ABSTRACT
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) encourages trainees to make Individualized Development Plans to help them prepare for academic and nonacademic careers. We describe our approach to building an Individualized Development Plan, the reasons we find them useful and empowering for both PIs and trainees, and resources to help other labs implement them constructively.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/organization & administration , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Goals , Group Processes , Humans , Motivation , Personnel Management , United StatesABSTRACT
Copy number heterogeneity is a prominent feature within tumors. The molecular basis for this heterogeneity remains poorly characterized. Here, we demonstrate that hypoxia induces transient site-specific copy gains (TSSGs) in primary, nontransformed, and transformed human cells. Hypoxia-driven copy gains are not dependent on HIF1α or HIF2α; however, they are dependent on the KDM4A histone demethylase and are blocked by inhibition of KDM4A with a small molecule or the natural metabolite succinate. Furthermore, this response is conserved at a syntenic region in zebrafish cells. Regions with site-specific copy gain are also enriched for amplifications in hypoxic primary tumors. These tumors exhibited amplification and overexpression of the drug resistance gene CKS1B, which we recapitulated in hypoxic breast cancer cells. Our results demonstrate that hypoxia provides a biological stimulus to create transient site-specific copy alterations that could result in heterogeneity within tumors and cell populations. These findings have major implications in our understanding of copy number heterogeneity and the emergence of drug resistance genes in cancer.
Subject(s)
Cell Hypoxia/physiology , DNA Copy Number Variations/genetics , Gene Expression Regulation , Animals , CDC2-CDC28 Kinases/genetics , Cell Hypoxia/genetics , Cell Line , Cell Proliferation , Cells, Cultured , Drug Resistance, Neoplasm/genetics , Humans , ZebrafishABSTRACT
Hunchback is a bifunctional transcription factor that can activate and repress gene expression in Drosophila development. We investigated the regulatory DNA sequence features that control Hunchback function by perturbing enhancers for one of its target genes, even-skipped (eve). While Hunchback directly represses the eve stripe 3+7 enhancer, we found that in the eve stripe 2+7 enhancer, Hunchback repression is prevented by nearby sequences-this phenomenon is called counter-repression. We also found evidence that Caudal binding sites are responsible for counter-repression, and that this interaction may be a conserved feature of eve stripe 2 enhancers. Our results alter the textbook view of eve stripe 2 regulation wherein Hb is described as a direct activator. Instead, to generate stripe 2, Hunchback repression must be counteracted. We discuss how counter-repression may influence eve stripe 2 regulation and evolution.
Subject(s)
DNA-Binding Proteins/metabolism , Drosophila Proteins/genetics , Drosophila Proteins/metabolism , Drosophila melanogaster/genetics , Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental , Homeodomain Proteins/genetics , Transcription Factors/genetics , Transcription Factors/metabolism , Animals , Animals, Genetically Modified , Binding Sites/genetics , DNA-Binding Proteins/genetics , Drosophila melanogaster/growth & development , Embryo, Nonmammalian , Enhancer Elements, Genetic/genetics , Female , Homeodomain Proteins/metabolism , MaleABSTRACT
The amyloid ß-peptide (Aß) of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is generated by proteolysis within the transmembrane domain (TMD) of a C-terminal fragment of the amyloid ß protein-precursor (APP CTFß) by the γ-secretase complex. This processing produces Aß ranging from 38 to 49 residues in length. Evidence suggests that this spectrum of Aß peptides is the result of successive γ-secretase cleavages, with endoproteolysis first occurring at the ε sites to generate Aß48 or Aß49, followed by C-terminal trimming mostly every three residues along two product lines to generate shorter, secreted forms of Aß: the primary Aß49-46-43-40 line and a minor Aß48-45-42-38 line. The major secreted Aß species are Aß40 and Aß42, and an increased proportion of the longer, aggregation-prone Aß42 compared to Aß40 is widely thought to be important in AD pathogenesis. We examined TMD substrate determinants of the specificity and efficiency of ε site endoproteolysis and carboxypeptidase trimming of CTFß by γ-secretase. We determined that the C-terminal negative charge of the intermediate Aß49 does not play a role in its trimming by γ-secretase. Peptidomimetic probes suggest that γ-secretase has S1', S2', and S3' pockets, through which trimming by tripeptides may be determined. However, deletion of residues around the ε sites demonstrates that a depth of three residues within the TMD is not a determinant of the location of endoproteolytic ε cleavage of CTFß. We also show that instability of the CTFß TMD helix near the ε site significantly increases endoproteolysis, and that helical instability near the carboxypeptidase cleavage sites facilitates C-terminal trimming by γ-secretase. In addition, we found that CTFß dimers are not endoproteolyzed by γ-secretase. These results support a model in which initial interaction of the array of residues along the undimerized single helical TMD of substrates dictates the site of initial ε cleavage and that helix unwinding is essential for both endoproteolysis and carboxypeptidase trimming.
