![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2008, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press The FLYWCH transcription factors FLH-1, FLH-2, and FLH-3 repress embryonic expression of microRNA genes in C. elegans 1 Program in Molecular Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, USA; 2 Program in Gene Function and Expression, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, USA; 3 Department of Genetics, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, USA 4Corresponding author.E-MAIL victor.ambros/at/umassmed.edu; FAX (508) 856-5657. Received March 27, 2008; Accepted July 21, 2008. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small noncoding RNAs that regulate gene expression post-transcriptionally via antisense base-pairing. Although miRNAs are involved in a variety of important biological functions, little is known about their transcriptional regulation. Using yeast one-hybrid assays, we identified transcription factors with a FLYWCH Zn-finger DNA-binding domain that bind to the promoters of several Caenorhabditis elegans miRNA genes. The products of the flh-1 and flh-2 genes function redundantly to repress embryonic expression of lin-4, mir-48, and mir-241, miRNA genes that are normally expressed only post-embryonically. Although single mutations in either flh-1 or flh-2 genes result in a viable phenotype, double mutation of flh-1 and flh-2 results in early larval lethality and an enhanced derepression of their target miRNAs in embryos. Double mutations in flh-2 and a third FLYWCH Zn-finger-containing transcription factor, flh-3, also result in enhanced precocious expression of target miRNAs. Mutations of lin-4 or mir-48&mir-241 do not rescue the lethal flh-1; flh-2 double-mutant phenotype, suggesting that the inviability is not solely the result of precocious expression of these miRNAs. Therefore, the FLH-1 and FLH-2 proteins likely play a more general role in regulating gene expression in embryos. Keywords: lin-4, microRNA transcription, FLYWCH MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are an abundant class of small (21–22 nucleotides [nt]) noncoding regulatory RNAs found in plants and animals. This ancient class of regulatory RNAs modulates a variety of biological processes including developmental timing, metabolism, and cell fate through base-pairing with the 3′ untranslated region (UTR) of their target mRNAs (Ambros 2004; Bushati and Cohen 2007). Most animal miRNAs are transcribed by RNA polymerase II as part of longer primary transcripts (pri-miRNAs). These pri-miRNAs are then processed in a stepwise manner by protein complexes that include the RNase III enzymes Drosha and Dicer to produce the mature 21–22-nt miRNAs (for review, see Kim 2005). Studies in mammals have shown that the biogenesis of some miRNAs can be regulated at the transcriptional level. For example, the proto-oncogene c-Myc directly activates the transcription of the mir-17-92 cluster, and c-Myc-induced overexpression of mir-17-92 induces tumor angiogenesis (O’Donnell et al. 2005; Coller et al. 2007). In contrast, c-Myc expression in lymphoma cells results in the transcriptional repression of a broad repertoire of miRNAs (Chang et al. 2008). Repression of mir-124a transcription by the RE1 silencing transcription factor (REST) contributes to the maintenance of neuronal identity (Conaco et al. 2006). Also, the myogenic transcription factors myogenin and myogenic differentiation 1 (MyoD) have been implicated in regulating the expression of two muscle-specific miRNAs, mir-1 and mir-133, during myogenesis (Rao et al. 2006). The expression of some miRNAs can also be regulated post-transcriptionally. The down-regulation of several miRNAs in cancer cells are attributable to reduced processing by Drosha of pri-miRNAs (Thomson et al. 2006). In addition, the post-transcriptional regulation of the let-7 miRNA is associated with the neuronal differentiation of embryonic stem cells, and embryocarcinoma cells are an important feature in neuronal specification (Wulczyn et al. 2007). The founding member of the miRNA class of small RNAs is the product of the Caenorhabditis elegans lin-4 gene (Lee et al. 1993). Expression of lin-4 miRNA is first detected in the middle of the first larval stage (L1) (Feinbaum and Ambros 1999), and its up-regulation results in the down-regulation of one of its target mRNAs, lin-14, through complementary sequences in the lin-14 3′ UTR (Wightman et al. 1993). Down-regulation of the LIN-14 protein then allows the transition from expression of the L1 stage to the expression of L2 stage developmental events to occur (Ambros and Horvitz 1987). Two lines of evidence suggest that the temporal regulation of lin-4 occurs at the transcriptional level. First, Northern blotting analysis of the lin-4 miRNA in wild-type animals reveals the presence of two transcripts, an ~65-nt and a 22-nt species. The longer transcript is a precursor of the mature 22-nt lin-4 (Lee et al. 1993). Both RNAs are up-regulated coordinately during the mid-L1 stage (R. Lee and V. Ambros, unpubl.), suggesting that the lin-4 precursor is activated transcriptionally during the L1 stage and then the mature lin-4 is rapidly processed from its precursor. Second, lin-4 gfp transcriptional reporters containing only DNA sequences upstream of the miRNA recapitulate its temporal expression, indicating that these upstream sequences contain all the transcriptional regulatory elements required for the temporal regulation of lin-4 (Esquela-Kerscher et al. 2005; Baugh and Sternberg 2006; this study).In this study, we identify a class of Zn-finger FLYWCH transcription factors that includes FLH-1, FLH-2, and FLH-3 (FLYWCH transcription factor-1, FLYWCH transcription factor-2, and FLYWCH transcription factor-3) that act redundantly during embryogenesis to repress the transcription of lin-4 and other miRNAs that are normally up-regulated postembryonically. Results FLH-1 binds to an upstream region of lin-4 To identify candidate proteins that could be direct regulators of lin-4 expression, we conducted yeast one-hybrid (Y1H) screens using an 87-bp fragment from the phylogenetically conserved upstream region of the lin-4 gene as bait (Lee et al. 1993). This DNA fragment (fragment 365–451) consists of nucleotides 365–451 (as measured 5′ from the start of the mature lin-4) of a 693-bp SalI lin-4 rescuing construct (Lee et al. 1993). Fragment 365–451 had been identified previously in gel mobility shift assays to contain sequences capable of developmentally regulated binding to a component contained in nuclear extracts from L1 larvae (R. Feinbaum and V. Ambros, unpubl.). As preys in the Y1H screens, we used a random-primed and an oligo dT-primed C. elegans cDNA library. We screened 2.1 × 106 yeast transformants and found several candidates exhibiting fragment 365–451 binding activity. Among these candidates was a 485-bp sequence encoding a portion (residues 105–265) of an uncharacterized ORF, y11d7a.12, which encodes a predicted transcription factor with a FLYWCH Zn-finger DNA-binding domain (Dorn and Krauss 2003; Reece-Hoyes et al. 2005). Based on the presence of the FLYWCH motif in the Y11D7A.12 protein, the gene name flh-1 was assigned to y11d7a.12. The FLH-1-binding fragment in the lin-4 promoter is essential for repression of lin-4 in the embryo To determine whether sequences contained within fragment 365–451 are necessary for the proper temporal expression of lin-4 in vivo, we used a Plin-4 gfp reporter, consisting of 2.4 kb of DNA sequences upstream of the mature lin-4 fused to GFP. As expected, animals with the Plin-4 gfp (maIs134) transgene exhibited no GFP during embryogenesis (Fig. 1A gfp reporter construct containing a deletion of nucleotides corresponding to the sequence of fragment 365–451 exhibited GFP expression in late-stage embryos (Fig. 1A
RNAi of flh genes results in precocious embryonic expression of lin-4 To test whether FLH-1 is required for the repression of lin-4 expression in the embryo, we assayed lin-4 RNA levels in embryos produced by hermaphrodites treated with flh-1(RNAi). We used rrf-3(pk1426) animals that are hypersensitive to RNAi (Simmer et al. 2002). Northern blot analysis of total RNA extracted from flh-1(RNAi) embryos detected weak precocious expression of lin-4 in embryos (Fig. 1B gfp reporter (data not shown). However, Plin-4 gfp was precociously active in double-RNAi, flh-1(RNAi); flh-2(RNAi) embryos (Fig. 1DIsolation and phenotype of deletion mutations in the flh genes To further test the role of the FLYWCH family of proteins in the regulation of miRNA gene expression and C. elegans development, we obtained deletion mutations of flh-1 and flh-2 by screening a library of ethyl methanesulphonate (EMS)-mutagenized worms using gene-specific PCR primers. The y11d7a.12 deletion mutation, flh-1(bc374), is an 894-bp deletion that deletes most of exons 2 and 3 and results in the loss of the FLYWCH domain (Fig. 2A
Animals homozygous for either flh-1(bc374) or flh-2(bc375) exhibited a nearly wild-type phenotype with a low penetrance of young larvae with morphological abnormalities (2.8% for bc374, n = 502) (Fig. 2B Unlike the flh-1(bc374); flh-2(bc375) double mutant, animals double mutant for two other alleles of flh-1 and flh-2—flh-1(tm2118); flh-2(tm2126)—were viable. The viability of the flh-1(tm2118); flh-2(tm2126) double mutant is consistent with the less severe molecular lesions in these alleles as compared with flh-1(bc374) and flh-2(bc375) and indicates that flh-1(tm2118) and flh-1(tm2126) express residual protein and are probably not nulls (Fig. 2A miRNA expression profile of flh mutants To determine whether the levels of other miRNAs besides lin-4 changed in flh mutants, we performed real-time RT–PCR (miRTaqMan) assays on 107 miRNAs using total RNA isolated from embryos from various flh mutants. For flh-1(bc374), we found that in addition to lin-4, the miRNAs mir-241 and mir-48 were also increased at least twofold in mutant embryos compared with wild-type (Fig. 3A
