From the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada, the
¶ Department of Bioregulation Research, Faculty of Medicine,
Nagoya City University, Nagoya 467-8601, the ** Department of
Biochemistry, Showa Pharmaceutical University, Machida, Tokyo 194-8543, and the
Department of Genetics, Hyogo
College of Medicine, Nishinomiya 663-8501, Japan
Received for publication, November 15, 2000, and in revised form, April 12, 2001
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The ATBF1 gene encodes two protein isoforms,
the 404-kDa ATBF1-A, possessing four homeodomains and 23 zinc fingers,
and the 306-kDa ATBF1-B, lacking a 920-amino acid N-terminal region of ATBF1-A which contains 5 zinc fingers. In vitro, ATBF1-A
was expressed in proliferating C2C12 myoblasts, but its expression
levels decreased upon induction of myogenic differentiation in low
serum medium. Forced expression of ATBF1-A in C2C12 cells resulted in
repression of MyoD and myogenin expression and elevation of Id3 and
cyclin D1 expression, leading to inhibition of myogenic differentiation in low serum. In contrast, transfection of C2C12 cells with the ATBF1-B
isoform led to an acceleration of myogenic differentiation, as
indicated by an earlier onset of myosin heavy chain expression and
formation of a higher percentage of multinucleated myotubes. The fourth
homeodomain of ATBF1-A bound to an AT-rich element adjacent to the E1
E-box of the muscle regulatory factor 4 promoter mediating
transcriptional repression. The ATBF1-A-specific N-terminal region
possesses general transcription repressor activity. These results
suggest that ATBF1-A plays a role in the maintenance of the
undifferentiated myoblast state, and its down-regulation is a
prerequisite to initiate terminal differentiation of C2C12 cells.
Skeletal muscle differentiation proceeds through the initial
commitment of mesoderm cells toward the myogenic lineage followed by
irreversible withdrawal from the cell cycle and concomitant differentiation to multinucleated muscle cells. Several groups of
muscle-specific and ubiquitous regulatory proteins play major roles in
establishing these processes. The MyoD family of muscle regulatory
factors (MRFs),1 which belong to
the basic helix-loop-helix class of transcription factors act in
a hierarchic manner with MyoD and myf5 involved in the
determination of the myogenic lineage and myogenin and MRF4 in the
execution of the differentiation program (for review, see Refs. 1 and
2). These MyoD family MRFs form heterodimers with ubiquitously
expressed basic helix-loop-helix proteins, known as E proteins, to bind
and regulate E-box elements found in the regulatory regions of
muscle-specific genes (1, 2). Forced expression of MyoD in certain
non-muscle cells drives these cells to the myogenic lineage leading to
activation of muscle-specific genes (3, 4). Myogenic activity of the
MyoD family genes has been shown to be enhanced by the myocyte
enhancer factor-2 proteins, which belong to the MADS-box family of
transcription factors (5). These proteins are expressed at the onset of
myogenic differentiation and interact physically with MyoD family MRFs and bind to AT-rich elements often positioned in close proximity to
E-boxes in the control regions of muscle-specific genes (6, 7).
In addition to positive action of the MyoD-MRFs described above,
myogenesis is controlled by proteins acting in a negative manner. The
Id family of proteins, which contain the helix-loop-helix motif but
lack the basic DNA binding domain, interacts with E proteins or the
MyoD family proteins forming complexes incapable of binding to E-boxes
(8-10). Id genes are expressed in proliferating myoblasts
but not in differentiating myotubes, and forced expression of Id in
myoblasts can delay myogenic differentiation (11). In addition, there
are several transcription factors that inhibit myogenic differentiation
through active transcriptional repressive mechanisms. MyoR and Mist1,
which belong to the basic helix-loop-helix family of transcription
factors, form heterodimers with E proteins and bind to E-box elements
in the promoters of myogenic genes to repress their transcription
actively (12-14). MyoR and Mist are expressed in undifferentiated
myoblasts, but their expression is down-regulated during
differentiation to allow the MyoD family MRFs to execute the myogenic
program. A zinc finger homeodomain protein, ZEB, also binds to E-box
elements and inhibits transcription of muscle-specific genes (15, 16).
ZEB is expressed in undifferentiated myoblasts, and as muscle
differentiation is induced, the MyoD family MRF proteins accumulate to
high levels to displace ZEB from E-boxes alleviating the
transcriptional repression (15). Thus, progression of muscle
differentiation depends on a balance between the positive and negative
regulatory factors.
ATBF1 belongs to a family of proteins containing both homeodomains and
zinc finger motifs that are believed to play roles in the growth and
differentiation of mesoderm and neuroectoderm tissues in both
vertebrates and invertebrates (15-24). The ATBF1 gene
encodes two isoforms, which are generated by alternative splicing and
the use of independent promoters (19, 24). ATBF1-A is a 404-kDa protein
containing 4 homeodomains, 23 zinc finger motifs, and a number of
segments believed to be involved in transcriptional regulation (24).
ATBF1-B is a 306-kDa protein that carries the same 4 homeodomains but 5 fewer zinc finger motifs because of the absence of 920 amino acid
residues at the N terminus (19). ATBF1-B binds to an AT-rich element in
the enhancer and promoter of the human In this study, we examined the role of ATBF1 isoforms in myogenesis
using C2C12 myoblasts, which can be induced to undergo terminal
differentiation by low serum conditions. We found that forced
expression of ATBF1-A and ATBF1-B in C2C12 cells resulted in inhibition
and promotion of myogenic differentiation of these cells, respectively.
In addition we show that ATBF1-A extinguishes MyoD and myogenin
expression and inhibits MyoD-induced activation of the MRF4 promoter.
Our results suggest that ATBF1-A is an inhibitor of myogenesis, and its
down-regulation is essential for terminal differentiation of C2C12 cells.
Plasmids--
pPOP-ME(F), ATBF1-A expression vector, and
pPOP-ME(R) antisense ATBF1 expression vector were constructed by
cloning the full-length human ATBF1-A cDNA into pPOP (29). ATBF1-B
expression vectors, pPOP-E and pcATBF1, were constructed by cloning the
full-length human ATBF1-B cDNA into pPOP and pcDNA1
(Invitrogen), respectively. pPOP, pgkMyoD (mouse MyoD expression
vector), and p65-7 (rat myogenin cDNA) were kind gifts from Dr.
M. W. McBurney (University of Ottawa). pcDNA3.1-Id3 (human Id3
expression vector) was kindly provided by Dr. B. A. Christy
(University of Texas), pRCCycD (human cyclin D1 cDNA) by Dr. K. Riabowal (University of Calgary), and pMRF4-CAT by Dr. E. N. Olson
(University of Texas). pBX151 and pMD14 ATBF1 cDNAs used to prepare
riboprobes for RNase protection assays of mouse and human ATBF1
mRNA, respectively, have been described previously (24). The
Cell Cultures--
C2C12 myoblasts and 10T1/2 fibroblasts were
maintained in growth medium (GM) consisting of Dulbecco's modified
Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum. To induce
myogenic differentiation of C2C12 cells, subconfluent cultures were
switched from GM to differentiation medium (DM) consisting of
Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 2% horse serum.