Subject(s)
Amyloid Precursor Protein Secretases/metabolism , Amyloid beta-Protein Precursor/metabolism , Amyloid beta-Protein Precursor/chemistry , Protein Processing, Post-Translational , Substrate SpecificityABSTRACT
Transcription factors (TFs) control gene expression, often acting synergistically. Classical thermodynamic models offer a biophysical explanation for synergy based on binding cooperativity and regulated recruitment of RNA polymerase. Because transcription requires polymerase to transition through multiple states, recent work suggests that "kinetic synergy" can arise through TFs acting on distinct steps of the transcription cycle. These types of synergy are not mutually exclusive and are difficult to disentangle conceptually and experimentally. Here, we model and build a synthetic circuit in which TFs bind to a single shared site on DNA, such that TFs cannot synergize by simultaneous binding. We model mRNA production as a function of both TF binding and regulation of the transcription cycle, revealing a complex landscape dependent on TF concentration, DNA binding affinity, and regulatory activity. We use synthetic TFs to confirm that the transcription cycle must be integrated with recruitment for a quantitative understanding of gene regulation.
Subject(s)
Gene Expression Regulation , Synthetic Biology , Transcription Factors/genetics , Transcription Factors/metabolism , Protein Binding , DNA/metabolismABSTRACT
Transcription of developmental genes is controlled by multiple enhancers. Frequently, more than one enhancer can activate transcription from the same promoter in the same cells. How is regulatory information from multiple enhancers combined to determine the overall expression output? We measure nascent transcription driven by a pair of shadow enhancers, each enhancer of the pair separately, and each duplicated, using live imaging in Drosophila embryos. This set of constructs allows us to quantify the input-output function describing signal integration by two enhancers. We show that signal integration performed by these shadow enhancers and duplications varies across the expression pattern, implying that how their activities are combined depends on the transcriptional regulators bound to the enhancers in different parts of the embryo. Characterizing signal integration by multiple enhancers is a critical step in developing conceptual and computational models of gene expression at the locus level, where multiple enhancers control transcription together.
Subject(s)
Drosophila melanogaster/genetics , Enhancer Elements, Genetic , Animals , Drosophila Proteins/genetics , Drosophila melanogaster/embryology , Embryo, Nonmammalian , Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental , Kruppel-Like Transcription Factors/genetics , Promoter Regions, GeneticABSTRACT
Computational models of enhancer function generally assume that transcription factors (TFs) exert their regulatory effects independently, modeling an enhancer as a "bag of sites." These models fail on endogenous loci that harbor multiple enhancers, and a "two-tier" model appears better suited: in each enhancer TFs work independently, and the total expression is a weighted sum of their expression readouts. Here, we test these two opposing views on how cis-regulatory information is integrated. We fused two Drosophila blastoderm enhancers, measured their readouts, and applied the above two models to these data. The two-tier mechanism better fits these readouts, suggesting that these fused enhancers comprise multiple independent modules, despite having sequence characteristics typical of single enhancers. We show that short-range TF-TF interactions are not sufficient to designate such modules, suggesting unknown underlying mechanisms. Our results underscore that mechanisms of how modules are defined and how their outputs are combined remain to be elucidated.
Subject(s)
DNA/genetics , Drosophila Proteins/genetics , Drosophila melanogaster/genetics , Enhancer Elements, Genetic , Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental , Homeodomain Proteins/genetics , Repressor Proteins/genetics , Transcription Factors/genetics , Animals , Animals, Genetically Modified , Binding Sites , Blastoderm/embryology , Blastoderm/metabolism , DNA/metabolism , Drosophila Proteins/metabolism , Drosophila melanogaster/embryology , Drosophila melanogaster/metabolism , Homeodomain Proteins/metabolism , Lac Operon , Models, Genetic , Protein Binding , Recombinant Fusion Proteins/genetics , Recombinant Fusion Proteins/metabolism , Repressor Proteins/metabolism , Thermodynamics , Transcription Factors/metabolismABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) most commonly requires experimental determination (i.e., scouting) in order to select an optimal chromatographic medium for purifying a given target protein. Neither a two-step purification of untagged green fluorescent protein (GFP) from crude bacterial lysate using sequential HIC and size exclusion chromatography (SEC), nor HIC column scouting elution profiles of GFP, have been previously reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: Bacterial lysate expressing recombinant GFP was sequentially adsorbed to commercially available HIC columns containing butyl, octyl, and phenyl-based HIC ligands coupled to matrices of varying bead size. The lysate was fractionated using a linear ammonium phosphate salt gradient at constant pH. Collected HIC eluate fractions containing retained GFP were then pooled and further purified using high-resolution preparative SEC. Significant differences in presumptive GFP elution profiles were observed using in-line absorption spectrophotometry (A395) and post-run fluorimetry. SDS-PAGE and western blot demonstrated that fluorometric detection was the more accurate indicator of GFP elution in both HIC and SEC purification steps. Comparison of composite HIC column scouting data indicated that a phenyl ligand coupled to a 34 µm matrix produced the highest degree of target protein capture and separation. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting two-step protein purification using the preferred HIC medium followed by SEC resulted in a final, concentrated product with >98% protein purity. In-line absorbance spectrophotometry was not as precise of an indicator of GFP elution as post-run fluorimetry. These findings demonstrate the importance of utilizing a combination of detection methods when evaluating purification strategies. GFP is a well-characterized model protein, used heavily in educational settings and by researchers with limited protein purification experience, and the data and strategies presented here may aid in development other of HIC-compatible protein purification schemes.