Genome-scale Y1H screens reveal additional interactions between miRNA promoters and FLH proteins To date, 115 miRNA genes have been identified in C. elegans (miRBase version 4.0). Of these 115 miRNA genes, 82 are intergenic. Sixty-six of these 82 are located in intergenic regions and are likely to be transcribed as independent transcriptional units. The other 16 of the intergenic miRNAs are expressed from operons, with a single promoter for each operon. The remaining 33 miRNAs are situated within introns of protein-coding genes and therefore may be under the transcriptional control of their host genes. We cloned upstream promoter sequences for 71 out of the 82 intergenic miRNA genes and tested whether other miRNA promoters besides lin-4 could be directly bound by FLH-1 and FLH-2. In our genome-scale screen, we detected binding of FLH-1 to the promoters of lin-4, mir-241, mir-48, mir-53, mir-59, and mir-358-357, and binding of FLH-2 to the promoters of lin-4, mir-241, and mir-48 (Fig. 4A
Identification of an FLH-1 consensus binding site We used the sequences of the miRNA promoters that were found to bind FLH-1 in Y1H assays (Plin-4, Pmir-241, Pmir-48, Pmir-53, Pmir-59, and Pmir-358-357) to derive a putative FLH-1 consensus binding site using the Improbizer algorithm (Ao et al. 2004). We found that the predicted FLH-1-binding site contains an a/gGGCGCCG sequence (Fig. 5A
We found that DNA with the binding site consensus sequence can, indeed, interact with FLH-1 in Y1H assays (Fig. 5B To further verify the interaction between FLH-1 and the consensus sequence, we performed gel mobility shift assays using total protein extract from N2 embryos with the 87-bp fragment 365–451 from Plin-4 (Fig. 5D Expression pattern of FLH transcription factors To visualize the expression pattern of FLH-1, FLH-2, and FLH-3, we made fluorescent translational or transcriptional fusions and examined their expression in transgenic worms. Expression of VENUS (Nagai et al. 2002) from the translational fusion flh-1 venus localizes to most cells starting at the gastrulation stage, with its expression diminishing by the L1 stage (Fig. 6A flh-2 transgene (Fig. 6A venus. In embryogenesis, GFP was detected starting at the gastrulation stage. However, expression in head and tail cells persisted during the larval and adult stages (Fig. 6A gfp was detected in late-stage embryos and L1 larvae (Fig. 6A
Northern blot analysis of total RNA extracted from populations of staged animals shows that the flh-1, flh-2, and flh-3 mRNAs are detected in embryos and reduced significantly after hatching (Fig. 6B VENUS, we detected the flh-1 mRNA in L4 animals and adults (Fig. 6B venus transgene.Western blot analyses using polyclonal antibodies against FLH-1 show that FLH-1 is present during embryogenesis and adulthood, while FLH-2 could be detected only in embryos (Fig. 6C
Precocious expression of lin-4 in flh mutants reduces LIN-14 levels in embryos To determine if the elevated expression of lin-4 in embryos of flh mutants could lead to precocious down-regulation of LIN-14, the principal target of lin-4, we used Western blots to estimate LIN-14 levels in single and double flh-1 and flh-2 mutant embryos (Fig. 7A
Elevated lin-4 levels in flh mutant embryos do not result in post-embryonic heterochronic defects Because loss-of-function (lf) mutations of flh-1 and flh-1; flh-2 result in the up-regulation of lin-4 in embryos, and since it was shown previously that elevated lin-4 could result in a precocious expression of L2-adult developmental events (Feinbaum and Ambros 1999), we examined flh-1 and flh-2 mutant animals for defects in post-embryonic developmental timing. In particular, we used a transgenic col-19 gfp reporter to monitor the timing of adult-specific developmental programs in the lateral hypodermis. The col-19 gene is an adult-specific collagen gene that is under the control of the heterochronic pathway (Liu et al. 1995). Heterochronic mutations that cause precocious development result in the premature expression of col-19 gfp during larval stages, whereas mutations that cause retarded development result in the loss of col-19 gfp expression in adults (Abrahante et al. 1998). We did not observe altered timing of col-19 gfp expression in flh-1(bc374) or flh-2(bc375) single mutant in flh-1(tm2118); flh-2(tm2126) or flh-2(bc375); flh-3(tm3024) double mutants (Table 1). We were unable to examine flh-1(bc374); flh-2(bc375) double-mutant animals for post-embryonic heterochronic phenotypes because of the early larval lethality of the double-mutant combination.