Northern Blot and RNase Protection Assays--
Total RNA was
isolated by the acid-phenol procedure (30). Five micrograms of total
RNA was analyzed by RNase protection assay as described previously
(24). For Northern analysis, 10 µg of total RNA was fractionated on a
formaldehyde-agarose gel, transferred to nylon membrane (22), and
hybridized with the following 32P-labeled probes: a
695-base pair EcoRI-PstI fragment of p65-7 for
myogenin mRNA, a 2.2-kb BamHI fragment of pgkMyoD for
MyoD mRNA, a 550-base pair EcoRI fragment of
pcDNA3.1-Id3 for Id3 mRNA and a 1.1-kilobase pair
HindIII-NotI fragment of pRCCycD for cyclin D1
mRNA. Probes were labeled with [ Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR)--
In
all cases, cDNA was synthesized from 8 µg of RNA using random
hexamers and a first-strand cDNA synthesis kit (Amersham Pharmacia
Biotech). ATBF1-A cDNA was amplified for 24 cycles using 5'-TCGGATGCCCAGTTCATGATGAG-3' and 5'-CGGCAGCTTGCACTGGTAAG-3'. For
ATBF1-B, cDNA amplification was performed in two steps, first with
5'-TTTCGGGATTAAAAGCGCCGCCAGCTC-3' and 5'-CGGCAGCTTGCACTGGTAAG-3' as
primers and 20 cycles of reaction and then using
5'-CCGCCGGAGAAGCAACCGC-3' and 5'-GCTGCGCTCCACGTTCATGTG-3' as primers
and 21 cycles of reaction. Glyceraldehyde-3 phosphate dehydrogenase
(GAPDH) cDNA was amplified using 5'-CGGAGTCAACGGATTTGGTCGTAT-3' and
5'-AGCCTTCTCCATGGTGGTGAAGAC-3' as primers and 23 cycles of reaction.
DNA Transfections--
For stable transfections, 20 µg of
pPOP-ME, pcATBF1, pPOP, or pcDNA1 along with 4 µg of pCI-NEO
(Strategene) were transfected into C2C12 cells using the high
efficiency calcium phosphate method (31). Cells were incubated in GM
containing 400 µg/ml G418, and colonies were isolated and propagated.
For myogenic conversion assays, 10T1/2 fibroblasts in GM were
transiently transfected with 1 µg of pPGK-MyoD and 1 µg of pPOP-ME,
pPOP-E, or pPOP-MER using Superfect transfection reagent (Qiagen)
according to the manufacturer's protocol, transferred to DM, and
incubated for 4 days. For MRF4 promoter assays, 10T1/2 cells were
transfected with 0.5 µg of pMRF4-luc, 0.5 µg of pPGK-MyoD, 0.5 µg
of pCH110, and 0.5 µg of the respective ATBF1 expression vector using
Superfect, as described above. Cells were transferred to DM, incubated
for 2 days, and analyzed for luciferase and
The yeast Gal4 DNA binding domain (Gal4DB) was fused
in-frame to the N terminus of human ATBF1-A and -B proteins to generate the vectors ATBF1-A-Gal4DB and ATBF1-B-Gal4DB,
respectively. In addition the Gal4DB was attached to the
ATBF1-A N terminus to create N-term-Gal4DB. G4tk-luc
contains four Gal4 binding sites upstream of the thymidine kinase
promoter. C2C12 cells were transfected in GM with 0.5 µg of G4tk-luc,
0.5 µg of Gal4DB fusion protein, 0.5 µg of pCH110, and
0.5 µg of empty pPOP expression vector. Cells were incubated in GM
for 48 h, and luciferase activity was analyzed as described above.
Immunocytochemistry--
Cells were grown on 6- or 24-well
plates, washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and
then fixed in a 70% ethanol, 10% formaldehyde, 5% acetic acid
solution at Production of Bacterially Expressed ATBF1-A
Proteins--
ATBF1-A cDNA fragments were subcloned in-frame with
the histidine tag sequence into pET30 (a, b, or c) vectors (Novagen). The recombinant proteins were expressed in the Escherichia
coli strain BL21 (DE3LysS), and the expression of recombinant
proteins was induced by the addition of 2 mM
isopropyl-1-thio- Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays--
Nuclear extracts were
prepared from C2C12 and 10T1/2 fibroblasts essentially as described by
Lassar et al. (33). Nuclear extracts (10 µg) or
bacterially expressed proteins (5 ng) were incubated in a 20-µl
binding reaction containing 20 mM HEPES (pH 7.6), 5%
glycerol, 50 mM NaCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2
and 1 µg of poly(dI-dC)·poly(dI-dC) for 10 min at room temperature.
The appropriate probes were added at a concentration of 5 pg/µl
(30,000 cpm total), and the reaction mixture was incubated further for
20 min at room temperature. The reaction mixture was resolved on a 5%
polyacrylamide gel in of 50 mM Tris, 50 mM
boric acid, 1 mM EDTA. Gels were dried and exposed to x-ray
film at Mutagenesis of the MRF4 Promoter--
A
HindIII-XbaI fragment of the MRF4 promoter was
subcloned from pMRF4-CAT vector into in pBluescipt KS(+). The AT-rich
element, located at positions 11-19, was mutated in the pBSMRF4
construct by PCR mutagenesis. The MRF4/AT mutant was created by
replacing nucleotides 11 (T ATBF1-A Inhibits Myogenic Differentiation of C2C12
Cells--
Analysis of ATBF1-A mRNA by RNase protection assay
showed that ATBF1-A mRNA was expressed in C2C12 myoblasts
proliferating in GM (Fig. 1A).
Upon transfer of the cells to DM to induce myogenic differentiation,
ATBF1-A mRNA expression declined markedly within 24 h and
remained low for 72 h (Fig. 1A). Consistent with these observations, ATBF1-A mRNA was barely detectable in differentiated skeletal muscle tissue isolated from a 7-day-old mouse (Fig.
1B). These results, both in vitro and in
vivo, demonstrate that ATBF1-A is expressed preferentially in
undifferentiated muscle and suggest that down-regulation of its
expression may be required for terminal differentiation of skeletal
muscle. ATBF1-B mRNA could not be detected by Northern blotting or
RNase protection assay either before or after differentiation of C2C12
cells. We therefore performed RT-PCR analysis of ATBF-B mRNA levels
in undifferentiated and differentiated C2C12 cells. We found that
ATBF1-B mRNA levels were essentially unchanged after
differentiation compared with 90% decrease in ATBF1-A mRNA levels
after differentiation (Fig. 1C). These results show that the
relative levels of ATBF1-B increase during myogenic differentiation and
suggest that the ATBF1 isoforms may play opposing roles in this
differentiation pathway.
To examine further whether ATBF1-A regulates myogenic differentiation,
we transfected C2C12 cells with a vector expressing the human ATBF1-A
cDNA. Three stably transfected clones, A2, A6, and A19, which
expressed high, medium, and low levels of ATBF1-A mRNA,
respectively (Fig. 2A), were
selected and then analyzed for their ability to undergo myogenic
differentiation in DM. After 4 days of incubation in DM, control C2C12
cells that were not transfected or transfected with the empty
expression vector showed extensive formation of multinucleated
myotubes, positive for MHC expression (Fig. 2B, panels
b and c). In contrast, ATBF1-A-transfected cells showed
either no MHC-positive cells (Fig. 2B, panels d
and e) or only a small number of mononucleated MHC-positive
cells (Fig. 2B, panel f). In terms of the fusion
index, representing the percentage of nuclei present in multinucleated
myotubes per field of view (34), myogenic differentiation was reduced
99, 90, and 80% in A2, A6, and A19 cells, respectively, compared with control cells (Fig. 2C). These results indicate that forced
expression of ATBF1-A inhibits myogenic differentiation of C2C12
cells.
