physiol. 23,517 -523.
Brand, A. H. and Perrimon, N. (1993). Targeted
gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant
phenotypes. Development
118,401
-415.
Brand, A. H., Manoukian, A. S. and Perrimon, N. (1994). Ectopic expression in Drosophila. In Methods in Cell Biol. Vol. 44 (ed. L. Goldstein and E. Fyrberg), pp. 635-654. San Diego: Academic Press.[Medline]
Brennan, C. A., Li, T.-R., Bender, M., Hsiung, F. and Moses,
K. (2001). Broad-complex, but not Ecdysone
receptor, is required for progression of the morphogenetic furrow in the
Drosophila eye. Development
128, 1-11.
Brodu, V., Mugat, B., Fichelson, P., Lepesant, J.-A. and
Antoniewski, C. (2001). A UAS site substitution approach to
the in vivo dissection of promoters: interplay between the GATAb activator and
the AEF-1 repressor at a Drosophila ecdysone response unit.
Development 128,2593
-2602.
Buszczak, M., Freeman, M. R., Carlson, J. R., Bender, M.,
Cooley, L. and Segraves, W. A. (1999). Ecdysone response
genes govern egg chamber development during mid-oogenesis in Drosophila.
Development 126,4581
-4589.
Champlin, D. T. and Truman, J. W. (1998).
Ecdysteroids govern two phases of eye development during metamorphosis of the
moth Manduca sexta. Development
125,2009
-2018.
Chen, L., Reece, C., O'Keefe, S. L., Hawryluk, G. W., Engstrom, M. M. and Hodgetts, R. B. (2002). Induction of the early-late Ddc gene during Drosophila metamorphosis by the ecdysone receptor. Mech. Dev. 114,95 -107.[Medline]
Cherbas, L., Lee, K. and Cherbas, P. (1991). Identification of ecdysone response elements by analysis of the Drosophila Eip28/29 gene. Genes Dev. 5, 120-131.[Abstract]
Christianson, A. M. K., King, D. L., Hatzivassilious, E., Casas, J. E., Hallenbeck, P. L., Nikodem, V. M., Mitsialis, S. A. and Kafatos, F. C. (1992). DNA binding and heteromerization of the Drosophila transcription factor chorion factor 1/ultraspiracle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89,11503 -11507.[Abstract]
Clayton, G. M., Peak-Chew, S. Y., Evans, R. M. and Schwabe, J.
W. R. (2001). The structure of the ultraspiracle
ligand-binding domain reveals a nuclear receptor locked in an inactive
conformation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
98,1549
-1554.
Collingwood, T. N., Rajanayagam, O., Adams, M., Wagner, R.,
Cavailles, V., Kalkhoven, E., Matthews, C., Nystrom, E., Stenlof, K.,
Lindstedt, G., Tisell, L., Fletterick, R. J., Parker, M. G. and Chatterjee, V.
K. (1997). A natural transactivation mutation in the thyroid
hormone beta receptor: impaired interaction with putative transcriptional
mediators. Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94,248
-253.
Crowley, T. E. and Meyerowitz, E. M. (1984). Steroid regulatin of RNAs transcribed from the Drosophila 68C polytene chromosome puff. Dev. Biol. 102,110 -121.[Medline]
Dela Cruz, F. E., Kirsch, D. R. and Heinrich, J. N.
(2000). Transcriptional activity of Drosophila melanogaster
ecdysone receptor isoforms and ultraspiracle in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
J. Mol. Endocrinol. 24,183
-191.
Delaunay, F., Pettersson, K., Tujague, M. and Gustafsson,
J.-Å. (2000). Functional differences between the
amino-terminal domains of estrogen receptors and ß.
Mol. Pharmacol. 58,584
-590.
Deng, W.-M. and Bownes, M. (1997). Two
signaling pathways specify localized expression of the Broad-Complex
in Drosophila eggshell patterning and morphogenesis.
Development 124,4639
-4647.