Animals with a high-copy transgene of the lin-4 gene display precocious phenotypes, including egg-laying defects, dumpy phenotype, and defects in tail and vulva morphology, that are reminiscent of lin-14(lf) animals (Feinbaum and Ambros 1999). Unlike worms that overexpress lin-4 from a transgene, single flh-1(bc374) animals, other than having a low penetrance of abnormally shaped larvae, do not show phenotypes similar to those of lin-14(lf) animals. flh-2(bc375) mutants, however, do exhibit a low penetrance of dumpy animals (Fig. 2B An additional phenotype of animals overexpressing lin-4 is the precocious expression of L2 larvae-specific cell division at the L1 larval stage (Feinbaum and Ambros 1999). To determine whether single or double mutants of flh-1 and flh-2 exhibit precocious L2-stage cell division, we examined the hypodermal cells (seam cells) of the V lineage (V1–V6). Wild-type L1 larvae hatch with six V-lineage seam cells. These six seam cells divide once in L1 to generate a daughter seam cell and a hypodermal cell. Because the hypodermal daughter cell does not divide, the number of V-lineage seam cells at the end of the L1 stage remains at six. At the L2 stage, five of the six seam cells generate two daughter cells, thus increasing the number of the V-lineage seam cells from six to 11 (Sulston and Horvitz 1977). In L1 larvae deficient for LIN-14, the seams cells undergo aberrant division programs characteristic of the L2 stage, thus resulting in the production of more than six seam cells (Ambros and Horvitz 1984). We used a seam cell nuclei-specific fluorescent marker (scm gfp) to examine whether the precocious expression of lin-4 in the flh mutants results in an abnormally high number of V-lineage seam cells in the L1 stage. As in wild-type L1 larvae, the number of seam cells remained at six in the single flh-1(bc374) and flh-2(bc375) mutants as well as in the double flh-1(tm2118); flh-2(tm2126) mutant (Table 2; Fig. 7B
FLH transcription factors likely regulate non-miRNA targets To determine whether early larval lethality of the double flh-1(bc374); flh-2(bc375) mutation was caused primarily by overexpression of lin-4, mir-241, or mir-48 during embryogenesis, we built VT1589 {lin-4(e912) II/mnC1; flh-2(bc375) III; flh-1(bc374) IV/nT1 [qIs51] (IV;V)} and VT1645 {flh-2(bc375) III; flh-1(bc374) IV/nT1 [qIs51] (IV;V); nDf51 V} and asked whether the lethality of the flh-1; flh-2 double mutant could be rescued in animals deleted for lin-4 or mir-48 and mir-241. Animals that were homozygous for either lin-4(0) or nDf51 [mir-48(0) mir-241(0)] did not produce viable progeny that were homozygous for both flh-1(bc374) and flh-2(bc375). This implies that the inviability of flh-1(bc374); flh-2(bc375) animals is not primarily a consequence of excessive levels of lin-4 or of mir-48 and mir-241, but may be due to the collective up-regulation of additional miRNA targets of FLH-1 and FLH-2, and/or altered expression of yet to be identified protein-coding gene targets of FLH-1 and FLH-2. Discussion We report the identification of three transcription factors—FLH-1, FLH-2, and FLH-3—that act redundantly to repress the expression of several miRNAs in C. elegans during embryogenesis. FLH-1, FLH-2, and FLH-3 are three of four proteins in C. elegans that contain a FLYWCH DNA-binding domain (Reece-Hoyes et al. 2005). Proteins with FLYWCH domains have also been identified in insects and vertebrates (Dorn and Krauss 2003; Krauss and Dorn 2004; Babu et al. 2006). The FLYWCH motif is a Cys2His2-type zinc-finger domain characterized by the conserved sequence: F/Y-X(n)-L-X(n)-F/Y-X(n)-WXCX(6–12)CX(17–22)HXH (where X is any amino acid). It was first identified in isoforms of the putative chromatin-modulating protein modifier of (mdg4) locus [mod(mdg4)] in Drosophila melanogaster (Gerasimova et al. 1995; Buchner et al. 2000). Phenotypes of mod(mdg-4) mutant flies include effects on position effect variegation, chromatin insulation, nerve cell pathfinding, chromosomal meiotic pairing, and apoptosis (for review, see Dorn and Krauss 2003). It is not known whether mod(mdg4) mutations cause defects in miRNA expression in Drosophila. Drosophila Mod(mdg4) has not been shown to bind to DNA, but the Mod(mdg4) FLYWCH domain does seem to mediate protein–protein interactions, since it can directly interact with the DNA-binding protein Suppressor of Hairy-wing [Su(Hw)] as part of the gypsy insulator (Ghosh et al. 2001). Although we did not establish a direct in vivo interaction between the FLH-1, FLH-2, or FLH-3 proteins, Y2H assays detected a physical interaction between FLH-1 and FLH-3 (Walhout et al. 2002). The potential functional significance of interactions among the C. elegans FLH proteins in vivo or their interactions with other proteins remains to be determined. The functional redundancy between the flh-1, flh-2, and flh-3 genes that we show here is consistent with a range of possible molecular relationships among the FLH-1, FLH-2, and