Acquisition of a leucine zipper motif as a mechanism of antimorphy for an allele of the Drosophila Hox gene Sex combs reduced

Ambivalent partnership of the Drosophila posterior class Hox protein Abdominal-B with Extradenticle and Homothorax

Hox proteins, a sub-group of the homeodomain (HD) transcription factor family, provide positional information for axial patterning in development and evolution. Hox protein functional specificity is reached, at least in part, through interactions with Pbc (Extradenticle (Exd) in Drosophila) and Meis/Prep (Homothorax (Hth) in Drosophila) proteins. Most of our current knowledge of Hox protein specificity stems from the study of anterior and central Hox proteins, identifying the molecular and structural bases for Hox/Pbc/Meis-Prep cooperative action. Posterior Hox class proteins, Abdominal-B (Abd-B) in Drosophila and Hox9-13 in vertebrates, have been comparatively less studied. They strongly diverge from anterior and central class Hox proteins, with a low degree of HD sequence conservation and the absence of a core canonical Pbc interaction motif. Here we explore how Abd-B function interface with that of Exd/Hth using several developmental contexts, studying mutual expression control, functional dependency and intrinsic protein requirements. Results identify cross-regulatory interactions setting relative expression and activity levels required for proper development. They also reveal organ-specific requirement and a binary functional interplay with Exd and Hth, either antagonistic, as previously reported, or synergistic. This highlights context specific use of Exd/Hth, and a similar context specific use of Abd-B intrinsic protein requirements.

Post-translational modifications of Drosophila melanogaster HOX protein, Sex combs reduced

Homeotic selector (HOX) transcription factors (TFs) regulate gene expression that determines the identity of Drosophila segments along the anterior-posterior (A-P) axis. The current challenge with HOX proteins is understanding how they achieve their functional specificity while sharing a highly conserved homeodomain (HD) that recognize the same DNA binding sites. One mechanism proposed to regulate HOX activity is differential post-translational modification (PTM). As a first step in investigating this hypothesis, the sites of PTM on a Sex combs reduced protein fused to a triple tag (SCRTT) extracted from developing embryos were identified by Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS). The PTMs identified include phosphorylation at S185, S201, T315, S316, T317 and T324, acetylation at K218, S223, S227, K309, K434 and K439, formylation at K218, K309, K325, K341, K369, K434 and K439, methylation at S19, S166, K168 and T364, carboxylation at D108, K298, W307, K309, E323, K325 and K369, and hydroxylation at P22, Y87, P107, D108, D111, P269, P306, R310, N321, K325, Y334, R366, P392 and Y398. Of the 44 modifications, 18 map to functionally important regions of SCR. Besides a highly conserved DNA-binding HD, HOX proteins also have functionally important, evolutionarily conserved small motifs, which may be Short Linear Motifs (SLiMs). SLiMs are proposed to be preferential sites of phosphorylation. Although 6 of 7 phosphosites map to regions of predicted SLiMs, we find no support for the hypothesis that the individual S, T and Y residues of predicted SLiMs are phosphorylated more frequently than S, T and Y residues outside of predicted SLiMs.

Phenotypic Nonspecificity as the Result of Limited Specificity of Transcription Factor Function

Drosophila transcription factor (TF) function is phenotypically nonspecific. Phenotypic nonspecificity is defined as one phenotype being induced or rescued by multiple TFs. To explain this unexpected result, a hypothetical world of limited specificity is explored where all TFs have unique random distributions along the genome due to low information content of DNA sequence recognition and somewhat promiscuous cooperative interactions with other TFs. Transcription is an emergent property of these two conditions. From this model, explicit predictions are made. First, many more cases of TF nonspecificity are expected when examined. Second, the genetic analysis of regulatory sequences should uncover cis-element bypass and, third, genetic analysis of TF function should generally uncover differential pleiotropy. In addition, limited specificity provides evolutionary opportunity and explains the inefficiency of expression analysis in identifying genes required for biological processes.

Non-specificity of transcription factor function in Drosophila melanogaster

A major problem in developmental genetics is how HOX transcription factors, like Proboscipedia (PB) and Ultrabithorax (UBX), regulate distinct programs of gene expression to result in a proboscis versus a haltere, respectively, when the DNA-binding homeodomain (HD) of HOX transcription factors recognizes similar DNA-binding sequences. Indeed, the lack of DNA-binding specificity is a problem for all transcription factors (TFs), as the DNA-binding domains generally recognize small targets of five to six bases in length. Although not the initial intent of the study, I found extensive non-specificity of TF function. Multiple TFs including HOX and HD-containing and non-HD-containing TFs induced both wingless and eyeless phenotypes. The TFs Labial (LAB), Deformed (DFD), Fushi tarazu (FTZ), and Squeeze (SQZ) induced ectopic larval thoracic (T) 1 beard formation in T2 and T3. The TF Doublesex male (DSXM) rescued the reduced maxillary palp pb phenotype. These examples of non-specificity of TF function across classes of TFs, combined with previous observations, compromise the implicit, initial assumption often made that an intrinsic mechanism of TF specificity is important for function. Interestingly, the functional complementation of the pb phenotype may suggest a larger role for regulation of expression of TFs in restriction of function as opposed to an intrinsic specificity of TF function. These observations have major ramifications for analysis of functional conservation in evolution and development.

Differential pleiotropy and HOX functional organization

Key studies led to the idea that transcription factors are composed of defined modular protein motifs or domains, each with separable, unique function. During evolution, the recombination of these modular domains could give rise to transcription factors with new properties, as has been shown using recombinant molecules. This archetypic, modular view of transcription factor organization is based on the analyses of a few transcription factors such as GAL4, which may represent extreme exemplars rather than an archetype or the norm. Recent work with a set of Homeotic selector (HOX) proteins has revealed differential pleiotropy: the observation that highly-conserved HOX protein motifs and domains make small, additive, tissue specific contributions to HOX activity. Many of these differentially pleiotropic HOX motifs may represent plastic sequence elements called short linear motifs (SLiMs). The coupling of differential pleiotropy with SLiMs, suggests that protein sequence changes in HOX transcription factors may have had a greater impact on morphological diversity during evolution than previously believed. Furthermore, differential pleiotropy may be the genetic consequence of an ensemble nature of HOX transcription factor allostery, where HOX proteins exist as an ensemble of states with the capacity to integrate an extensive array of developmental information. Given a new structural model for HOX functional domain organization, the properties of the archetypic TF may require reassessment.