Differences in stability of repressor complexes at promoters underlie distinct roles for Rb family members

Roles of pRB in the Regulation of Nucleosome and Chromatin Structures

Retinoblastoma protein (pRB) interacts with E2F and other protein factors to play a pivotal role in regulating the expression of target genes that induce cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, and differentiation. pRB controls the local promoter activity and has the ability to change the structure of nucleosomes and/or chromosomes via histone modification, epigenetic changes, chromatin remodeling, and chromosome organization. Functional inactivation of pRB perturbs these cellular events and causes dysregulated cell growth and chromosome instability, which are hallmarks of cancer cells. The role of pRB in regulation of nucleosome/chromatin structures has been shown to link to tumor suppression. This review focuses on the ability of pRB to control nucleosome/chromatin structures via physical interactions with histone modifiers and chromatin factors and describes cancer therapies based on targeting these protein factors.

Therapeutic targeting of replicative immortality

One of the hallmarks of malignant cell populations is the ability to undergo continuous proliferation. This property allows clonal lineages to acquire sequential aberrations that can fuel increasingly autonomous growth, invasiveness, and therapeutic resistance. Innate cellular mechanisms have evolved to regulate replicative potential as a hedge against malignant progression. When activated in the absence of normal terminal differentiation cues, these mechanisms can result in a state of persistent cytostasis. This state, termed “senescence,” can be triggered by intrinsic cellular processes such as telomere dysfunction and oncogene expression, and by exogenous factors such as DNA damaging agents or oxidative environments. Despite differences in upstream signaling, senescence often involves convergent interdependent activation of tumor suppressors p53 and p16/pRB, but can be induced, albeit with reduced sensitivity, when these suppressors are compromised. Doses of conventional genotoxic drugs required to achieve cancer cell senescence are often much lower than doses required to achieve outright cell death. Additional therapies, such as those targeting cyclin dependent kinases or components of the PI3K signaling pathway, may induce senescence specifically in cancer cells by circumventing defects in tumor suppressor pathways or exploiting cancer cells’ heightened requirements for telomerase. Such treatments sufficient to induce cancer cell senescence could provide increased patient survival with fewer and less severe side effects than conventional cytotoxic regimens. This positive aspect is countered by important caveats regarding senescence reversibility, genomic instability, and paracrine effects that may increase heterogeneity and adaptive resistance of surviving cancer cells. Nevertheless, agents that effectively disrupt replicative immortality will likely be valuable components of new combinatorial approaches to cancer therapy.

SerpinB2 protection of retinoblastoma protein from calpain enhances tumor cell survival

The tumor suppressor retinoblastoma protein (Rb) plays a pivotal role in the regulation of cell proliferation and sensitivity to apoptosis through binding to E2F transcription factors. Loss of Rb in response to genotoxic stress or inflammatory cytokines can enhance cell death, in part, by eliminating Rb-mediated repression of proapoptotic gene transcription. Here we show that calpain cleavage of Rb facilitates Rb loss by proteasome degradation and that this may occur during tumor necrosis factor alpha-induced apoptosis. The cytoprotective, Rb-binding protein SerpinB2 (plasminogen activator inhibitor type 2) protects Rb from calpain cleavage, increasing Rb levels and enhancing cell survival. Chromatin immunoprecipitation assays show that the increased Rb levels selectively enhance Rb repression of proapoptotic gene transcription. This cytoprotective role of SerpinB2 is illustrated by reduced susceptibility of SerpinB2-deficient mice to multistage skin carcinogenesis, where Rb-dependent cell proliferation competes with apoptosis during initiation of papilloma development. These data identify SerpinB2 as a cell survival factor that modulates Rb repression of proapoptotic signal transduction and define a new posttranslational mechanism for selective regulation of the intracellular levels of Rb.