FLH-3 proteins in vivo, including binding common sets of DNA sites, common protein partners, and/or functioning separately in redundant pathways. The fourth C. elegans protein with a FLYWCH domain is peb-1 (Thatcher et al. 2001). The function and DNA-binding activity of peb-1 requires the FLYWCH motif as a deletion in this region results in deficiencies in pharynx development and molting (Beaster-Jones and Okkema 2004; Fernandez et al. 2004). Y1H analysis showed that PEB-1 binds to the promoter of several miRNAs (Martinez et al. 2008). However, unlike flh-1, miRNA TaqMan analyses of peb-1 mutant embryos did not show any aberrance in lin-4 levels (data not shown). We found that the loss of both FLH-1 and FLH-2 results in early larval lethality. It is apparent from our studies that this phenotype is not due simply to the overexpression of lin-4, mir-48, or mir-241 during embryogenesis since a lin-4(lf) mutation or deletion of mir-48 and mir-241 did not rescue the flh lethal phenotype. Also, the increases in lin-4, mir-241, and mir-48 levels observed in the viable flh mutants [flh-1(tm2118); flh-2(tm2126) or flh-2(bc375); flh-3(tm3024)] were approximately similar to the increases in those miRNAs observed in the inviable mutant [flh-1(bc374); flh-2(bc375)] (Fig. 3C,E,F We did not observe post-embryonic developmental timing defects in flh mutants that overexpress in embryos miRNAs known to be developmental timing regulators. For example, although transgenic overexpression in early larval stages of mir-48 or lin-4 has been shown to cause precocious expression of later larval cell fates (Feinbaum and Ambros 1999; Li et al. 2005), the viable flh mutants that we examined did not display such larval developmental timing phenotypes. This is consistent with our observation that mir-48 and lin-4 are primarily overexpressed during embryogenesis in flh mutants, and are relatively normal during development of mutant larvae. It appears that the FLH proteins are particularly involved in inhibiting miRNA expression in embryos, and other regulatory mechanisms, including transcriptional activators, govern up-regulation of these same miRNAs in larvae (Fig. 8 It is evident that the temporal (and most likely also spatial) regulation of miRNAs involves a complex network of negative and positive transcription factors as well as post-transcriptional regulation. Indeed, a recent genome-wide analysis of C. elegans transcription factors and intergenic miRNA promoters has revealed nearly 350 transcription factor–miRNA interactions (Martinez et al. 2008). Future experiments are needed to fully understand the roles of transcription factors in governing the temporal and spatial expression of miRNAs, including how developmental and physiological signals modulate the transcription factors regulating miRNA gene expression. Materials and methods Y1H assays Fragment 365–451 of Plin-4 was cloned into pBM2389, upstream of a GAL1 promoter that drives the expression of HIS3 (Liu et al. 1993), generating plasmids pBM2389.AF (forward orientation) and pBM2389.AR (reverse orientation). The DNA fragment was also cloned into pSE640, upstream of a CYC1 promoter driving the expression of LacZ (American Type Culture Collection), generating plasmids pSE640.AF (forward orientation) and pSE640.AR (reverse orientation). These reporter plasmids were integrated into Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain YM4271. The yeast strains harboring the integrated plasmids were then transformed with two mixed-staged C. elegans cDNA libraries, pACT-RB1 (oligo dT primed) and pACT-RB2 (random hexamer primed; gifts from Dr. Robert Barstead). Yeast transformants with pBM2389.AF or pBM2389.AR and an activator plasmid were selected for tryptophan, leucine, and histidine prototrophy and with 40 mM 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole. Plasmids from positive candidates from the histidine screen were extracted and transformed into YM4271 harboring pSE640.AF or pSE640.AR, where the interaction was confirmed using in situ β-galactosidase assays. All yeast manipulations were done following standard procedures (Adams et al. 1997). Gateway-compatible Y1H assays were done as described before (Deplancke et al. 2006; Vermeirssen et al. 2007) using 2 kb upstream of the mature miRNA as baits and FLH-1 and FLH-2 as preys. Plasmid construction A 5.6-kb fragment containing a rescuing wild-type copy of the unc-119 gene was inserted into the promoter-less GFP vector pPD95.75 to generate pMO23. All PCR reactions were done using Platinum Pfx DNA polymerase (Invitrogen). The Plin-4 gfp reporter plasmid was made by amplifying a 2.4-kb fragment immediately upstream of the mature lin-4 and inserting it into pMO23. Plasmids for Pmir-241 gfp, Pmir-48 gfp, Pmir-59 gfp, and Pmir-358-357 gfp were made by amplifying 1.5–2-kb fragments upstream of the mature miRNA and ligating them into pMO23. The Plin-4 gfp plasmid with a deletion of fragment 365–451 was made by the overlap