Fleischhauer, K., Park, J. H., DiSanto, J. P., Marks, M., Ozato, K. and Yang, S. Y. (1992). Isolation of a full-length cDNA encoding a N-terminally variant form of the human retinoid X receptor beta. Nucleic Acids Res. 20,1801 .[Medline]
Flouriot, G., Brand, H., Denger, S., Metivier, R., Kos, M.,
Reid, G., Sonntag-Buck, V. and Gannon, F. (2000).
Identification of a new isoform of the human estrogen receptor-alpha
(hER-) that is encoded by distinct transcripts and that is able to
repress hER-
activation function 1. EMBO J.
19,4688
-4700.
Freeman, M. (1996). Reiterative use of the EGF receptor triggers differentiation of all cell types in the Drosophila eye. Cell 87,651 -660.[Medline]
Gao, J., Mazella, J., Tang, M. and Tseng, L.
(2000). Ligand-activated progesterone receptor isoform hPR-A is a
stronger transactivator than hPR-B for the expression of IGFBP-1 (insulin-like
growth factor binding protein-1) in human endometrial stromal cells.
Mol. Endocrinol. 14,1954
-1961.
Ghbeish, N. and McKeown, M. (2002). Analyzing the repressive function of ultraspiracle, the Drosophila RXR, in Drosophila eye development. Mech. Dev. 111, 89-98.[CrossRef][Medline]
Giangrande, P. H. and McDonnell, D. P. (1999). The A and B isoforms of the human progesterone receptor: two functionally different transcription factors encoded by a single gene. Rec. Prog. Horm. Res. 54,291 -313.[Medline]
Hadorn, E. (1937). An accelerating effect of normal "ring glands" on puparium formation in lethal larvae of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 28,478 -484.
Hansson, L. and Lambertsson, A. (1989). Steroid regulation of glue protein genes in Drosophila melanogaster.Hereditas 110,61 -67.[Medline]
Hazelrigg, T. (2000). GFP and other reporters. In Drosophila Protocols (ed. W. Sullivan, M. Ashburner and R. S. Hawley), pp. 313-343. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Press.
Hodin, J. and Riddiford, L. M. (1998). The ecdysone receptor and ultraspiracle regulate the timing and progression of ovarian morphogenesis during Drosophila metamorphosis. Dev. Genes Evol. 208,304 -317.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hodin, R. A., Lazar, M. A., Wintman, B. I., Darling, D. S., Koenig, R. J., Larsen, P. R., Moore, D. D. and Chin, W. W. (1989). Identification of a thyroid hormone receptor that is pituitary-specific. Science 244, 76-79.[Medline]
Hollenberg, A. N., Monden, T. and Wondisford, F. E.
(1995). Ligand-independent and -dependent functions of thyroid
hormone receptor isoforms depend upon their distinct amino termini.
J. Biol. Chem. 270,14274
-14280.
Hukriede, N. A., Gu, Y. and Fleming, R. J.
(1997). A dominant-negative form of Serrate acts as a general
antagonist of Notch activation. Development
124,3427
-3437.
Ito, K., Awano, W., Suzuki, K., Hiromi, Y. and Yamamoto, D.
(1997). The Drosophila mushroom body is a quadruple structure of
clonal units each of which contains a virtually identical set of neurons and
glial cells. Development
124,761
-771.
Jacobsen, T. L., Brennan, K., Martinez Arias, A. and Muskavitch,
M. A. T. (1998). Cis-interactions between Delta and Notch
modulate neurogenic signalling in Drosophila.
Development 125,4531
-4540.
Jiang, C., Baehrecke, E. H. and Thummel, C. S.
(1997). Steroid regulated programmed cell death during
Drosophila metamorphosis. Development
124,4673
-4683.