The progression of myogenic differentiation is accompanied by the
induction of positive-acting MRFs including MyoD and myogenin (2, 35),
whereas expression of the inhibitory factor Id3 is down-regulated (9).
In control C2C12 cells, after transfer from GM to DM, levels of MyoD
and myogenin mRNA increased, whereas Id3 mRNA levels decreased
as differentiation proceeded (Fig. 3, lanes 1-4). In A6 cells, MyoD and myogenin mRNA were
not expressed in cells grown in GM, and no increase in MyoD and
myogenin mRNA levels was observed after the transfer of the cells
to DM to induce differentiation (Fig. 3, lanes 5 and
6). Expression of Id3 mRNA in A6 cells in GM was much
higher than that in control cells (Fig. 3, lane 5), and
although its expression level was reduced after transfer to DM, it
remained comparable or higher than that in undifferentiated, control
cells in GM (Fig. 3, lane 6).
The initiation of C2C12 differentiation is also accompanied by changes
in expression cell cycle regulatory factors, including the induction of
p21CIP1/WAF1 and the reduction
of cyclin D1 mRNA levels (36-38). We confirmed that levels of
p21CIP1/WAF1 mRNA were elevated,
and cyclinD1 mRNA levels were reduced in control cells following
transfer from GM to DM (Fig. 3, lanes 1-4). No induction of
p21CIP1/WAF1 mRNA was observed in
A6 cells when transferred from GM to DM (Fig. 3, lane 6). In
addition, cyclin D1 mRNA levels remained elevated in A6 cells
compared with those in control cells in DM (Fig. 3, lane 6).
These results show that forced expression of ATBF1-A in C2C12 cells
affects the expression of the regulatory factors that control the cell
cycle progression as well as myogenic differentiation.
The ATBF1-B Isoform Enhances Myogenic Differentiation of C2C12
Cells--
The ATBF1-B isoform differs from ATBF1-A in that it lacks
920 amino acid residues at the N terminus (24). To analyze whether this
isoform has any function in myogenic differentiation of C2C12 cells, we
stably transfected C2C12 cells with a vector expressing the human
ATBF1-B cDNA. Three clonal cell lines, B3, B5, and B6 (Fig.
4A), were selected and
analyzed for the ability to differentiate in DM. We found that these
cells exhibited enhanced myogenic differentiation, showing 25-40%
higher fusion indices than control cells after 4 days in DM (Fig.
4B). Time course analysis of MHC expression showed that B6
cells generated multinucleated MHC-positive cells within 24 h
after the transfer to DM (Fig. 4C, middle right
panel) and formed well advanced myotubes at 36 h (Fig.
4C, bottom right panel). In contrast, control
cells transfected with the empty vector were devoid of MHC-positive
cells at 24 h (Fig. 4C, middle left panel)
and formed early myotubes at 36 h (Fig. 4C,
bottom left panel). These results show that the ATBF1-B
isoform promotes myogenic differentiation of C2C12 cells.
ATBF1-A Inhibits and ATBF1-B Promotes Transdifferentiation of
10T1/2 Fibroblasts Induced by MyoD--
10T1/2 fibroblasts
transdifferentiate to the myogenic lineage when transfected with MyoD
(3). To examine whether ATBF1-A or -B affects
MyoD-dependent myogenic conversion of 10T1/2 cells, we
transfected these cells with a MyoD expression vector with or without
the ATBF1-A or -B expression vector. The cells were then transferred to
DM, incubated for 4 days, and stained for MHC expression (Fig.
5A). We found that
transfection of ATBF1-A with MyoD at a ratio of 1:1 resulted in a 60%
decrease in the number of MHC-positive cells compared with control
cells transfected with MyoD alone (Fig. 5B). Transfection of
ATBF1-A with MyoD at a ratio of 5:1 resulted in a 80% reduction of
MHC-positive cells (Fig. 5B). In contrast, transfection of
ATBF1-B with MyoD at a ratio of 1:1 resulted in a 40% increase in
MHC-positive cells (Fig. 5B). RNase protection assays
revealed that ATBF1-A mRNA is expressed in 10T1/2 cells (data not
shown), and the transfection of antisense ATBF1-A and MyoD led to a
similar increase in the number of MHC-positive cells. These results
indicate that ATBF1-A inhibits MyoD-dependent myogenic
conversion of 10T1/2 cells, whereas ATBF1-B promotes this process,
which suggests that ATBF1-B may promote myogenic conversion by
counteracting the negative effect of endogenous ATBF1-A.
ATBF1-A Inhibits Activation of the MRF4 Promoter by MyoD--
As
indicated in Fig. 3, the impaired expression of MyoD and myogenin may
underlie the myogenic inhibitory action of ATBF1-A. To determine
whether ATBF1-A directly inhibits transcription of MyoD family of MRF
genes, we analyzed the effect of ATBF1-A on the activation of the MRF4
promoter. The MRF4 promoter contains two E-boxes (E1 and E2), a myocyte
enhancer factor-2 site that overlaps with the TATA-box, and an AT-rich
sequence adjacent to the E1-box (Fig. 5C) (39). The AT-rich
sequence bears similarity to the ATBF1 binding site in the AFP enhancer
(Fig. 6B) (25). In transient
transfection experiments, we found that the MRF4 promoter was activated
by MyoD in 10T1/2 cells, and this MyoD-dependent MRF4
promoter activation was repressed significantly by ATBF1-A (Fig.
5D). ATBF1-B, on the other hand, exhibited a minimal
inhibition of the MRF4 promoter. These results show that ATBF1-A
inhibits MyoD-induced activation of the MRF4 promoter, but ATBF1-B has little effect on this promoter activation.
ATBF1 Binds to the AT-rich Element of the MRF4 Promoter through
Homeodomain 4--
The AT-rich element in the MRF4 promoter is similar
to the ATBF1 binding site in the human AFP enhancer. We therefore
investigated the possibility that the AT-rich element is involved in
transcriptional repression of the MRF4 promoter by ATBF1-A. First, we
performed gel mobility shift assays to analyze the binding of ATBF1-A
to the AT-rich element. Because of its large size, we expressed ATBF1-A in six segments in E. coli (Fig. 6A) and
incubated each polypetide with a 32P-labeled A/E1 probe
containing both the AT-rich sequence and the E1-box. As indicated in
Fig. 6A, polypeptide V bound to the A/E1 probe. This 60-kDa
protein contains homeodomain 4 (HD4), which has also been demonstrated
to bind to the AT-rich sequence of the human AFP enhancer. Polypeptide
V will be referred to as HD4 because homeodomain 4 is the only
functional motif in this segment. The binding of HD4 to the A/E1 probe
was reduced by the addition of an excess amount of cold probe (Fig.
6C, lane 3). The addition of anti-HD4 antibodies
(Fig. 6C, lane 4), but not anti-IgG antibodies
(Fig. 6C, lane 5), resulted in a supershift of
the HD4·A/E1 band. Introduction of a mutation to the AT-rich element (Fig. 6B) abolished HD4·A/E1 complex formation
(Fig. 6D). In transient transfection assays, the MRF4
promoter carrying the mutated AT-rich element was refractory to
transcriptional repression by ATBF1-A (Fig. 6E). These
results show that ATBF1-A HD4 binds to the AT-rich element of the MRF4
promoter and mediates transcriptional repression.