extension PCR method (Ho et al. 1989).A VENUS translational reporter for flh-1 (Pflh-1 [5 kb] flh-1 venus flh-1 3′ UTR [290 bp]) was constructed using a combination of overlap extension PCR and Gateway cloning (Walhout et al. 2000). A GFP translational reporter for flh-2 (Pflh-2 [4.8 kb] gfp flh-2 flh-2 3′ UTR [411 bp]) was made using a pBluescript SK(+) vector with GFP and the unc-119 mini-gene transformation marker from pDP#MM051 (Maduro and Pilgrim 1995). The transcriptional fusion reporter for flh-3 (Pflh-3 [4.5 kb] gfp flh-3 3′ UTR [1 kb]) was made by Gateway cloning. Details of all plasmid constructions and primer sequences will be provided upon request.C. elegans strains Worms were grown using standard procedures at 20°C on Nematode Growth Medium (NGM) plates (Sulston and Hodgkin 1988). The wild-type strain was C. elegans var. Bristol strain N2 (Brenner 1974). Deletion alleles isolated from mutagenesis libraries were backcrossed to N2 at least six to eight times before characterization. All nematode strains used in this study are listed in Supplemental Table 8. C. elegans transformation Gold microparticle biolistic bombardment (for review, see Praitis 2006) of DP38 [unc-119(ed3)] was used to create transgenic worms carrying fluorescent reporters. We used a transformation procedure described by Berezikov et al. (2004) using a PDS-1000/He system with the Hepta adaptor (Bio-Rad). At least two independent lines were obtained per bombardment. RNAi-by-feeding Embryos obtained following hypochlorite treatment of gravid adults were placed on RNAi plates (NGM with 100 μg/mL ampicillin, 15 μg/mL tetracycline, and 1 mM IPTG; seeded with bacteria expressing dsRNA) (Kamath et al. 2001). Once they reached L4, they were transferred onto fresh RNAi plates. Isolation of FLH-1 and FLH-2 deletions Deletion alleles flh-1(bc374) and flh-2(bc375) were isolated from a population of worms mutagenized with EMS using the poison primer method (Edgley et al. 2002). DNA sequencing was performed to assess the nature of the lesions. Sequences of the screening primers will be made available upon request. miRNA TaqMan real-time PCR assays One-hundred late-stage embryos were collected into Worm Lysis Buffer (50 mM KCl, 10 mM Tris at pH 8.3, 2.5 mM MgCl2, 0.45% NP-40, 0.45% Tween 20, 0.01% gelatin, 30 μg/mL proteinase K), subjected to 10 cycles of freezing and thawing, followed by incubation for 1 h at 65°C and for 20 min at 95°C. A Trizol (Invitrogen) extraction was done, and the RNA template was coprecipitated with glycogen (Ambion). The RNA was used in TaqMan assays following the instructions of the manufacturer using an ABI 7900HT Fast-Real Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems) (Chen et al. 2005). The miRNA Ct values were analyzed in triplicate from three independent biological samples. The comparative Ct (2−ΔΔCt) method (Livak and Schmittgen 2001) was used to calculate the average ΔΔCt values using the small nucleolar RNA, sn2841 or U18, as the normalization standard. Only those values for which the three independent biological replicates exhibited the same trend (increase or decrease) were considered in our analysis. ΔΔCt values were then normalized by subtracting the average ΔΔCt value for all the miRNAs in the experiment. Normalized ΔΔCt values for each miRNA assay were averaged across all replicates to generate a ΔΔCt final value, and the standard error of the mean was determined. Z-scores were calculated as −ΔΔCtfinal/SD. Z-scores ≥2 or ≤−2 were considered significant. Northern blot analysis Total RNA was extracted and analyzed (5–20 μg) by Northern blotting as described by Ambros and Lee (2004) using Starfire probes (Integrated DNA Technologies) complementary to the miRNA or to U6 snRNA. Northern blots for flh-1, flh-2, and flh-3 were done as described by Burnett (1997). PCR fragment probes for flh-1 and flh-2 were radiolabeled with [α-32P]dATP using the Decaprime II Random Primed DNA Labeling Kit (Ambion), and hybridized probe was detected using PhosphorImager screens and ImageQuant (Molecular Dynamics). Northern blots used to detect flh-1 and flh-2 were reprobed for flh-3 using a PCR fragment specific for flh-3 following the instructions of the DIG High Prime DNA Labeling and Detection Starter Kit II (Roche). Western blot analysis Embryos were obtained from the hypochlorite treatment of staged gravid adults. Starved L1s were collected following the overnight hatching of embryos in M9 buffer at 20°C. Worm pellets were resuspended in an equal volume of Lysis Buffer (4% SDS, 100 mM Tris at pH 6.8, 20% glycerol) and boiled for 20 min. Protein concentration was assessed using the RC DC Protein Assay Reagent (Bio-Rad). Protein extracts were resolved in 10% SDS-PAGE gels and transferred to PVDF membranes. Westerns were done with rabbit antisera against LIN-14 (Hristova et al. 2005), γ-tubulin (Sigma T1450), FLH-1, or FLH-2. Quantification of proteins was done using ImageJ (NIH). Preparation of anti-FLH-1 and anti-FLH-2 