Jindra, M., Malone, F., Hiruma, K. and Riddiford, L. M. (1996). Developmental profiles and ecdysteroid regulation of the mRNAs for two ecdysone receptor isoforms in the epidermis and wings of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Dev. Biol. 180,258 -272.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kastner, P., Krust, A., Turcotte, B., Stropp, U., Tora, L., Gronemeyer, H. and Chambon, P. (1990). Two distinct estrogen-regulated promoters generate transcripts encoding the two functionally different human progesterone receptor forms A and B. EMBO J. 9,1603 -1614.[Abstract]
Keeton, E. K., Fletcher, T. M., Baumann, C. T., Hager, G. L. and
Smith, C. L. (2002). Glucocorticoid receptor domain
requirements for chromatin remodeling and transcriptional activation of the
MMTV promoter in different nucleoprotein contexts. J. Biol.
Chem. 277,28247
-28255.
Koelle, M. R., Talbot, W. S., Segraves, W. A., Bender, M. T., Cherbas, P. and Hogness, D. S. (1991). The Drosophila EcR gene encodes an ecdysone receptor, a new member of the steroid receptor superfamily. Cell 67,59 -77.[Medline]
Langlois, M.-F., Zanger, K., Monden, T., Safer, J. D., Holenberg, A. N. and Wondisford, F. E. (1997). A unique role of the ß-2 thyroid hormone receptor isoform in negative regulation by thyroid hormone. J. Biol. Chem. 272,24929 -24933.
Lee, T., Marticke, S., Sung, C., Robinow, S. and Luo, L. (2000). Cell-autonomous requirement of the USP/EcR-B ecdysone receptor for mushroom body neuronal remodeling in Drosophila.Neuron 28,807 -818.[Medline]
Lepesant, J.-A., Kejzlarova-Lepesant, J. and Garen, A. (1978). Ecdysone-inducible functions of larval fat bodies in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 75,5570 -5574.[Abstract]
Li, T.-R. and Bender, M. (2000). A conditional
rescue system reveals essential functions for the ecdysone receptor
(EcR) gene during molting and metamorphosis in Drosophila.Development 127,2897
-2905.
Li, C. and Meinertzhagen, I. A. (1997). The effects of 20-hydroxyecdysone on the differentiation in vitro of cells from the eye imaginal disc from Drosophila melanogaster. Invert. Neurosci. 3,57 -69.[Medline]
Liu, Q. and Linney, E. (1993). The mouse retinoic-X receptor-gamma gene: genomic organization and evidence for functional isoforms. Mol. Endocrinol. 7, 651-658.[Abstract]
Madhavan, K. and Schneiderman, H. A. (1969). Hormonal control of imaginal disc regeneration in Galleria mellonella (Lepidoptera). Biol. Bull. 137,321 -331.
Mascrez, B., Mark, M., Krezel, W., Dupé, V., LeMeur, M.,
Ghyselinck, N. B. and Chambon, P. (2001). Differential
contributions of AF-1 and AF-2 activities in the developmental functions of
RXR. Development
128,2049
-2062.
McNabb, S. L., Baker, J. D., Agapite, J., Steller, H., Riddiford, L. M. and Truman, J. W. (1997). Disruption of a behavioral sequence by targeted death of peptidergic neurons in Drosophila. Neuron 19,813 -823.[Medline]
Mollard, R., Viville, S., Ward, S. J., Decimo, D., Chambon, P. and Dolle, P. (2000). Tissue-specific expression of retinoic acid receptor isoform transcripts in the mouse embryo. Mech. Dev. 94,223 -232.[CrossRef][Medline]
Montell, D. J., Rørth, P. and Spradling, A. C. (1992). slow border cells, a locus required for a developmentally regulated cell migration during oogenesis, encodes Drosophila C/EBP. Cell 71, 51-62.[Medline]
Mouillet, J.-F., Henrich, V. C., Lezzi, M. and Vögtli,
M. (2001). Differential control of gene activity by isoforms
A, B1, and B2 of the Drosophila ecdysone receptor. Eur. J.
Biochem. 268,1811
-1819.
Mulac-Jericevic, B., Mullinax, R. A., DeMayo, F. J., Lydon, J.
p. and Conneely, O. M. (2000). Subgroup of reproductive
functions of progesterone mediated by progesterone receptor-B isoform.
Science 289,1751
-1754.