POF and HP1 bind expressed exons, suggesting a balancing mechanism for gene regulation

Two specific chromosome-targeting and gene regulatory systems are present in Drosophila melanogaster. The male X chromosome is targeted by the male-specific lethal complex believed to mediate the 2-fold up-regulation of the X-linked genes, and the highly heterochromatic fourth chromosome is specifically targeted by the Painting of Fourth (POF) protein, which, together with heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1), modulates the expression level of genes on the fourth chromosome. Here we use chromatin immunoprecipitation and tiling microarray analysis to map POF and HP1 on the fourth chromosome in S2 cells and salivary glands at high resolution. The enrichment profiles were complemented by transcript profiles to examine the link between binding and transcripts. The results show that POF specifically binds to genes, with a strong preference for exons, and the HP1 binding profile is a mirror image of POF, although HP1 displays an additional “peak” in the promoter regions of bound genes. HP1 binding within genes is much higher than the basal HP1 enrichment on Chromosome 4. Our results suggest a balancing mechanism for the regulation of the fourth chromosome where POF and HP1 competitively bind at increasing levels with increased transcriptional activity. In addition, our results contradict transposable elements as a major nucleation site for HP1 on the fourth chromosome.

Species where males and females have a different number of sex chromosomes have to equalize the transcriptional output from the genes located on the X chromosome. In Drosophila this mechanism is achieved by a 2-fold up-regulation of the single male X chromosome. Flies also possess an additional chromosome-wide regulatory system that regulates the transcriptional output from genes on the fourth chromosome. In this case the protein Painting of Fourth (POF), together with heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) bind to the fourth chromosome and fine tune gene expression. By using a high resolution map of POF and HP1 binding, we can show that they bind to the same sequences on the fourth chromosome. We also demonstrate that POF and HP1 bind to active genes with preferences for exon sequences. In gene regulatory mechanisms, including chromosome-wide gene regulation, a simple on/off switch is often not enough. Our findings support the presence of a balancing mechanism in which the dual recruitment of a repressing and a stimulating factor makes the transcription efficiency more stable and less sensitive to fluctuations.

The Rb/E2F pathway and Ras activation regulate RecQ helicase gene expression

Disruption of the Rb (retinoblastoma protein)/E2F cell-cycle pathway and Ras activation are two of the most frequent events in cancer, and both of these mutations place oncogenic stress on cells to increase DNA replication. In the present study, we demonstrate that these mutations have an additive effect on induction of members of the RecQ DNA helicase family. RecQ activity is important for genomic stability, initiation of DNA replication and telomere maintenance, and mutation of the BLM (Bloom's syndrome gene), WRN (Werner's syndrome gene) or RECQL4 (Rothmund–Thomson syndrome gene) family members leads to premature aging syndromes characterized by genetic instability and telomere loss. RecQ family members are frequently overexpressed in cancers, and overexpression of BLM has been shown to cause telomere elongation. Concomitant with induction of RecQ genes in response to Rb family mutation and Ras activation, we show an increase in the number of telomeric repeats. We suggest that this induction of RecQ genes in response to common oncogenic mutations may explain the up-regulation of the genes seen in cancers, and it may provide a means for transformed cells to respond to an increased demand for DNA replication.

High-resolution mapping reveals links of HP1 with active and inactive chromatin components

Heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) is commonly seen as a key factor of repressive heterochromatin, even though a few genes are known to require HP1-chromatin for their expression. To obtain insight into the targeting of HP1 and its interplay with other chromatin components, we have mapped HP1-binding sites on Chromosomes 2 and 4 in Drosophila Kc cells using high-density oligonucleotide arrays and the DNA adenine methyltransferase identification (DamID) technique. The resulting high-resolution maps show that HP1 forms large domains in pericentric regions, but is targeted to single genes on chromosome arms. Intriguingly, HP1 shows a striking preference for exon-dense genes on chromosome arms. Furthermore, HP1 binds along entire transcription units, except for 5′ regions. Comparison with expression data shows that most of these genes are actively transcribed. HP1 target genes are also marked by the histone variant H3.3 and dimethylated histone 3 lysine 4 (H3K4me2), which are both typical of active chromatin. Interestingly, H3.3 deposition, which is usually observed along entire transcription units, is limited to the 5′ ends of HP1-bound genes. Thus, H3.3 and HP1 are mutually exclusive marks on active chromatin. Additionally, we observed that HP1-chromatin and Polycomb-chromatin are nonoverlapping, but often closely juxtaposed, suggesting an interplay between both types of chromatin. These results demonstrate that HP1-chromatin is transcriptionally active and has extensive links with several other chromatin components.

