Interaction of HIF and USF signaling pathways in human genes flanked by hypoxia-response elements and E-box palindromes.

Rampant activity of the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1 in cancer is frequently associated with the malignant progression into a harder-to-treat, increasingly aggressive phenotype. Clearly, anti-HIF strategies in cancer cells are of considerable clinical interest. One way to fine-tune, or inhibit, HIF's transcriptional outflow independently of hydroxylase activities could be through competing transcription factors. A CACGTG-binding activity in human hepatoma cells was previously found to restrict HIF's access to hypoxia response cis-elements (HRE) in a Daphnia globin gene promoter construct (phb2). The CACGTG factor, and its impact on hypoxia-responsive human genes, was analyzed in this study by genome-wide computational scans as well as gene-specific quantitative PCR, reporter and DNA-binding assays in hepatoma (Hep3B), cervical carcinoma (HeLa), and breast carcinoma (MCF7) cells. Among six basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors known to target CACGTG palindromes, we identified upstream stimulatory factor (USF)-1/2 as predominant phb2 CACGTG constituents in Hep3B, HeLa, and MCF7 cells. Human genes with adjacent or overlapping HRE and CACGTG motifs included with lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA) and Bcl-2/E1B 19 kDa interacting protein 3 (BNIP3) hypoxia-induced HIF-1 targets. Parallel recruitment of HIF-1α and USF1/2a to the respective promoter chromatin was verified for all cell lines investigated. Mutual complementing (LDHA) or moderating (BNIP3) cross-talk was seen upon overexpression or silencing of HIF-1α and USF1/2a. Distinct (LDHA) or overlapping (BNIP3) promoter-binding sites for HIF-1 and USFs were subsequently characterized. We propose that, depending on abundance or activity of its protein constituents, O(2)-independent USF signaling can function to fine-tune or interfere with HIF-mediated transcription in cancer cells.

Comparative genome sequencing of Drosophila pseudoobscura: chromosomal, gene, and cis-element evolution.

We have sequenced the genome of a second Drosophila species, Drosophila pseudoobscura, and compared this to the genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster, a primary model organism. Throughout evolution the vast majority of Drosophila genes have remained on the same chromosome arm, but within each arm gene order has been extensively reshuffled, leading to a minimum of 921 syntenic blocks shared between the species. A repetitive sequence is found in the D. pseudoobscura genome at many junctions between adjacent syntenic blocks. Analysis of this novel repetitive element family suggests that recombination between offset elements may have given rise to many paracentric inversions, thereby contributing to the shuffling of gene order in the D. pseudoobscura lineage. Based on sequence similarity and synteny, 10,516 putative orthologs have been identified as a core gene set conserved over 25-55 million years (Myr) since the pseudoobscura/melanogaster divergence. Genes expressed in the testes had higher amino acid sequence divergence than the genome-wide average, consistent with the rapid evolution of sex-specific proteins. Cis-regulatory sequences are more conserved than random and nearby sequences between the species--but the difference is slight, suggesting that the evolution of cis-regulatory elements is flexible. Overall, a pattern of repeat-mediated chromosomal rearrangement, and high coadaptation of both male genes and cis-regulatory sequences emerges as important themes of genome divergence between these species of Drosophila.

Annotation of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The recent completion of the Drosophila melanogaster genomic sequence to high quality and the availability of a greatly expanded set of Drosophila cDNA sequences, aligning to 78% of the predicted euchromatic genes, afforded FlyBase the opportunity to significantly improve genomic annotations. We made the annotation process more rigorous by inspecting each gene visually, utilizing a comprehensive set of curation rules, requiring traceable evidence for each gene model, and comparing each predicted peptide to SWISS-PROT and TrEMBL sequences. RESULTS: Although the number of predicted protein-coding genes in Drosophila remains essentially unchanged, the revised annotation significantly improves gene models, resulting in structural changes to 85% of the transcripts and 45% of the predicted proteins. We annotated transposable elements and non-protein-coding RNAs as new features, and extended the annotation of untranslated (UTR) sequences and alternative transcripts to include more than 70% and 20% of genes, respectively. Finally, cDNA sequence provided evidence for dicistronic transcripts, neighboring genes with overlapping UTRs on the same DNA sequence strand, alternatively spliced genes that encode distinct, non-overlapping peptides, and numerous nested genes. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of so many unusual gene models not only suggests that some mechanisms for gene regulation are more prevalent than previously believed, but also underscores the complex challenges of eukaryotic gene prediction. At present, experimental data and human curation remain essential to generate high-quality genome annotations.