The E1 E-box in the A/E1 probe is a potential binding site for the MyoD
family MRFs and is separated by the AT-rich element by only 2 base
pairs. Initially, we were interested in whether MyoD could indeed bind
to this promoter. However, we were unable to detect a MyoD-specific
band in assays using the MRF4 A/E1 probe and 10T1/2 extracts
transfected with MyoD (data not shown). In addition, in
vitro transcribed and translated MyoD and E47 were unable to bind
to the MRF4 A/E1 probe (data not shown). Gel mobility shift assays were
then performed using nuclear extracts isolated from C2C12 cells
incubated with GM or DM. Undifferentiated C2C12 extracts produced only
a single fast migrating complex (Fig. 6F, band
B), whereas differentiated cell extracts produced a larger, slower
migrating complex (Fig. 6F, band A) in addition
to the lower molecular weight band observed in undifferentiated cells. To identify proteins present in band A, antibodies directed against MyoD, c-Myc, and myogenin were added to the reaction mixtures. Myogenin
antibodies disrupted the formation of band A (Fig. 6G, lane 1) but MyoD or c-Myc antibodies did not (Fig.
6F, lanes 5 and 7). These results
indicate that myogenin is present in the differentiation-specific
complex (band A). The binding of myogenin to the E1 E-box is consistent
with previous observations that myogenin is the principal transcription
factor regulating the expression of the MRF4 promoter (50). When HD4
was added to differentiated C2C12 nuclear extracts, the formation of
the myogenin·A/E1 complex (band A) did not occur (Fig. 6F,
lane 9). Instead, two additional complexes were formed (Fig.
6F, lanes 8 and 9). The faster of the
two bands, marked C, represents the HD4·A/E1 complex described above in Fig. 6, A, C, and
D. The slower migrating band, marked D, may
represent complexes containing HD4 that is post-translationally modified or bound to proteins present in C2C12 extracts. The addition of HD4 antibodies produced a supershifted band (Fig. 6G,
lane 4), indicating that HD4 was indeed a component of bands
C and D. Our data suggest that myogenin binds to the E1 E-box, but this binding is disrupted by HD4 which binds to the AT-rich element.
Inhibition of MyoD-induced MRF4 Promoter Activation Requires the
N-terminal Region and the DNA Binding Domain--
The results
presented above suggest that ATBF1-A may repress activity of the basal
transcription complex through the N-terminal region specific to
ATBF1-A. The transcriptional regulatory activity of this region was
studied by analyzing the effect of deleting short segments within the
ATBF1-A-specific region (Fig. 7).
Expression of an ATBF1-A construct with a deletion of the first 113 amino acids (plasmid ATBF1-A Is a Transcriptional Repressor--
The experiments
described above show that ATBF1-A-specific N-terminal region is
associated with transcriptional inhibitory activity. To characterize
this repressive activity further, we transfected C2C12 cells with
expression vectors, ATBF1-A-Gal4DB or
ATBF1-B-Gal4DB, which express chimeric proteins consisting of the Gal4 DNA binding domain (Gal4DB) and ATBF1-A or -B,
respectively, with G4tk-luc consisting of five Gal4-binding
sites placed upstream of the thymidine kinase promoter linked to the
luciferase gene. The luciferase gene was actively expressed from
G4tk-luc in C2C12 cells which was unaffected by cotransfection
of a construct expressing Gal4DB (Fig.
8). However, cotransfection of
ATBF1-A-Gal4DB resulted in a 70% decrease in luciferase
activity. Cotransfection of ATBF1-B-Gal4DB, on the other
hand, resulted in only 20% inhibition. Cotransfection of a
N-Gal4DB expressing the ATBF1-A-specific N-terminal region fused to Gal4DB resulted in 50% inhibition of luciferase
expression. These results show that the ATBF1-A N-terminal region is
associated with general transcriptional repression activity.
We show in this report that forced expression of
ATBF1-A resulted in inhibition of terminal differentiation of C2C12
myoblasts in low serum. Genes that are affected in expression by
ATBF1-A transfection include positive and negative myogenic regulatory factors, cell cycle regulatory factors, and muscle structural genes.
In vivo, expression of ATBF1-A mRNA was low in
differentiated muscle compared with undifferentiated myoblasts. These
results, taken together, suggest that ATBF1-A plays a role in the
maintenance of the undifferentiated myoblast state, and its
down-regulation is essential for terminal muscle differentiation.
Differential Activity of ATBF1 Isoforms--
We have demonstrated
that ATBF1-A functions as a negative regulator of C2C12 myogenic
differentiation, whereas the ATBF1-B isoform does not. ATBF1-B may act
in an inhibitory manner toward the A isoform because it shares the DNA
binding domain with ATBF1-A but lacks the repressor domain associated
with N terminus of ATBF1-A. This possibility is supported by the
observation that antisense ATBF1 exhibited similar effects on the
MyoD-induced myogenic conversion of 10T1/2 cells (data not shown). A
number of genes are known to generate more than one mRNAs through
alternative splicing and/or alternative promoter usage, often yielding
functionally different protein isoforms. In the case of transcription
factors, isoforms with opposing regulatory activities can be produced
because of modulation of DNA specificity or affinity, transactivation,
or protein-protein interaction (40-43). The ATBF1 gene may belong to
this group of transcription factors having isoforms with opposite functions.
We have not been able to detect ATBF1-B mRNA in C2C12 cells
directly by Northern blotting and RNase protection assays. ATBF1-B expression has been detected in all cell types that express ATBF1-A analyzed so far but at much lower levels than the ATBF1-A isoform (19,
22, 24, 26, 44). Using RT-PCR we observed that the levels of expression
of ATBF1-B relative to ATBF1-A increased after differentiation. This
suggests that the ATBF1-B isoform may help decrease the anti-myogenic
activity of the ATBF1-A isoform in a dominant negative manner. The
decline of ATBF1-A expression may also allow increases in MyoD and
myogenin expression. Although ATBF1-B-expressing C2C12 cells exhibited
an accelerated onset of myogenic differentiation, expression of ATBF1-B
in 10T1/2 cells did not enhance MyoD-dependent
transcriptional activation of the MRF4 promoter. Because MRF4 is
activated later in the myogenic program (1), it is possible ATBF1-B may
act to antagonize ATBF1-A activity at events earlier than the onset of
MRF4 expression. In addition, our attempts to transfect C2C12 cells
stably with antisense ATBF1-A failed to generate viable colonies,
consistent with the notion that the reduction of ATBF1-A expression
leads to cell differentiation.
ATBF1-A Perturbs Expression of Positive and Negative Regulators of
Muscle Differentiation--
The expression of the MyoD family MRFs is
vital for muscle differentiation, and disruption of their expression
can inhibit myogenesis (1, 45). In ATBF1-A-transfected C2C12 cells
(A6), MyoD and myogenin expression was suppressed in GM, and no
induction of these genes was observed in DM. Therefore, the absence of
MyoD and myogenin gene products in A6 cells may explain the inability of these cells to differentiate into myotubes. At present, we do not
know whether ATBF1-A regulates MyoD expression directly. The MyoD
regulatory regions are complex, and little is known about how this gene
is regulated. However, an AT-rich region in the distal core enhancer of
the human MyoD gene has been identified (46, 47) and consequently may
be subject to regulation by ATBF1-A. In this study, we also
demonstrated that ATBF1-A inhibits MRF4 promoter, and this may account
at least in part for the lack of MyoD and myogenin expression in A6
cells. MRF4 is the last member of the MyoD family MRFs expressed during
myogenic differentiation. However, in mice homozygous for an inactive
MRF4 allele, expression of MyoD and myogenin is greatly reduced on
embryonic day 10 when MRF4 is normally expressed (48), suggesting that
MRF4 may have effects on the expression of the upstream factors.