In each of our cells, a variety of proteins helps to organize the very long DNA fibers into a more compacted structure termed chromatin. Several different types of chromatin exist. Some types of chromatin package DNA rather loosely and thereby allow the genes to be active. Other types, often referred to as heterochromatin, are thought to package the DNA into a condensed structure that prevents the genes from being active. Thus, the different types of chromatin together determine the “gene expression programs” of cells. To understand how this works, it is necessary to identify the genes that are packaged by a particular type of chromatin and to reveal how various chromatin proteins work together to achieve this. Here we present highly detailed maps of the DNA sequences that are packaged by a heterochromatin protein named HP1. The results show that HP1 preferentially binds along the genes themselves and much less to intergenic regions. Contrary to what was previously thought, most genes packaged by HP1 are active. Finally, the data suggest that HP1 may compete with other types of chromatin proteins. These results contribute to our fundamental understanding of the roles of chromatin packaging in gene regulation.

Characterization of Distant Enhancers and Promoters in the Albumin-α-Fetoprotein Locus during Active and Silenced Expression

The albumin and alpha-fetoprotein genes are adjacent and express closely related serum proteins. Both genes are strongly expressed in fetal liver, primarily through activation by distant enhancers, but the AFP gene selectively undergoes developmental silencing. We used chromatin immunoprecipitation to study enhancers and promoters during active and silenced gene expression. In adult phenotype cells, the silenced AFP gene was actively repressed at the promoter and two proximal enhancers, characterized by the absence of coactivators and acetylated histone 4, and the presence of corepressors and K9-methylated histone 3. Specific transcription factors, TBP, and RNA polymerase II were all detected on both active and silenced genes, indicating that both states were actively regulated. Surprisingly, promoter-specific factors were also detected on enhancers, especially with reduced chromatin shearing. Under these conditions, an enhancer-specific factor was also detected on the albumin promoter. Association of promoter- and enhancer-specific factors was confirmed by sequential immunoprecipitation. Because no binding was detected on intervening segments, these promoter-enhancer associations suggest looping.

Retinoblastoma family genes

The retinoblastoma gene Rb was the first tumor suppressor gene cloned, and it is well known as a negative regulator of the cell cycle through its ability to bind the transcription factor E2F and repress transcription of genes required for S phase. Although over 100 other proteins have been reported to interact with Rb, in most cases these interactions are much less well characterized. Therefore, this review will primarily focus on Rb and E2F interactions. In addition to cell cycle regulation, studies of Rb and E2F proteins in animal models have revealed important roles for these proteins in apoptosis and differentiation. Recent screens of Rb/E2F target genes have identified new targets in all these areas. In addition, the mechanisms determining how different subsets of target genes are regulated under different conditions have only begun to be addressed and offer exciting possibilities for future research.

Heterochromatin protein 1: don't judge the book by its cover!

The name heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) suggests that this small nuclear factor plays a role in forming heterochromatic domains. It was noticed years ago, however, that the distribution of HP1 on polytene chromosomes was not restricted to chromocenters or telomeres. HP1 was also found, reproducibly, along the euchromatic arms. A possible function in euchromatic gene regulation was postulated. Now, a large body of data has blurred the definition of HP1 as a structural component of heterochromatin, revealing its two-faced nature. Not only do HP1 isoforms have specific binding sites in both heterochromatic and euchromatic domains but they might also participate in the repression and activation of transcription in both compartments.