Nagata, T., Kanno, Y., Ozato, K. and Taketo, M. (1994). The mouse Rxrb gene encoding RXR beta: genomic organization and two mRNA isoforms generated by alternative splicing of transcripts initiated from CpG island promoters. Gene 142,183 -189.[CrossRef][Medline]
Orr, W. C., Galanopoulos, V. K., Romano, C. P. and Kafatos, F.
C. (1989). A female sterile screen of the Drosophila
melanogaster X chromosome using hybrid dysgenesis: identification and
characterization of egg morphology mutants. Genetics
122,847
-858.
Richards, G. (1976). The control of prepupal puffing patterns in vitro; implications for prepupal ecdysone titres in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev. Biol. 48,191 -195.[Medline]
Richer, J. K., Jacobsen, B. M., Manning, N. G., Abel, M. G.,
Wolf, D. M. and Horwitz, K. B. (2002). Differential gene
regulation by the two progesterone receptor isoforms in human breast cancer
cells. J. Biol. Chem.
277,5209
-5218.
Rittenhouse, K. R. and Berg, C. A. (1995).
Mutations in the Drosophila gene bullwinkle cause the
formation of abnormal eggshell structures and bicaudal embryos.
Development 121,3023
-3033.
Robinow, S., Talbot, W. S., Hogness, D. S. and Truman, J. W.
(1993). Programmed cell death in the Drosophila CNS is
ecdysone-regulated and coupled with a specific ecdysone receptor isoform.
Development 119,1251
-1259.
Rochette-Egly, C., Plassat, J. L., Taneja, R. and Chambon,
P. (2000). The AF-1 And AF-2 activating domains of retinoic
acid receptor- (RAR
) and their phosphorylation are
differentially involved in parietal endodermal differentiation of F9 cells and
retinoic-induced expression of target genes. Mol.
Endocrinol. 14,1398
-1410.
Rørth, P., Szabo, K., Bailey, A., Laverty, T., Rehm, J.,
Rubin, G. M., Weigmann, K., Milán, M., Benes, V., Ansorge, W. and
Cohen, S. M. (1998). Systematic gain-of-function genetics in
Drosophila. Development
125,1049
-1057.
Rosenfeld, M. G. and Glass, C. K. (2001).
Coregulator codes of transcriptional regulation by nuclear receptors.
J. Biol. Chem. 276,36865
-36868.
Rusconi, J. C., Hays, R. and Cagan, R. L. (2000). Programmed cell death and patterning in Drosophila.Cell Death Differ. 7,1063 -1070.[CrossRef][Medline]
Saville, B., Wormke, M., Wang, F., Nguyen, T., Enmark, E.,
Kuiper, G., Gustafsson, J.-Å. and Safe, S. (2000).
Ligand-, cell-, and estrogen receptor subtype (/ß)-dependent
activation at GC-rich (SP1) promoter elements. J. Biol.
Chem. 275,5379
-5387.
Schubiger, M., Wade, A. A., Carney, G. E., Truman, J. W. and
Bender, M. (1998). Drosophila EcR-B ecdysone
receptor isoforms are required for larval molting and for neuron remodeling
during metamorphosis. Development
125,2053
-2062.
Shea, M. J., King, D. L., Conboy, M. J., Mariani, B. D. and Kafatos, F. C. (1990). Proteins that bind to Drosophila chorion cis-regulatory elements: a new C2H2 zinc finger protein and a C2C2 steroid receptor-like component. Genes Dev. 4,1128 -1140.[Abstract]
Sheldon, L. A., Smith, C. L., Bodwell, J. E., Munck, A. U. and
Hager, G. L. (1999). A ligand binding domain mutation in the
mouse glucocorticoid receptor functionally links chromatin remodeling and
transcription initiation. Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,8146
-8157.
Shyamala, G., Yang, X., Cardiff, R. D. and Dale, E.
(2000). Impact of progesterone receptor on cell-fate decisions
during mammary gland development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 97,3044
-3049.