A histidine-tagged full-length FLH-1 protein was expressed in Escherichia coli from the plasmid pHIS.Parallel1 (Sheffield et al. 1999), and purified protein was used to raise polyclonal antibodies in rabbits (Pocono Rabbit Farm and Laboratory). Polyclonal antibodies for FLH-2 were raised in rabbits immunized with a KLH conjugated peptide consisting of the last 20 amino acids (Open Biosystems). Prediction of the FLH-1 consensus binding site The sequences of the promoters that tested positive for FLH-1 binding by Y1H were analyzed using Improbizer (Ao et al. 2004) to predict a consensus binding site. Two types of input sequences were analyzed, either up to 2 kb or 1 kb upstream of the annotated miRNAs (Martinez et al. 2008). We used three types of background sequences: (1) all promoters sequences from the promoterome (Dupuy et al. 2004) (~20,000 sequences lengths 300 bp to 2.5 kb); (2) a subset of sequences from the promoterome containing only regions between 2 and 2.5 kb upstream of the translation start site; and (3) the same background as foreground (same set of positive sequences used as background model). The motif shown was the most redundant site among all six searches. Improbizer scores reflect how well a site present in a given promoter fits the position weight matrix (for details, see http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~kent/improbizer/improbizer.html). The sequence logo was created using WebLogo (http://weblogo.berkeley.edu). Cloning the FLH-1 consensus binding site We cloned the predicted FLH-1-binding site from the promoter of mir-358. The sequence tested contained four extra nucleotides on each side of the predicted hit to account for the possibility that flanking nucleotides important for binding may have been missed in the motif searches. Complementary DNA primers were designed to contain one (FLYWCH-1x and FLYWCH-1-y) or three (FLYWCH-3x and FLYWCH-3-y) tandem FLH-binding sites. A Gateway compatible entry vector, pMW#4, was ligated with the annealed primers, and the FLH-1-binding sites were subsequently cloned into pMW#2 and pMW#3 integrated into the genome of S. cerevisiae YM4271 and used in Y1H assays as described previously (Deplancke et al. 2006). Deletion of the FLH-1-binding site in Pmir-48 The FLH-1 consensus binding site was deleted from Pmir-48 using the QuikChange II Site-Directed Mutagenesis kit (Stratagene) following the instructions of the manufacturer with an entry clone with 2 kb of Pmir-48 as template. This entry clone was subsequently used to generate a Y1H bait as described previously (Deplancke et al. 2006). Electrophoretic mobility shift assay Wild-type gravid hermaphrodites were collected and embryos were harvested by hypochlorite treatment (Sulston and Hodgkin 1988). Embryos (50 μL of packed pellet) were washed, resuspended in 650 μL of 10 mM HEPES (pH 7.2) supplemented with Halt protease inhibitor cocktail (Pierce) and disrupted by 30 strokes of an ice-cold 3-mL stainless steel dounce homogenizer. Fifty micrograms of the resulting extract were incubated at room temperature in Binding Buffer (10 mM HEPES at pH 7.2, 25 mM NaCl, 1 mM MgCl2, 50 μM ZnCl2, 5% glycerol) with 2 μg of BSA and 0.5 μg of poly (dI–dC). A 30-min preincubation was done for cold probe chases and supershift assays using anti-FLH-1 or rabbit IgG Ab-1 control antibody (Thermo Scientific). Following the addition of a [γ-32P]ATP 5′-end-labeled wild-type or mutant fragments 365–451 (from Plin-4) or 200–251 (from Pmir-48), samples were incubated for an additional 20 min, immediately loaded into a 5% native gel, and electrophoresed at room temperature. Acknowledgments We are grateful to C. Chen from Applied Biosystems for TaqMan assay reagents, S. Mitani from the National Bioresource Project for deletion strains, and C. Mello for providing the facility and supplies to do some of the radioactive experiments. Some nematode strains used in this work were provided by the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center, which is funded by the NIH National Center for Research Resources (NCRR). We thank B. Deplancke for help with the FLH-binding site cloning, A. Fire for pPD95.75, and Z. Derewenda for pHIS.Parallel1. M.C.O. was funded in part by NIH post-doctoral fellowship GM070118-02. This work was supported by NIH grants GM348642 and DK068429 to V.A. and A.J.M.W., respectively. Footnotes Supplemental material is available at http://www.genesdev.org. Article is online at http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gad.1678808. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nature. 2004 Sep 16; 431(7006):350-5.
[Nature. 2004]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2007; 23():175-205.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2007]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005 May; 6(5):376-85.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005]Nature. 2005 Jun 9; 435(7043):839-43.
[Nature. 2005]PLoS Genet. 2007 Aug; 3(8):e146.
