Atoh1 in sensory hair cell development: constraints and cofactors.

The proneural gene, Atoh1, is necessary and in some contexts sufficient for early inner ear hair cell development. Its function is the subject of intensive research, not least because of the possibility that it could be used in therapeutic strategies to reverse hair cell loss in deafness. However, it is clear that Atoh1's function is highly context dependent. During inner ear development, Atoh1 is only able to promote hair cell differentiation at specific developmental stages. Outside the ear, Atoh1 is required for differentiation of a variety of other cell types, for example in the intestine and cerebellum. The reasons for this context dependence are poorly understood. So far, the pathways and key players that instruct Atoh1 to act as a mechanosensory cell fate determinant in the context of the inner ear are largely unknown. Here we review evidence that suggests that Atoh1 function in hair cell differentiation is modulated by interaction with other transcription factors. We particularly focus on the possible roles of Gfi1 and Pou4f3, drawing from studies in mouse, Drosophila and C. elegans.

Repurposing the lineage-determining transcription factor Atoh1 without redistributing its genomic binding sites.

Although the lineage-determining ability of transcription factors is often modulated according to cellular context, the mechanisms by which such switching occurs are not well known. Using a transcriptional programming model, we found that Atoh1 is repurposed from a neuronal to an inner ear hair cell (HC) determinant by the combined activities of Gfi1 and Pou4f3. In this process, Atoh1 maintains its regulation of neuronal genes but gains ability to regulate HC genes. Pou4f3 enables Atoh1 access to genomic locations controlling the expression of sensory (including HC) genes, but Atoh1 + Pou4f3 are not sufficient for HC differentiation. Gfi1 is key to the Atoh1-induced lineage switch, but surprisingly does not alter Atoh1's binding profile. Gfi1 acts in two divergent ways. It represses the induction by Atoh1 of genes that antagonise HC differentiation, a function in keeping with its well-known repressor role in haematopoiesis. Remarkably, we find that Gfi1 also acts as a co-activator: it binds directly to Atoh1 at existing target genes to enhance its activity. These findings highlight the diversity of mechanisms by which one TF can redirect the activity of another to enable combinatorial control of cell identity.

EGF receptor signaling triggers recruitment of Drosophila sense organ precursors by stimulating proneural gene autoregulation.

In Drosophila, commitment of a cell to a sense organ precursor (SOP) fate requires bHLH proneural transcription factor upregulation, a process that depends in most cases on the interplay of proneural gene autoregulation and inhibitory Notch signaling. A subset of SOPs are selected by a recruitment pathway involving EGFR signaling to ectodermal cells expressing the proneural gene atonal. We show that EGFR signaling drives recruitment by directly facilitating atonal autoregulation. Pointed, the transcription factor that mediates EGFR signaling, and Atonal protein itself bind cooperatively to adjacent conserved binding sites in an atonal enhancer. Recruitment is therefore contingent on the combined presence of Atonal protein (providing competence) and EGFR signaling (triggering recruitment). Thus, autoregulation is the nodal control point targeted by signaling. This exemplifies a simple and general mechanism for regulating the transition from competence to cell fate commitment whereby a cell signal directly targets the autoregulation of a selector gene.

Specificity of Atonal and Scute bHLH factors: analysis of cognate E box binding sites and the influence of Senseless.

The question of how proneural bHLH transcription factors recognize and regulate their target genes is still relatively poorly understood. We previously showed that Scute (Sc) and Atonal (Ato) target genes have different cognate E box motifs, suggesting that specific DNA interactions contribute to differences in their target gene specificity. Here we show that Sc and Ato proteins (in combination with Daughterless) can activate reporter gene expression via their cognate E boxes in a non-neuronal cell culture system, suggesting that the proteins have strong intrinsic abilities to recognize different E box motifs in the absence of specialized cofactors. Functional comparison of E boxes from several target genes and site-directed mutagenesis of E box motifs suggests that specificity and activity require further sequence elements flanking both sides of the previously identified E box motifs. Moreover, the proneural cofactor, Senseless, can augment the function of Sc and Ato on their cognate E boxes and therefore may contribute to proneural specificity.

The proneural proteins Atonal and Scute regulate neural target genes through different E-box binding sites.