Staehling-Hampton, K., Jackson, P. D., Clark, M. J., Brand, A. H. and Hoffmann, F. M. (1994). Specificity of bone morphogenetic protein-related factors: Cell fate and gene expression changes in Drosophila embryos induced by decapentaplegic but not 60A. Cell Growth Diff. 5,585 -593.[Abstract]
Tagami, T., Gu, W.-X., Peairs, P. T., West, B. L. and Jameson,
J. L. (1998). A novel natural mutation in the thyroid hormone
receptor defines a dual functional domain that exchanges nuclear receptor
corepressors and coactivators. Mol. Endocrinol.
12,1888
-1902.
Talbot, W. S., Swyryd, E. A. and Hogness, D. S. (1993). Drosophila tissues with different metamorphic responses to ecdysone express different ecdysone receptor isoforms. Cell 73,1323 -1337.[Medline]
Taneja, R., Rochette-Egly, C., Plassat, J.-L., Penna, L., Gaub,
M.-P. and Chambon, P. (1997). Phosphorylation of activation
functions AF-1 and AF-2 of RAR and RAR
is indispensable for
differentiation of F9 cells upon retinoic acid and cAMP treatment.
EMBO J. 16,6452
-6465.
Thomas, H. E., Stunnenberg, H. G. and Stewart, A. F. (1993). Heterodimerization of the Drosophila ecdysone receptor with retinoid X receptor and ultraspiracle. Nature. 362,471 -475.[CrossRef][Medline]
Thummel, C. S. and Pirrotta, V. (1992). Technical notes: new pCasper P-element vectors. Dros. Inf. Serv. 71,150 .
Truman, J. W., Talbot, W. S., Fahrbach, S. E. and Hogness, D.
S. (1994). Ecdysone receptor expression in the CNS correlates
with stage-specific responses to ecdysteroids during Drosophila and
Manduca development. Development
120,219
-234.
Tzolovsky, G., Deng, W.-M., Schlitt, T. and Bownes, M.
(1999). The function of the Broad-Complex during
Drosophila melanogaster oogenesis. Genetics
153,1371
-1383.
Tzukerman, M. T., Esty, A., Santiso-Mere, D., Danielian, P., Parker, M. G., Stein, R. B., Pike, J. W. and McConnell, D. P. (1994). Human estrogen receptor transactivation capacity is determined by both cellular and promoter context and mediated by two functionally distinct intramolecular regions. Mol. Endocrinol. 8,21 -30.[Abstract]
Weatherman, R. V. and Scanlan, T. S. (2001).
Unique protein determinants of the subtype-selective ligand responses of the
estrogen receptors (ER and ERß) at AP-1 sites. J. Biol.
Chem. 276,3827
-3832.
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1970). Insect Hormones. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
Yao, T. P., Segraves, W. A., Oro, A. E., McKeown, M. and Evans, R. M. (1992). Drosophila ultraspiracle modulates ecdysone receptor function via heterodimer formation. Cell 71, 63-72.[Medline]
Yao, T. P., Forman, B. M., Jian, Z., Cherbas, L., Chen, J. D., McKeown, M., Cherbas, P. and Evans, R. M. (1993). Functional ecdysone receptor is the product of EcR and Ultraspiracle genes. Nature 366,476 -479.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yudt, M. R. and Cidlowski, J. A. (2001).
Molecular identification and characterization of a and b forms of the
glucocorticoid receptor. Mol. Endocrinol.
15,1093
-1103.
Zelent, A., Mendelsohn, C., Kastner, P., Krust, A., Garnier, J. M., Ruffenach, F., Leroy, P. and Chambon, P. (1991). Differentially expressed isoforms of the mouse retinoic acid receptor beta generated by usage of two promoters and alternative splicing. EMBO J. 10,71 -81.[Abstract]
Zhimulev, I. F. (1999). Genetic organization of polytene chromosomes. Adv. Genet. 39, 1-599.[Medline]
Zhimulev, I. F. and Belyaeva, E. S. (1999). Detailed description of puffing patterns in the salivary gland chromosomes of normally developing larvae and prepupae of Drosophila melanogaster. Dros. Inf. Serv. 82,9 -20.