Two Functional Modes of a Nuclear Receptor-Recruited Arginine Methyltransferase in Transcriptional Activation  María J. Barrero, Sohail Malik  Molecular.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Role of Bmi-1 and Ring1A in H2A Ubiquitylation and Hox Gene Silencing
Advertisements

Cotranscriptional Recruitment of the mRNA Export Factor Yra1 by Direct Interaction with the 3′ End Processing Factor Pcf11  Sara Ann Johnson, Gabrielle.
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages (August 2009)
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages (September 2001)
Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages (March 2013)
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages (January 2004)
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Repression by Groucho/TLE/Grg Proteins: Genomic Site Recruitment Generates Compacted Chromatin In Vitro and Impairs Activator Binding In Vivo  Takashi.
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages (September 2000)
Purusharth Rajyaguru, Meipei She, Roy Parker  Molecular Cell 
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages (March 2011)
E6 Oncoprotein Represses p53-Dependent Gene Activation via Inhibition of Protein Acetylation Independently of Inducing p53 Degradation  Mary C. Thomas,
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (January 1999)
Ho-Geun Yoon, Doug W. Chan, Albert B. Reynolds, Jun Qin, Jiemin Wong 
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages (October 2009)
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages (December 2004)
Transcriptional Activators Enhance Polyadenylation of mRNA Precursors
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages (April 2002)
Donghang Cheng, Jocelyn Côté, Salam Shaaban, Mark T. Bedford 
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages (May 2008)
Yongli Bai, Chun Yang, Kathrin Hu, Chris Elly, Yun-Cai Liu 
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages (April 2010)
MUC1 Oncoprotein Stabilizes and Activates Estrogen Receptor α
SUMO Promotes HDAC-Mediated Transcriptional Repression
An Acetylation Switch in p53 Mediates Holo-TFIID Recruitment
PARP1 Represses PAP and Inhibits Polyadenylation during Heat Shock
Direct Interactions of OCA-B and TFII-I Regulate Immunoglobulin Heavy-Chain Gene Transcription by Facilitating Enhancer-Promoter Communication  Xiaodi.
Ashton Breitkreutz, Lorrie Boucher, Mike Tyers  Current Biology 
Volume 123, Issue 2, Pages (October 2005)
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages (February 2008)
Yuming Wang, Jennifer A. Fairley, Stefan G.E. Roberts  Current Biology 
MUC1 Oncoprotein Stabilizes and Activates Estrogen Receptor α
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages (May 2010)
HMGN Proteins Act in Opposition to ATP-Dependent Chromatin Remodeling Factors to Restrict Nucleosome Mobility  Barbara P. Rattner, Timur Yusufzai, James.
Ahmed H. Hassan, Kristen E. Neely, Jerry L. Workman  Cell 
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages (November 2002)
Joshua C. Black, Janet E. Choi, Sarah R. Lombardo, Michael Carey 
Per Stehmeier, Stefan Muller  Molecular Cell 
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages (December 2007)
MyoD Targets TAF3/TRF3 to Activate Myogenin Transcription
c-Src Activates Endonuclease-Mediated mRNA Decay
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages (January 2004)
Volume 138, Issue 6, Pages (September 2009)
Hansen Du, Haruhiko Ishii, Michael J. Pazin, Ranjan Sen  Molecular Cell 
Dimethylation of H3K4 by Set1 Recruits the Set3 Histone Deacetylase Complex to 5′ Transcribed Regions  TaeSoo Kim, Stephen Buratowski  Cell  Volume 137,
Volume 90, Issue 4, Pages (August 1997)
Volume 96, Issue 3, Pages (February 1999)
Volume 11, Issue 24, Pages (December 2001)
Yi Tang, Jianyuan Luo, Wenzhu Zhang, Wei Gu  Molecular Cell 
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages (September 2005)
Cotranscriptional Recruitment of the mRNA Export Factor Yra1 by Direct Interaction with the 3′ End Processing Factor Pcf11  Sara Ann Johnson, Gabrielle.
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages (September 2008)
Volume 121, Issue 6, Pages (June 2005)
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages (July 2004)
Fan Yang, Huafeng Zhang, Yide Mei, Mian Wu  Molecular Cell 
Volume 45, Issue 1, Pages (January 2012)
Feng Xu, Qiongyi Zhang, Kangling Zhang, Wei Xie, Michael Grunstein 
In Vitro Analysis of Huntingtin-Mediated Transcriptional Repression Reveals Multiple Transcription Factor Targets  Weiguo Zhai, Hyunkyung Jeong, Libin.