We found that in addition to the suppression of the positive MRFs
described above, ATBF1-A increased the expression of a negative regulatory factor, Id3, in GM. Furthermore, the down-regulation of Id3
which normally occurs upon serum deprivation was not observed in A6
cells. Forced expression of Id3 has been shown to inhibit myogenic
differentiation (49). The suppression of the MyoD family MRF genes and
the continued, elevated expression of Id3 support the idea that ATBF1-A
prevents the outset of myogenic induction.
Inhibition of MRF4 Promoter Activity by ATBF1-A--
The MRF4
promoter has been shown to be activated preferentially by myogenin
acting on the E1 E-box element (39, 50). We found that HD4 of ATBF1-A
binds to an AT-rich sequence adjacent to the E1 E-box. HD4 or the
remaining portions of ATBF1-A, including the zinc fingers, were unable
to interact with an E-box probe in mobility shift assays, and ATBF1-A
had no effect on the activation by MyoD of a luciferase reporter
construct consisting of five E-box elements (data not shown). Thus the
transcriptional inhibition of MRF4 mediated by ATBF1-A was directed
specifically to the AT-rich element and not to E-box sites. However,
the binding of ATBF1-A to the AT-rich element is not sufficient to
inhibit MRF4 promoter activity because HD4 is shared by ATBF1-B which
is unable to inhibit the MRF4 promoter. In addition to the DNA binding
domain (HD4), two N-terminal regions specific for ATBF1-A were required
for inhibition of the MRF4 promoter. One region from amino acid 1-113 contains a short stretch of residues rich in proline, a characteristic of some transcriptional repressor domains (51-54). The other region from amino acid 550-894 contains four zinc finger motifs unique to
ATBF1-A, which may provide a surface for protein-protein interactions (55, 56). This ATBF1-A-specific N-terminal region alone does not
inhibit MRF4 promoter activity. However, the fusion of this region to
the yeast Gal4 DNA binding domain yielded a protein having 60%
inhibitory activity of full-length ATBF1-A. These results suggest that
for the N-terminal region to possess transcriptional repressor activity
it must be combined with a DNA binding domain. The reason for such a
fusion protein being unable to achieve 100% inhibition may be the
failure to form a three-dimensional structure similar to the intact
ATBF1-A molecule. The thyroid hormone receptor repression domain is
also composed of several regions that contribute to its transcriptional
repressor activity, and all are required for its maximal activity (57).
Similarly, the ZEB protein containing a homeodomain and seven zinc
fingers requires the whole molecule carrying both a DNA binding domain
and a repressor domain to inhibit myogenic differentiation (15, 16).
Unlike ATBF1-A, however, ZEB exerts transcriptional repression through
a subset of E-box elements (15, 58, 59) in conjunction with the
corepressor protein CtBP (60-62). It is not surprising that an intact
ATBF1-A molecule is required for its full activity, considering that
the structural organization of ATBF1, including the arrangement of a
large number of putative structural domains, is evolutionarily conserved among human, mouse, and Drosophila orthologs (17, 23, 63).
There are several possibilities for how ATBF1-A might inhibit
activation of the MRF4 promoter by MyoD. It is possible that the
ATBF1-A strictly blocks the basal transcription of this promoter by
preventing the formation of the preinitiation complex, possibly through
interactions with TATA-binding protein or other basal transcription factors. Alternatively, ATBF1-A may bind in close proximity to activator proteins such as myogenin to antagonize their
action to prevent MRF4 induction without affecting the basal transcriptional machinery. Our data demonstrate that ATBF1-A HD4 binds
to the AT-rich element and displaces myogenin from binding to the
adjacent E-box element. However, this displacement may only contribute
to a small proportion of the ATBF1-A inhibitory activity because
ATBF1-B also contains HD4, yet does not significantly affect MyoD
activation of the MRF promoter. Since HD4 does not interact with E-box
sequences (Fig. 6D), myogenin can still bind to the
upstream, E2 E-box of the MRF4 promoter and activate transcription in
the presence of ATBF1-B. However, binding of ATBF1-A to the AT-rich
element through HD4 may place the MRF4 promoter under transcriptional
constraint because of the general transcriptional inhibitory activity
of ATBF1-A. Therefore inhibition of the MRF4 promoter by ATBF1-A
requires both a trans-repression domain as well as its DNA
binding domain. The experiments employing ATBF1-A-Gal4DB fusion proteins indicate that ATBF1-A is capable of inhibiting basal
transcription, although the possibility that ATBF1-A interferes directly with activation by MyoD or myogenin cannot be ruled out. Finally, ATBF1-A may recruit corepressor proteins possessing histone deacetylase activity to the to the MRF-4 promoter. It is not known whether ATBF1-A associates with these corepressor proteins; however, interactions between ATBF1-A and other proteins may be a key in establishing a functional complex. The repressive activity of ATBF1-A
may be mediated through interactions between the ATBF1-A-specific N-terminal domain and regions common to both isoforms with other transcription factors. Recently, it has been reported that an interaction between the extreme C-terminal portion of both ATBF1-A and
ATBF1-B and the proto-oncoprotein c-Myb represses activation of
Myb-responsive promoters (64). We are currently examining whether
ATBF1-A can interact with corepressor or coactivator complexes.
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-fetoprotein (AFP) gene and
down-regulates their activities (25). Analysis of ATBF1-A expression in
developing mice showed that ATBF1-A mRNA levels are high in the
13.5-day fetal brain and decrease subsequently through postnatal
development (26). In P19 murine embryonal carcinoma cells, ATBF1-A is
not detected in undifferentiated cells but is expressed when neuronal differentiation is induced by treatment with retinoic acid (22, 24).
Induction of muscle cells from P19 cells by treatment with dimethyl
sulfoxide is also accompanied by ATBF1-A mRNA expression (22).
Although this expression is not as prominent as that observed in neural
differentiation, this raised the possibility that ATBF1-A is also
involved in myogenesis. This is of interest considering that muscle and
neuronal differentiation employ similar regulatory mechanisms, such as
the use of a hierarchy of basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors,
the myocyte enhancer factor-2 family of cofactors (2, 27), and likely
Id proteins (28).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-galactosidase expression vector pCH110 was purchased from Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech. The plasmid pMRF4-luc was prepared from pMRF4-CAT,
kindly provided by Dr. E. N. Olson, by digestion of pMRF4-CAT with
XbaI and HindIII, which liberated the mouse MRF4
promoter element, end-filled with Klenow, and sublconed into
pUBT-Luc luciferase reporter plasmid.
-32P]dCTP using
the T7 Quickprime random primer labeling system as described by the
manufacturer (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech).
-galatosidase activities using the luciferase assay system (Promega) and
-galactosidase assay
system (Promega), respectively, according to the manufacturer's protocols.