[PLoS Genet. 2007]Nat Genet. 2008 Jan; 40(1):43-50.
[Nat Genet. 2008]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Feb 14; 103(7):2422-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 6; 103(23):8721-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]Genes Dev. 2006 Aug 15; 20(16):2202-7.
[Genes Dev. 2006]FASEB J. 2007 Feb; 21(2):415-26.
[FASEB J. 2007]Cell. 1993 Dec 3; 75(5):843-54.
[Cell. 1993]Dev Biol. 1999 Jun 1; 210(1):87-95.
[Dev Biol. 1999]Cell. 1993 Dec 3; 75(5):855-62.
[Cell. 1993]Genes Dev. 1987 Jun; 1(4):398-414.
[Genes Dev. 1987]Cell. 1993 Dec 3; 75(5):843-54.
[Cell. 1993]Dev Dyn. 2005 Dec; 234(4):868-77.
[Dev Dyn. 2005]Curr Biol. 2006 Apr 18; 16(8):780-5.
[Curr Biol. 2006]Cell. 1993 Dec 3; 75(5):843-54.
[Cell. 1993]Genetica. 2003 Mar; 117(2-3):165-77.
[Genetica. 2003]Genome Biol. 2005; 6(13):R110.
[Genome Biol. 2005]Dev Dyn. 2005 Dec; 234(4):868-77.
[Dev Dyn. 2005]Curr Biol. 2006 Apr 18; 16(8):780-5.
[Curr Biol. 2006]Curr Biol. 2002 Aug 6; 12(15):1317-9.
[Curr Biol. 2002]Science. 2004 Sep 17; 305(5691):1743-6.
[Science. 2004]Nat Biotechnol. 2002 Jan; 20(1):87-90.
[Nat Biotechnol. 2002]Dev Biol. 1999 Jun 1; 210(1):87-95.
[Dev Biol. 1999]Development. 1995 Aug; 121(8):2471-8.
[Development. 1995]Genetics. 1998 Jul; 149(3):1335-51.
[Genetics. 1998]Dev Biol. 1999 Jun 1; 210(1):87-95.
[Dev Biol. 1999]Dev Biol. 1999 Jun 1; 210(1):87-95.
[Dev Biol. 1999]Dev Biol. 1977 Mar; 56(1):110-56.
[Dev Biol. 1977]Science. 1984 Oct 26; 226(4673):409-16.
[Science. 1984]Genome Biol. 2005; 6(13):R110.
[Genome Biol. 2005]Genetica. 2003 Mar; 117(2-3):165-77.
[Genetica. 2003]Gene. 2004 Apr 28; 331():165-76.
[Gene. 2004]Nucleic Acids Res. 2006; 34(22):6505-20.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2006]Cell. 1995 Aug 25; 82(4):587-97.
[Cell. 1995]Dev Biol. 2001 Jan 15; 229(2):480-93.
[Dev Biol. 2001]J Mol Biol. 2004 Jun 11; 339(4):695-706.
[J Mol Biol. 2004]Dev Biol. 2004 Dec 15; 276(2):352-66.
[Dev Biol. 2004]Dev Biol. 1999 Jun 1; 210(1):87-95.
[Dev Biol. 1999]Dev Cell. 2005 Sep; 9(3):415-22.
[Dev Cell. 2005]Cell. 2006 Jun 16; 125(6):1193-205.
[Cell. 2006]Genome Res. 2007 Jul; 17(7):1061-71.
[Genome Res. 2007]Gene. 1989 Apr 15; 77(1):51-9.
[Gene. 1989]Methods Enzymol. 2000; 328():575-92.
[Methods Enzymol. 2000]Genetics. 1995 Nov; 141(3):977-88.
[Genetics. 1995]Genetics. 1974 May; 77(1):71-94.
[Genetics. 1974]Methods Mol Biol. 2006; 351():93-107.
[Methods Mol Biol. 2006]Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Feb 24; 32(4):e40.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2004]Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jun 15; 30(12):e52.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2002]Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Nov 27; 33(20):e179.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2005]Methods. 2001 Dec; 25(4):402-8.
[Methods. 2001]Nature. 2004 Sep 16; 431(7006):350-5.
[Nature. 2004]Biotechniques. 1997 Apr; 22(4):668-71.
[Biotechniques. 1997]Mol Cell Biol. 2005 Dec; 25(24):11059-72.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2005]Protein Expr Purif. 1999 Feb; 15(1):34-9.
[Protein Expr Purif. 1999]Science. 2004 Sep 17; 305(5691):1743-6.
[Science. 2004]Genome Res. 2004 Oct; 14(10B):2169-75.
[Genome Res. 2004]Cell. 2006 Jun 16; 125(6):1193-205.
[Cell. 2006]Cell. 2006 Jun 16; 125(6):1193-205.
[Cell. 2006]