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages (April 2004)
Transcriptional Regulation by p53 through Intrinsic DNA/Chromatin Binding and Site- Directed Cofactor Recruitment  Joaquin M Espinosa, Beverly M Emerson 
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages (October 1999)
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages (June 2001)
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 41, Issue 4, Pages (February 2011)
Volume 104, Issue 1, Pages (January 2001)
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (January 1999)
Volume 123, Issue 2, Pages (October 2005)
Chih-Yung S. Lee, Tzu-Lan Yeh, Bridget T. Hughes, Peter J. Espenshade 
Acetylation Regulates Transcription Factor Activity at Multiple Levels
Role of Bmi-1 and Ring1A in H2A Ubiquitylation and Hox Gene Silencing
Presentation transcript:

Two Functional Modes of a Nuclear Receptor-Recruited Arginine Methyltransferase in Transcriptional Activation  María J. Barrero, Sohail Malik  Molecular Cell  Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 233-243 (October 2006) DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2006.09.020 Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Histone H4 R3 Methylation at HNF4 Target Promoters Correlates with HNF4 Occupancy during Differentiation of CaCo-2 Cells (A) mRNA levels of apoAI, α1-AT, and β-actin were determined by RT-PCR at the indicated days after cells reached confluence. (B) Western blot showing protein levels of HNF4, PRMT1, and GAPDH during differentiation. (C) ChIP assays on the α1-AT and apoAI promoters were performed during CaCo-2 differentiation using specific antibodies against HNF4 (αHNF4), histone H4 methylated at R3 (αmeH4 R3), or unrelated IgGs (IgG). (D) Effect of MTA and AdOx on the indicated genes' mRNA levels during differentiation. Radiolabeled RT-PCR products (left panel) were quantified, and apoAI and α1-AT mRNA levels were normalized to β-actin and plotted (right panel) as fold induction (day 4 versus day 0). Molecular Cell 2006 24, 233-243DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2006.09.020) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 HNF4 Interacts Directly with PRMT1 through Its DBD and Methylates HNF4 at R91 (A) The association of coexpressed HNF4 and PRMT1 in 293T cells was analyzed following immunoprecipitation with antibodies against HNF4. (B) In vitro interaction of HNF4 and PRMT1 using 2 μg of GST proteins coupled to glutathione-Sepharose beads, 0.5 μg of purified His-tagged PRMT1, and 180 mM KCl in the binding and washing buffer. (C) In vivo methylation of FLAG-tagged HNF4 or PRMT1 overexpressed in 293T cells and purified using anti-FLAG M2 antibodies. Left and right panels show Coomassie staining and fluorography, respectively. Asterisks indicate methylated proteins that copurify with PRMT1. (D) In vivo methylation of FLAG-tagged HNF4 in the absence or presence of MTA and AdOx. Methylated HNF4 was detected by fluorography (upper panel), and total HNF4 was detected by western blot (lower panel). (E) In vitro methylation assays using 250 ng of His-tagged PRMT1 and 2 μg of the indicated GST HNF4 proteins. Upper and lower panels show Coomassie and fluorography, respectively. Arrows indicate PRMT1. Molecular Cell 2006 24, 233-243DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2006.09.020) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 HNF4 Methylation Increases Its Binding to DNA (A) FLAG-tagged HNF4 or HNF4 R91W expression plasmids were cotransfected into 293T cells together with ABC.Luc. The plot represents the mean with standard deviation (shown by the error bars) of normalized luciferase activity from four independent experiments. Levels of HNF4 were detected by western blot. (B) ChIP assays in 293T cells cotransfected with FLAG-tagged HNF4 or HNF4 R91W and the reporter plasmid Ax2.Luc were performed using HNF4 antibodies. Recruitment relative to control IgGs is represented. Levels of FLAG-tagged HNF4 immunoprecipitated from the crosslinked sample were quantified by dot blot using HNF4 antibodies. (C) FLAG-tagged HNF4 or HNF4 R91W overexpressed in 293T cells were purified using M2 agarose and eluted using FLAG peptide; 5 μl of each was analyzed by western blot with anti-HNF4 antibodies (right panel) and visually estimated to be in the subnanogram range. The purified proteins were tested for their ability to shift an apoAI site A (−214/−192) probe. Lane 1 contains free probe; lane 2 contains immunoprecipitated material from nontransfected cells (control); lanes 3–6 and lanes 7–10 contain increasing amounts (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 μl) of wild-type FLAG-tagged HNF4 or HNF4 R91W, respectively. (D) His-tagged recombinant proteins were expressed and purified from bacteria, resolved by SDS-PAGE, and quantified by Coomassie staining (right panel). Gel shift experiment was performed as in (C). Lane 11 contains free probe and lanes 12–15 and lanes 16–19 contain increasing amounts (6.25, 12.5, 25, and 50 ng) of