20 °C for 10 min. The cells were rehydrated with PBS
and incubated for 2 h at 37 °C with a monoclonal antibody
against myosin heavy chain (MHC) (MF-20, Developmental Studies
Hybridoma Bank) (32), at a final concentration of 5 µg/ml in PBS
supplemented with 5% goat serum. The cells were then washed twice with
PBS and incubated with peroxidase-coupled anti-mouse IgG (1:500; Santa
Cruz Biotechnology) for 1 h at 37 °C. After two washes with
PBS, the cells were incubated with 0.3% diaminobenzidine and 0.15%
H2O2 in PBS for 10 min at room temperature. The
cells were then washed with PBS for 5 min and stained with 0.05%
Cresyl Violet.
-D-galactopyanoside. Three hours after
induction, the bacteria were collected by centrifugation, resuspended
in Ni2+-column binding buffer containing 2 mM
MgCl2, 0.3 µM aprotinin, 1 µM
leupeptin, 2 µM benzamide, 20 µM
pA-phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and 1 µM pepstatin, and
lysed by freezing and thawing in the presence of 1% Triton X-100. The
host DNA was digested with 5 mg/ml DNase I on ice for 20 min. The
bacterial lysate was clarified by centrifugation for 20 min at
10,000 × g. The His-tagged recombinant proteins were
purified by Ni-nitrilotriatic acid-agarose beads according to the
manufacturer's protocol (Novagen). One ml of the eluted protein
solution was concentrated to 50 µl with a Centricon-30
microfiltration column (Amicon) in 50 mM Tris (pH 7.5). The
recombinant protein was stored at
80 °C.
70 °C. The probe used was A/E1,
5'-ACGTTAATTAAATGCCATCTGGGTG-3', corresponding to the region of the mouse MRF4 promoter containing an
E-box (underlined) and an AT rich sequence (double underlined) (39), with a 4-base pair overhang to facilitate labeling with [
-32P]dCTP using Klenow. For supershift assays, 1 µl
of
D4, a rabbit polyclonal raised against the fourth
homeodomain of ATBF1, 1 µl of C20, a MyoD polyclonal antibody (Santa
Cruz Biotechnology), or 5 µl of F5D myogenin hybridoma supernatant
(7) was added to the reaction mixtures prior to the addition of probe DNA.
G), 16 (A
G), and 17 (A
C) using
mMRF4/AT primer 5'-(GGGTCGACTTATGTCACCGCACgAATTgcATGC-3') and the T7
primer. The PCR conditions were 94 °C for 1 min, 55 °C for 1 min,
and 72 °C for 1 min for 30 cycles. The mutations were verified by
sequencing. The wild-type and mutant MRF4 promoter constructs were
digested with SalI and XbaI,
[32P]dCTP labeled with Klenow polymerase, and used as
probes in gel mobility shift assays.
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
View larger version (50K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Analysis of ATBF1-A mRNA expression in
muscle cells. Panel A, ATBF1-A mRNA expression in
differentiating C2C12 cells. C2C12 cells grown in GM were transferred
to DM, and at the indicated times cells were harvested and analyzed for
ATBF1-A mRNA by RNase protection assay. A parallel set of RNA
samples was analyzed for GAPDH mRNA expression by Northern
blotting. Panel B, ATBF1-A mRNA expression in skeletal
muscle isolated from of a 7-day-old mouse analyzed by RNase protection
assays. One microgram of RNA from each muscle sample was analyzed on an
agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide (EtBr) to monitor
RNA levels and integrity. Panel C, RT-PCR determination of
ATBF1-A and -B mRNAs. RNA from C2C12 cells grown in GM
(G) or incubated in DM (D) for 10 days was
analyzed by RT-PCR. GAPDH was used as a control.
View larger version (49K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Forced expression of ATBF1-A inhibits
myogenic differentiation of C2C12 cells. Panel A, human
ATBF1-A mRNA in C2C12 cells stably transfected with ATBF1-A. Three
clones of ATBF1-A transfectants, A2, A6, and A19, untransfected C2C12
cells (U), and cells transfected with the empty expression
vector (V) were grown in GM (G) or incubated in
DM for 4 days (D) and analyzed for ATBF1-A mRNA by RNase
protection assay. Probe indicates undigested probe.
Panel B, ATBF1-A transfectants (A2, A6, A19) were grown GM
or in DM for 4 days and immunostained for MHC expression. U
and V, as in panel A. Panel C,
relative fusion indices of ATBF1-A-transfected cells. Untransfected and
vector-transfected C2C12 cells and A2, A6, and A19 cells were incubated
in DM for 4 days, and their fusion indices were expressed as
percentages of that of vector-transfected cells. The values are based
on the number of nuclei in myotubes in five random fields. Error
bars correspond to the S.E. of the mean. This graph is a
representation of a single experiment consisting of three plates/sample
and was repeated two additional times.
View larger version (72K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Analysis of mRNAs for myogenic and cell
cycle regulatory factors in ATBF1-A transfected cells. Total RNA
(10 µg) isolated from untransfected (U),
vector-transfected (V), and ATBF1-A-transfected
(A6) C2C12 cells grown in GM (G) or incubated in
DM for 4 days (D) was analyzed by Northern blotting using
32P-labeled cDNA probes for MyoD, myogenin, Id3,
p21CIP1/WAF1, cyclin D1, and GAPDH
mRNAs.
View larger version (85K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Effects of forced expression of ATBF1-B on
differentiation of C2C12 cells. Panel A, analysis of
ATBF1-B mRNA in stably transfected C2C12 cells by RNase protection
assay. B3, B5, and B6 are three clones
of ATBF1-B-transfected cells. V, cells transfected with
empty expression vector. P, undigested probe. Panel
B, untransfected cells (U), cells transfected with the
empty vector, or ATBF1-B (B3, B5, B6)
were allowed to differentiate for 4 days in DM, and their fusion
indices were expressed as percentages of that of vector-transfected
cells calculated by determining the percentage of nuclei found in
multinucleated myotubes in a field of view. Error bars
correspond to the S.E. of the mean. Panel C,
vector-transfected and B6 cells were induced to differentiate in DM
and, at the indicated times, stained for MHC by MF20
immunocytochemistry. Arrows indicate MHC-positive
myotubes.
View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Effects of ATBF1-A and ATBF1-B expression on
the myogenic conversion of 10T1/2 cells and MyoD-dependent
transcriptional activation of the MRF4 promoter. Panel
A, expression of MHC in 10T1/2 cells transfected with the MyoD
expression vector and empty expression vector or with vectors
expressing ATBF1-A or ATBF1-B. The transfected cells were incubated in
DM for 48 h and then immunostained for MHC expression. Panel
B, effects of ATBF1-A and ATBF1-B on MHC expression in 10T1/2
cells. 10T1/2 cells were transfected with the MyoD expression vector
and the indicated amount of ATBF1-A or ATBF1-B. In each case, the total
amount of DNA transfected was adjusted to 6 µg with the empty
expression vector. Five random fields of view from each group were
scored for the presence of MHC-positive cells. Values obtained in the
control group were set at 100%. Panel C,
cis-acting elements present in the mouse MRF4 promoter used
in MRF4-luc. Panel D, effects of ATBF1-A and ATBF1-B on
MyoD-dependent activation of the MRF4 promoter. 10T1/2
cells were transfected with MRF4-luc with either the empty expression
vector or MyoD expression vector along with an equal amount of the
vector expressing ATBF1-A or ATBF1-B. The total amount of DNA
transfected was adjusted to be the same by the addition of the empty
expression vector. After transfection, cells were allowed to
differentiate in DM for 2 days, and then luciferase activity was
analyzed. Luciferase activity was normalized to -galactosidase activity and expressed
relative to the activity of cells transfected with MRF-luc alone.