Loss of emerin at the nuclear envelope disrupts the Rb1/E2F and MyoD pathways during muscle regeneration

Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy (EDMD1) is caused by mutations in either the X-linked gene emerin (EMD) or the autosomal lamin A/C (LMNA) gene. Here, we describe the derivation of mice lacking emerin in an attempt to derive a mouse model for EDMD1. Although mice lacking emerin show no overt pathology, muscle regeneration in these mice revealed defects. A bioinformatic array analysis of regenerating Emd null muscle revealed abnormalities in cell-cycle parameters and delayed myogenic differentiation, which were associated with perturbations to transcriptional pathways regulated by the retinoblastoma (Rb1) and MyoD genes. Temporal activation of MyoD transcriptional targets was significantly delayed, whereas targets of the Rb1/E2F transcriptional repressor complex remained inappropriately active. The inappropriate modulation of Rb1/MyoD transcriptional targets was associated with up-regulation of Rb1, MyoD and their co-activators/repressors transcripts, suggesting a compensatory effort to overcome a molecular block to differentiation at the myoblast/myotube transition during regeneration. This compensation appeared to be effective for MyoD transcriptional targets, although was less effective for Rb1 targets. Analysis of Rb1 phosphorylation states showed prolonged hyper-phosphorylation at key developmental stages in Emd null myogenic cells, both in vivo and in vitro. We also analyzed the same pathways in Lmna null muscle, which shows extensive dystrophy. Surprisingly, Lmna null muscle did not show the same perturbations to Rb- and MyoD-dependent pathways. We did observe increased transcriptional expression of Lap2alpha and delayed expression of Rb1, which may regulate alternative transcriptional pathways in the Lmna null myoblasts. We suggest that the dominant LMNA mutations seen in many clinically disparate laminopathies may similarly alter Rb function, with regard to either the timing of exit from the cell cycle or terminal differentiation programs or both.

Overlapping roles of pocket proteins in the myocardium are unmasked by germ line deletion of p130 plus heart-specific deletion of Rb

The pocket protein family of tumor suppressors, and Rb specifically, have been implicated as controlling terminal differentiation in many tissues, including the heart. To establish the biological functions of Rb in the heart and overcome the early lethality caused by germ line deletion of Rb, we used a Cre/loxP system to create conditional, heart-specific Rb-deficient mice. Mice that are deficient in Rb exclusively in cardiac myocytes (CRbL/L) are born with the expected Mendelian distribution, and the adult mice displayed no change in heart size, myocyte cell cycle distribution, myocyte apoptosis, or mechanical function. Since both Rb and p130 are expressed in the adult myocardium, we created double-knockout mice (CRbL/L p130-/-) to determine it these proteins have a shared role in regulating cardiac myocyte cell cycle progression. Adult CRbL/L p130-/- mice demonstrated a threefold increase in the heart weight-to-body weight ratio and showed increased numbers of bromodeoxyuridine- and phosphorylated histone H3-positive nuclei, consistent with persistent myocyte cycling. Likewise, the combined deletion of Rb plus p130 up-regulated myocardial expression of Myc, E2F-1, and G1 cyclin-dependent kinase activities, synergistically. Thus, Rb and p130 have overlapping functional roles in vivo to suppress cell cycle activators, including Myc, and maintain quiescence in postnatal cardiac muscle.

The E2F family: specific functions and overlapping interests

The E2F transcription factors are key regulators of cell cycle progression and the E2F field has made rapid advances since its advent in 1986. Yet, while our understanding of the roles and functions of the E2F family has made enormous progress, with each discovery new questions arise. In this review, we summarise the most recent advances in the field and discuss the remaining key questions. In particular, we will focus on how specificity is achieved among the E2Fs.