Dynamic reprogramming of chromatin: paradigmatic palimpsests and HES factors

Soft repression: Subtle transcriptional regulation with global impact

Pleiotropically acting eukaryotic corepressors such as retinoblastoma and SIN3 have been found to physically interact with many widely expressed “housekeeping” genes. Evidence suggests that their roles at these loci are not to provide binary on/off switches, as is observed at many highly cell-type specific genes, but rather to serve as governors, directly modulating expression within certain bounds, while not shutting down gene expression. This sort of regulation is challenging to study, as the differential expression levels can be small. We hypothesize that depending on context, corepressors mediate “soft repression,” attenuating expression in a less dramatic but physiologically appropriate manner. Emerging data indicate that such regulation is a pervasive characteristic of most eukaryotic systems, and may reflect the mechanistic differences between repressor action at promoter and enhancer locations. Soft repression may represent an essential component of the cybernetic systems underlying metabolic adaptations, enabling modest but critical adjustments on a continual basis.

Notch Signaling-Induced Oscillatory Gene Expression May Drive Neurogenesis in the Developing Retina

After integrating classic and cutting-edge research, we proposed a unified model that attempts to explain the key steps of mammalian retinal neurogenesis. We proposed that the Notch signaling-induced lateral inhibition mechanism promotes oscillatory expression of Hes1. Oscillating Hes1 inhibitory activity as a result leads to oscillatory expression of Notch signaling inhibitors, activators/inhibitors of retinal neuronal phenotypes, and cell cycle-promoting genes all within a retinal progenitor cell (RPC). We provided a mechanism explaining not only how oscillatory expression prevents the progenitor-to-precursor transition, but also how this transition happens. Our proposal of the mechanism posits that the levels of the above factors not only oscillate but also rise (with the exception of Hes1) as the factors accumulate within a progenitor. Depending on which factors accumulate fastest and reach the required supra-threshold levels (cell cycle activators or Notch signaling inhibitors), the progenitor either proliferates or begins to differentiate without any further proliferation when Notch signaling ceases. Thus, oscillatory gene expression may regulate an RPC's decision to proliferate or differentiate. Meanwhile, a post-mitotic precursor's selection of one retinal neuronal phenotype over many others depends on the expression level of key transcription factors (activators) required for each of these retinal neuronal phenotypes. Because the events described above are stochastic due to oscillatory gene expression and gene product inheritance from a mother RPC after its division, an RPC or precursor's decision requires the assignment of probabilities to specific outcomes in the selection process. While low and sustained (non-oscillatory) Notch signaling activity is required to promote the transition of retinal progenitors into various retinal neuronal phenotypes, we propose that the lateral inhibition mechanism, combined with high expression of the BMP signaling-induced Inhibitor of Differentiation (ID) protein family, promotes high and sustained (non-oscillatory) Hes1 and Hes5 expression. These events facilitate the transition of an RPC into the Müller glia (MG) phenotype at the late stage of retinal development.

TNF-alpha and Notch signaling regulates the expression of HOXB4 and GATA3 during early T lymphopoiesis

During the early thymus colonization, Notch signaling activation on hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) drives proliferation and T cell commitment. Although these processes are driven by transcription factors such as HOXB4 and GATA3, there is no evidence that Notch directly regulates their transcription. To evaluate the role of NOTCH and TNF signaling in this process, human CD34⁺ HPCs were cocultured with OP9-DL1 cells, in the presence or absence of TNF. The use of a Notch signaling inhibitor and a protein synthesis inhibitor allowed us to distinguish primary effects, mediated by direct signaling downstream Notch and TNF, from secondary effects, mediated by de novo synthesized proteins. A low and physiologically relevant concentration of TNF promoted T lymphopoiesis in OP9-DL1 cocultures. TNF positively modulated the expression of both transcripts in a Notch-dependent manner; however, GATA3 induction was mediated by a direct mechanism, while HOXB4 induction was indirect. Induction of both transcripts was repressed by a GSK3β inhibitor, indicating that activation of canonical Wnt signaling inhibits rather than induces their expression. Our study provides novel evidences of the mechanisms integrating Notch and TNF-alpha signaling in the transcriptional induction of GATA3 and HOXB4. This mechanism has direct implications in the control of self-renewal, proliferation, commitment, and T cell differentiation.

Enhancer additivity and non-additivity are determined by enhancer strength in the Drosophila embryo

Metazoan genes are embedded in a rich milieu of regulatory information that often includes multiple enhancers possessing overlapping activities. In this study, we employ quantitative live imaging methods to assess the function of pairs of primary and shadow enhancers in the regulation of key patterning genes-knirps, hunchback, and snail-in developing Drosophila embryos. The knirps enhancers exhibit additive, sometimes even super-additive activities, consistent with classical gene fusion studies. In contrast, the hunchback enhancers function sub-additively in anterior regions containing saturating levels of the Bicoid activator, but function additively in regions where there are diminishing levels of the Bicoid gradient. Strikingly sub-additive behavior is also observed for snail, whereby removal of the proximal enhancer causes a significant increase in gene expression. Quantitative modeling of enhancer-promoter interactions suggests that weakly active enhancers function additively while strong enhancers behave sub-additively due to competition with the target promoter.