His-tagged HNF4 or HNF4 R91W, respectively. (E) Map of HNF4 DBD, showing the residues modified by PRMT1, p300/CBP, and PKA (adapted from Viollet et al. [1997]). Molecular Cell 2006 24, 233-243DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2006.09.020) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 In Vitro HNF4 Methylation Increases Its DNA-Binding Activity on Chromatin (A) Partial micrococcal nuclease digestion of chromatin reconstituted from a biotinylated template containing four HNF4 binding sites. The core histones to DNA ratio varies: 1.1:1 (lane 1); 1:1 (lane 2); 0.75:1 (lane 3); 0.6:1 (lane 4); 0.55:1 (lane 5), and 0.5:1 (lane 6). “a” corresponds to a 450 bp undigested DNA; “b” corresponds to a 300 bp dinucleosome band; “c” corresponds to a 170 bp mononucleosome band. (B) Binding of HNF4 and PRMT1 to an immobilized template either reconstituted into chromatin (lanes 8–13) or naked (lanes 1–7), in the absence or presence of SAM, as indicated. (C and D) For GST pull-downs, 50 ng of GST-HNF4 (1–175) in (C) or GST-H4 in (D) was incubated with 1 μg of His-tagged PRMT1 for 2 hr at 37°C in the absence or presence of SAM. Complexes were then pulled down and washed with buffer containing the indicated KCl concentrations. (E) HNF4 was incubated with the immobilized DNA template, washed to eliminate unbound HNF4, quantified, and subjected to in vitro methylation (lanes 2 and 4) in parallel with an equivalent amount (2 μg) of free HNF4 (lanes 1 and 3). Reactions included 200 ng of His-tagged PRMT1. Coomassie (lanes 1 and 2) and fluorography (lanes 3 and 4) are shown. Molecular Cell 2006 24, 233-243DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2006.09.020) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 In Vitro Transcription System for Chromatin Templates (A) Coomassie staining of the purified proteins used for chromatin reconstitution. (B) Partial micrococcal nuclease digestion of chromatin reconstituted with wild-type (WT, lane 2) or mutant (H4 R3Q, lane 4) core histones with the histone to DNA ratio of 1.1:1. Lanes 1 and 3 show a 123 bp ladder. (C) Purified factors used for in vitro transcription. Asterisks indicate nonspecific proteins. (D) In vitro transcription reactions contained 50 ng of chromatinized template, 10 ng of purified GAL4-VP16, 100 ng of GAL4-HNF4-LBD, and 20 ng of p300, as indicated. Transcription data were quantified by phosphorimager and are expressed as relative transcription (Txn), using the lowest detectable signal as reference. ND, not determined. Molecular Cell 2006 24, 233-243DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2006.09.020) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 PRMT1 Displays Synergistic Effects with SRC-1 and p300 on HNF4-Dependent In Vitro Transcription of Chromatin Templates (A) In vitro transcription reactions contained 50 ng of chromatin reconstituted template, 100 ng of GAL4-HNF4-LBD, 50 ng of PRMT1, 20 ng of SRC-1, and 20 ng of p300, as indicated. (B) In vitro transcription reactions contained 50 ng of naked template, 100 ng of GAL4-HNF4-LBD, 20 ng of PRMT1, 5 ng of SRC-1, and 5 ng of p300, as indicated. (C) In vitro transcription as in (B), but using 50 ng of template reconstituted into chromatin using wild-type recombinant histones or mutant H4 R3Q histones. Reactions were carried out in parallel, but different exposure times at comparable baseline intensities are shown. (D) Histone acetyltransferase assay on chromatin templates. Reactions contain 100 ng of GAL4-HNF4-LBD, 100 ng of PRMT1, 60 ng of SRC-1, and 60 ng of p300, as indicated. (E) In vitro transcription was performed as in (C) using wild-type recombinant histones for chromatin reconstitution and the indicated combination of factors. After transcription, chromatin was immunoprecipitated using antibodies against histone H4 methylated at R3 (meH4 R3), or unrelated IgGs (IgG), dot-blotted, and probed with a promoter probe. Molecular Cell 2006 24, 233-243DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2006.09.020) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 HNF4, PRMT1, and SRC-1 Form a Ternary Complex (A) GST pull-down using 10 μg of GST proteins coupled to glutathione-Sepharose beads, 100 ng of SRC-1, and 150 mM KCl binding and washing buffer. (B) GST pull-down using 10 μg of GST proteins coupled to glutathione-Sepharose beads, 300 ng of SRC-1, 1 μg of PRMT1, and 100 mM KCl in the binding and washing buffer. Inputs (5% for SRC-1 and 1% for PRMT1) are also shown. (C) Model for PRMT1-regulated HNF4 function. PRMT1 binds directly to the HNF4 DBD and methylates R91, increasing its DNA binding. Once HNF4 is bound to DNA, PRMT1 is recruited by the LBD through SRC-1 and methylates histone H4 at R3. This, together with recruitment of other coactivators like p300, facilitates the PIC formation and the transcription of HNF4 target genes. Molecular Cell 2006 24, 233-243DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2006.09.020) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions