In vivo stimulation of a chimeric promoter by binding sites for nuclear factor I

Accurate chromatin organization of the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter determines the nature of the synergism between transcription factors

The mechanism underlying the synergism between transcription factors in eukaryotic gene expression is not fully understood. In minichromosomes assembled in vitro the synergism between steroid hormone receptors (SHRs) and nuclear factor 1 (NF1) on the mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV) promoter does not require the proline-rich transactivation domain (PRD) of NF1. Here we show that similar results are obtained in yeast. In contrast, replacing the native hormone-responsive elements (HREs) by a single HRE results in a more accessible chromatin and makes the synergism with SHR dependent on the PRD of NF1. Following hormone induction, in addition to glucocorticoid receptor, the DNA binding domain of NF1 is needed and sufficient for establishing an open chromatin conformation on the wild type MMTV promoter. Thus, NF1 acts as a classical transcription factor in a relaxed chromatin context, whereas in the context of the wild type chromatin DNA binding of NF1 is sufficient to cooperate with SHRs by stabilizing an open chromatin conformation.

Nuclear factor 1 family members mediate repression of the BK virus late promoter

BK virus (BKV) is a member of the polyoma virus family that is ubiquitous in humans. Its 5-kb DNA genome consists of a bidirectional promoter region situated between two temporally regulated coding regions. We mapped the transcription initiation site of the major late promoter (MLP) of the archetype strain BKV(WW) to nt 185. We found that it lies within the sequence TGGN6GCCA, a binding site for members of the nuclear factor 1 (NF1) family of transcription factors. Competition electrophoretic mobility shift and immunoshift assays confirmed that NF1 factors present in nuclear extracts of HeLa and CV-1 cells bind to the BKV-MLP. Because BKV(WW) grew poorly in tissue culture and failed to express detectable levels of RNA in vitro, SV40-BKV chimeric viruses were constructed to investigate the transcriptional function of this NF-1 binding site. These sequence-specific factors repressed transcription in a cell-free system when template copy number was low. This repression could be relieved by the addition in trans of oligonucleotides containing wild-type, but not mutated, NF1-binding site sequences. SV40-BKV chimeric viruses defective in this NF1-binding site overproduced late RNA at early, but not late, times after transfection of CV-1 cells. Finally, transient expression in 293 cells of cDNAs encoding the family members NF1-A4, NF1-C2, and NF1-X2 specifically repressed transcription from the BKV late promoter approximately 3-, 10-, and 10-fold, respectively, in a DNA binding-dependent manner. We conclude that some members of the NF1 family of transcription factors can act as sequence-specific cellular repressors of the BKV-MLP. We propose that titration of these and other cellular repressors by viral genome amplification may be responsible in part for the replication-dependent component of the early-to-late switch in BKV gene expression.

Nuclear factor I-mediated repression of the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter is abrogated by the coactivators p300/CBP and SRC-1

To better understand the function of nuclear factor I (NFI) proteins in transcription, we have used transient transfection assays to assess transcriptional modulation by NFI proteins on the NFI-dependent mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV) promoter. Expression of NFI-C or NFI-X, but not NFI-A or NFI-B proteins, represses glucocorticoid induction of the MMTV promoter in HeLa cells. Repression is DNA binding-independent as a deletion construct expressing the NH2-terminal 160 residues of NFI-C represses but does not bind DNA. Repression by NFI-C is cell type-dependent and occurs in HeLa and COS-1 cells but not 293 or JEG-3 cells. NFI-C does not repress progesterone induction of the MMTV promoter in HeLa cells, suggesting that progesterone induction of the promoter differs mechanistically from glucocorticoid induction. NFI-C-mediated repression is alleviated by overexpression of glucocorticoid receptor (GR), suggesting that NFI-C represses the MMTV promoter by preventing GR function. However, repression by NFI-C occurs with only a subset of glucocorticoid-responsive promoters, as the chimeric NFIGREbeta-gal promoter that is activated by GR is not repressed by NFI-C. Since the coactivator proteins p300/CBP, SRC-1A, and RAC3 had previously been shown to function at steroid hormone-responsive promoters, we asked whether they could influence NFI-C-mediated repression of MMTV expression. Expression of p300/CBP or SRC-1A alleviates repression by NFI-C, whereas RAC3 has no effect. This abrogation of NFI-C-mediated repression by p300/CBP and SRC-1A suggests that repression by NFI-C may occur by interference with coactivator function at the MMTV promoter.

Nuclear factor I (NFI) isoforms differentially activate simple versus complex NFI-responsive promoters

Promoter-specific differences in the function of transcription factors play a central role in the regulation of gene expression. We have measured the maximal transcriptional activation potentials of nuclear factor I (NFI) proteins encoded by each of the four identified NFI genes (NFI-A, -B, -C, and -X) by transient transfection in JEG-3 cells using two model NFI-dependent promoters: 1) a simple chimeric promoter containing a single NFI-binding site upstream of the adenovirus major late promoter (NFI-Ad), and 2) the more complex mouse mammary tumor virus long terminal repeat promoter. The relative activation potentials for the NFI isoforms differed between the two promoters, with NFI-X being the strongest activator of NFI-Ad and NFI-B being the strongest activator of the MMTV promoter. To determine if these promoter-specific differences in activation potential were due to the presence of glucocorticoid response elements (GREs), we added GREs upstream of the NFI-binding site in NFI-Ad. NFI-X remains the strongest activator of the GRE containing simple promoter, indicating that differences in relative activation potential are not due solely to the presence of GREs. Since NFI proteins bind to DNA as dimers, we assessed the activation potentials of NFI heterodimers. Here, we show that NFI heterodimers have intermediate activation potentials compared with homodimers, demonstrating one potential mechanism by which different NFI proteins can regulate gene expression.