Values expressed are the average of three independent experiments.
Error bars correspond to the S.E. of the mean.
View larger version (50K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
ATBF1 binds to the AT-rich element of the
MRF4 promoter through homeodomain 4 and mediates transcriptional
repression. Panel A, polypeptide V, the HD4-containing
segment of ATBF1-A, binds to the MRF4 promoter. Bacterially expressed
polypeptides I-VI (5 ng) corresponding to the various parts of the
ATBF1-A molecule shown at the top were incubated with
labeled A/E1 probe and analyzed by gel electrophoresis. Panel
B, nucleotide comparison of the ATBF1 binding site of the AFP
enhancer element (AFP AT site) with the wild-type and
mutated AT-rich sequences of the MRF4 promoter. Panel C,
characterization of HD4-A and E1 interaction. HD4-containing
polypeptide V (5 ng) was incubated with labeled A/E1 probe (lane
2). To each binding reaction, an excess amount of unlabeled probe
(lane 3), anti-HD4 antibodies (lane 4), or
anti-IgG antibodies (lane 5) was added. Panel D,
mutation of the MRF4 AT-rich element abolishes binding of HD4. HD4 (5 ng) was incubated with labeled wild-type A/E1 probe (lane 2)
or A/E1 probe carrying mutated AT-rich sequence (lane 4) and
analyzed by gel electrophoresis. Lanes 1 and 3 contain only labeled wild-type or mutated probes, respectively.
Panel E, effect of mutation of the AT-rich element in the
MRF4 promoter on transcriptional repression by ATBF1-A. 10T1/2 cells
were transfected with MRF4-luc carrying the wild-type or mutated
AT-rich element along with the MyoD expression vector, with or without
the ATBF1-A expression vector. Values expressed are the average of
three independent experiments. Error bars correspond to the
S.E. of the mean. Panel F, MyoD is not present in a
differentiation-specific complex. Nuclear extracts prepared from C2C12
cells treated with GM (G) or with DM (D) for 4 days were incubated with the A/E1 probe. A differentiation-specific
(A) and a non-differentiation-specific (B)
protein-DNA complex are noted with arrows. Panel
G, myogenin is present in the differentiation-specific complex and
is displaced by HD4. Nuclear extracts from C2C12 cells treated with DM
for 4 days were incubated with labeled A/E1 probe.
1-113) had no effect on the activation of the MRF4 promoter by MyoD. Similarly, a deletion of the last 345 amino acids of the ATBF1-A-specific region (plasmid
113-550) did not affect activation of the MRF4 promoter by MyoD. In contrast, deletion of 438 internal amino acids of the ATBF1-A-specific region (plasmid
550-894) inhibited reporter activity to the same extent as the wild-type ATBF1-A. Expression of the ATBF1-A N-terminal region alone is
not sufficient to inhibit MyoD-dependent activation of MRF4. These results show that two ATBF1-A-specific regions, amino acids
1-113 and amino acids 550-894, together with the remainder of the
ATBF1-A protein, are involved in inhibition of MRF4 promoter activity.
View larger version (11K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
The N-terminal region and DNA binding domain
of ATBF1-A are required to inhibit MyoD-induced activation of the MRF4
promoter. 10T1/2 cells were transfected with MyoD expression
vector and MRF4-luc reporter with or without vectors expressing the
full-size ATBF1-A or ATBF1-B or various portions of these proteins. In
all cases the -galactosidase expression vector pCH110 was
cotransfected as an internal control. After transfection, cells were
induced to differentiate in DM for 48 h and then analyzed for
luciferase activity. Luciferase activity was normalized to
-galactosidase activity and expressed relative to the activity of
cells transfected with MyoD and MRF4-luc alone. Values expressed are
the average of three independent experiments. Error bars
correspond to the S.E. of the mean. The ATBF1-A protein with
homeodomain (boxes) and zinc fingers (ovals) is
shown in the upper left. The bars below indicate
the parts of the ATBF1-A molecule expressed.
View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 8.
ATBF1-A contains a transcription repressor
domain. C2C12 cells were transfected the G4tk-luc reporter alone
or with vectors expressing Gal4DB,
ATBF1-A-Gal4DB, ATBF1-B-Gal4DB, or
N-term-Gal4DB along with pCH110 as an internal control.
48 h after transfection, luciferase activity was determined,
normalized to -galactosidase activity, and expressed as the
percentage of activity obtained with cells transfected with theG4tk-luc
and empty pPOP expression vector. The values shown are the average of
four independent experiments. Error bars correspond to the
S.E. of the mean.
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
---|
We thank Howard Cheng and Atsuko Iemoto for technical assistance.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
* This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute of Canada with funds from the Terry Fox Run and the Jean Barclay Millar Memorial Endowment and Cancer Research Society Endowment.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§ Present address: Dept. of Ophthalmology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H7, Canada. To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: fberry@ualberta.ca
On leave from the Institute of Molecular Genetics, Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, April 18, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M010378200
![]() |
ABBREVIATIONS |
---|
The abbreviations used are:
MRF(s), muscle
regulatory factor(s);
AFP. -fetoprotein, luc, luciferase;
CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase;
GM, growth medium;
DM, differentiation medium;
PCR, polymerase chain reaction;
RT-PCR, reverse
transcription-PCR;
GAPDH, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase;
Gal4DB, Gal4 DNA binding domain;
PBS, phosphate-buffered
saline;
MHC, myosin heavy chain;
tk, thymidine kinase.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
1. |
Ludolph, D. C.,
and Konieczny, S. F.
(1995)
FASEB J.
9,
1595-1604 |
2. | Yun, K., and Wold, B. (1996) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 8, 877-889[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
3. | Davis, R. L., Weintraub, H., and Lassar, A. B. (1987) Cell 51, 987-1000[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
4. | Olson, E. N. (1990) Genes Dev. 4, 1454-1461[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
5. | Olson, E. N., Perry, M., and Schulz, R. A. (1995) Dev. Biol. 172, 2-14[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
6. | Gossett, L. A., Kelvin, D. J., Sternberg, E. A., and Olson, E. N. (1989) Mol. Cell. Biol. 9, 5022-5033[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
7. | Wright, W. E., Binder, M., and Funk, W. (1991) Mol. Cell. Biol. 11, 4104-4110[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
8. | Benezra, R., Davis, R. L., Lockshon, D., Turner, D. L., and Weintraub, H. (1990) Cell 61, 49-59[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
9. | Christy, B. A., Sanders, L. K., Lau, L. F., Copeland, N. G., Jenkins, N. A., and Nathans, D. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 1815-1819[Abstract] |
10. | Sun, X. H., and Baltimore, D. (1991) Cell 64, 459-470[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
11. | Jen, Y., Weintraub, H., and Benezra, R. (1992) Genes Dev. 6, 1466-1479[Abstract] |
12. |
Lu, J.,
Webb, R.,
Richardson, J. A.,
and Olson, E. N.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
552-557 |
13. | Lemercier, C., To, R. Q., Swanson, B. J., Lyons, G. E., and Konieczny, S. F. (1997) Dev. Biol. 182, 101-113[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
14. |
Lemercier, C.,
To, R. Q.,
Carrasco, R. A.,
and Konieczny, S. F.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
1412-1422 |
15. |
Postigo, A. A.,
and Dean, D. C.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
3935-3943 |
16. | Postigo, A. A., Ward, E., Skeath, J. B., and Dean, D. C. (1999) 19, 7255-7263 |
17. | Fortini, M. E., Lai, Z. C., and Rubin, G. M. (1991) Mech. Dev. 34, 113-122[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
18. | Lai, Z. C., Fortini, M. E., and Rubin, G. M. (1991) Mech. Dev. 34, 123-134[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
19. | Morinaga, T., Yasuda, H., Hashimoto, T., Higashio, K., and Tamaoki, T. (1991) Mol. Cell. Biol. 11, 6041-6049[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
20. | Lundell, M. J., and Hirsh, J. (1992) Dev. Biol. 154, 84-94[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
21. |
Funahashi, J.,
Sekido, R.,
Murai, K.,
Kamachi, Y.,
and Kondoh, H.