For a particular functional family of basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factors, there is ample evidence that different factors regulate different target genes but little idea of how these different target genes are distinguished. We investigated the contribution of DNA binding site differences to the specificities of two functionally related proneural bHLH transcription factors required for the genesis of Drosophila sense organ precursors (Atonal and Scute). We show that the proneural target gene, Bearded, is regulated by both Scute and Atonal via distinct E-box consensus binding sites. By comparing with other Ato-dependent enhancer sequences, we define an Ato-specific binding consensus that differs from the previously defined Scute-specific E-box consensus, thereby defining distinct E(Ato) and E(Sc) sites. These E-box variants are crucial for function. First, tandem repeats of 20-bp sequences containing E(Ato) and E(Sc) sites are sufficient to confer Atonal- and Scute-specific expression patterns, respectively, on a reporter gene in vivo. Second, interchanging E(Ato) and E(Sc) sites within enhancers almost abolishes enhancer activity. While the latter finding shows that enhancer context is also important in defining how proneural proteins interact with these sites, it is clear that differential utilization of DNA binding sites underlies proneural protein specificity.

Assembly of EcoKI DNA methyltransferase requires the C-terminal region of the HsdM modification subunit.

The methyltransferase component of type I DNA restriction and modification systems comprises three subunits, one DNA sequence specificity subunit and two DNA modification subunits. Limited proteolysis of the EcoKI methyltransferase shows that a 55-kDa N-terminal fragment of the 59-kDa modification subunit is resistant to degradation. We have purified this fragment and determined by mass spectrometry that proteolysis removes 43 or 44 amino acids from the C-terminus. The fragment fails to interact with the other subunits even though it still possesses secondary and tertiary structure and the ability to bind the S-adenosylmethionine cofactor. We conclude that the C-terminal region of the modification subunit of EcoKI is essential for the assembly of the EcoKI methyltransferase.

The SUMO pathway promotes basic helix-loop-helix proneural factor activity via a direct effect on the Zn finger protein senseless.

During development, proneural transcription factors of the basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) family are required to commit cells to a neural fate. In Drosophila neurogenesis, a key mechanism promoting sense organ precursor (SOP) fate is the synergy between proneural factors and their coactivator Senseless in transcriptional activation of target genes. Here we present evidence that posttranslational modification by SUMO enhances this synergy via an effect on Senseless protein. We show that Senseless is a direct target for SUMO modification and that mutagenesis of a predicted SUMOylation motif in Senseless reduces Senseless/proneural synergy both in vivo and in cell culture. We propose that SUMOylation of Senseless via lysine 509 promotes its synergy with proneural proteins during transcriptional activation and hence regulates an important step in neurogenesis leading to the formation and maturation of the SOPs.

Context dependence of proneural bHLH proteins.

A key point in neural development is the commitment of progenitor cells to a specific neural fate. In all animals studied, proneural proteins - transcription factors of the basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) family - are central to this process. The function of these factors is strongly influenced by the spatial and temporal context in which they are expressed. It is important to understand the molecular mechanisms by which developmental context interacts with and modifies the intrinsic functions and properties of the proneural proteins. Recent insights have been obtained in Drosophila and vertebrates from analysis of how bHLH proteins interact with other transcription factors to regulate target genes.

Is modification sufficient to protect a bacterial chromosome from a resident restriction endonuclease?

It has been generally accepted that DNA modification protects the chromosome of a bacterium encoding a restriction and modification system. But, when target sequences within the chromosome of one such bacterium (Escherichia coli K-12) are unmodified, the cell does not destroy its own DNA; instead, ClpXP inactivates the nuclease, and restriction is said to be alleviated. Thus, the resident chromosome is recognized as 'self' rather than 'foreign' even in the absence of modification. We now provide evidence that restriction alleviation may be a characteristic of Type I restriction-modification systems, and that it can be achieved by different mechanisms. Our experiments support disassembly of active endonuclease complexes as a potential mechanism. We identify amino acid substitutions in a restriction endonuclease, which impair restriction alleviation in response to treatment with a mutagen, and demonstrate that restriction alleviation serves to protect the chromosome even in the absence of mutagenic treatment. In the absence of efficient restriction alleviation, a Type I restriction enzyme cleaves host DNA and, under these conditions, homologous recombination maintains the integrity of the bacterial chromosome.