(1993)
Development
119,
433-446 |
22. | Ido, A., Miura, Y., and Tamaoki, T. (1994) Dev. Biol. 163, 184-187[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
23. | Kostich, W. A., and Sanes, J. R. (1995) Dev. Dyn. 202, 145-152[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
24. |
Miura, Y.,
Tam, T.,
Ido, A.,
Morinaga, T.,
Miki, T.,
Hashimoto, T.,
and Tamaoki, T.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
26840-26848 |
25. | Yasuda, H., Mizuno, A., Tamaoki, T., and Morinaga, T. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 1395-1401[Abstract] |
26. | Watanabe, M., Miura, Y., Ido, A., Sakai, M., Nishi, S., Inoue, Y., Hashimoto, T., and Tamaoki, T. (1996) Brain Res. Mol. Brain Res. 42, 344-349[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
27. |
Black, B. L.,
Ligon, K. L.,
Zhang, Y.,
and Olson, E. N.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
26659-26663 |
28. |
Massari, M. E.,
and Murre, C.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
429-440 |
29. | McBurney, M. W., Fournier, S., Jardine, K., and Sutherland, L. (1994) Somatic Cell Mol. Genet. 20, 515-528[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
30. | Chomczynski, P., and Sacchi, N. (1987) Anal. Biochem. 162, 156-159[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
31. | Chen, C., and Okayama, H. (1987) Mol. Cell. Biol. 7, 2745-2752[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
32. | Bader, D., Masaki, T., and Fischman, D. A. (1982) J. Cell Biol. 95, 763-770[Abstract] |
33. | Lassar, A. B., Davis, R. L., Wright, W. E., Kadesch, T., Murre, C., Voronova, A., Baltimore, D., and Weintraub, H. (1991) Cell 66, 305-315[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
34. | Yoshida, S., Fujisawa-Sehara, A., Taki, T., Arai, K., and Nabeshima, Y. (1996) J. Cell Biol. 132, 181-193[Abstract] |
35. | Walsh, K. (1997) Prog. Cell Cycle Res. 3, 53-58[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
36. | Halevy, O., Novitch, B. G., Spicer, D. B., Skapek, S. X., Rhee, J., Hannon, G. J., Beach, D., and Lassar, A. B. (1995) Science 267, 1018-1021[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
37. | Guo, K., Wang, J., Andrés, V., Smith, R. C., and Walsh, K. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 3823-3829[Abstract] |
38. | Parker, S. B., Eichele, G., Zhang, P., Rawls, A., Sands, A. T., Bradley, A., Olson, E. N., Harper, J. W., and Elledge, S. J. (1995) Science 267, 1024-1027[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
39. |
Black, B. L.,
Martin, J. F.,
and Olson, E. N.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
2889-2892 |
40. | Foulkes, N. S., and Sassone-Corsi, P. (1992) Cell 68, 411-414[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
41. | Laoide, B. M., Foulkes, N. S., Schlotter, F., and Sassone-Corsi, P. (1993) EMBO J. 12, 1179-1191[Abstract] |
42. | López, A. J. (1995) Dev. Biol. 172, 396-411[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
43. | Tanaka, T., Tanaka, K., Ogawa, S., Kurokawa, M., Mitani, K., Nishida, J., Shibata, Y., Yazaki, Y., and Hirai, H. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 341-350[Abstract] |
44. | Kataoka, H., Joh, T., Miura, Y., Tamaoki, T., Senoo, K., Ohara, H., Nomura, T., Tada, T., Asai, K., Kato, T., and Itoh, M. (2000) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 267, 91-95[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
45. | Olson, E. N., and Klein, W. H. (1998) Dev. Biol. 202, 153-156[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
46. |
Goldhamer, D. J.,
Brunk, B. P.,
Faerman, A.,
King, A.,
Shani, M.,
and Emerson, C. P., Jr.
(1995)
Development
121,
637-649 |
47. | Chen, J. C., and Goldhamer, D. J. (1999) Cell Tissue Res. 296, 213-219[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
48. |
Patapoutian, A.,
Yoon, J. K.,
Miner, J. H.,
Wang, S.,
Stark, K.,
and Wold, B.
(1995)
Development
121,
3347-3358 |
49. | Melnikova, I. N., and Christy, B. A. (1996) Cell Growth Differ 7, 1067-1079[Abstract] |
50. | Naidu, P. S., Ludolph, D. C., To, R. Q., Hinterberger, T. J., and Konieczny, S. F. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 2707-2718[Abstract] |
51. | Han, K., and Manley, J. L. (1993) Genes Dev. 7, 491-503[Abstract] |
52. | Madden, S. L., Cook, D. M., and Rauscher, F. J. (1993) Oncogene 8, 1713-1720[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
53. | Mailly, F., Bérubé, G., Harada, R., Mao, P. L., Phillips, S., and Nepveu, A. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 5346-5357[Abstract] |
54. |
Venot, C.,
Maratrat, M.,
Dureuil, C.,
Conseiller, E.,
Bracco, L.,
and Debussche, L.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
4668-4679 |
55. |
Lee, Y.,
Shioi, T.,
Kasahara, H.,
Jobe, S. M.,
Wiese, R. J.,
Markham, B. E.,
and Izumo, S.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18,
3120-3129 |
56. |
Tsai, R. Y.,
and Reed, R. R.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18,
6447-6456 |
57. | Baniahmad, A., Kohne, A. C., and Renkawitz, R. (1992) EMBO J. 11, 1015-1023[Abstract] |
58. | Genetta, T., Ruezinsky, D., and Kadesch, T. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 6153-6163[Abstract] |
59. | Ikeda, K., and Kawakami, K. (1995) Eur. J. Biochem. 233, 73-82[Abstract] |
60. |
Turner, J.,
and Crossley, M.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
5129-5140 |
61. |
Postigo, A. A.,
and Dean, D. C.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
6683-6688 |
62. |
Furusawa, T.,
Moribe, H.,
Kondoh, H.,
and Higashi, Y.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
8581-8590 |
63. | Hashimoto, T., Nakano, Y., Morinaga, T., and Tamaoki, T. (1992) Mech. Dev. 39, 125-126[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
64. |
Kaspar, P.,
Dvorakova, M.,
Kralova, J.,
Pajer, P.,
Kozmik, Z.,
and Dvorak, M.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
14422-14428 |