(E(spl) region transcript m4
m4 and malpha are both members of the same large family of proteins.
To identify proteins structurally similar to m4/alpha, BLAST analysis was performed against all available protein
and nucleic acid data bases. The highest scoring hits were consistently two Drosophila ESTs:
AA246754 and AA433222. When the two were analyzed
against each other, it became clear that they overlap, thus defining a single genetic locus. The predicted protein product
from the assembled sequence shows similarity across the
whole polypeptide chain to both m4 and malpha. m4-ESTs are 31% identical (48% similar) and malpha-ESTs are 31% identical (55% similar). The genomic cosmid
library of the European Drosophila Genome Project
was screened using a PCR product from this
EST and two positive clones were found. Both of these map to
71A (I. Siden-Kiamos, personal communication to Apidianakis, 1999), a region
away from the E(spl) Complex (96F), but close to the Brd
locus (whose product bears 22% identity, 46% similarity to
the N-terminal half of EST), making this a dispersed gene
family. Besides their protein product similarity, m4 and Brd
have been reported to share common sequence motifs in
their 30 untranslated regions (UTRs), the Bearded box, the
K box and the GY box, all of which are interestingly also
found in E(spl)bHLH transcripts. Two each of Brd- and K- boxes were found,
but no GY box in malpha, whereas the
EST transcript reveals all three motifs. The
Brd- and K-boxes have been shown to confer mRNA destabilization. Quick
RNA (and protein) turnover is desirable for factors that are
deployed transiently in response to intercellular signals and
whose effect, therefore, has to be downregulated when the
signaling is turned off. The function of the third 30 UTR
motif, the GY-box, is presently not understood. Interestingly, no sequences from other
species gave high BLAST scores in searches, thus
presently limiting the members of this family to Drosophila (Apidianakis, 1999).
Brd and most genes of the E(spl)-C
(including both bHLH genes and m4) are
also subject to common modes of negative
post-transcriptional regulation via defined sequence motifs
present in their 3' UTRs. In particular, K boxes (TGTGAT) and Brd
boxes (AGCTTTA), which are broadly distributed within the
3' UTRs of these genes, mediate negative regulation of
transcript accumulation and translational efficiency. Two Brd boxes and two K boxes have been identified in the 3' UTR of malpha, a K box and a Brd box in
the 3' UTR of Tom, and two K boxes in the 3' UTR of Bob. Moreover, the second K box in Bob is directly
adjacent to a CAAC motif, a sequence that has been implicated
in augmentation of regulation by an associated K box. Bob's 3' UTR does not contain a canonical Brd box, but does contain a 7/7 match to a variant of the Brd box
(TGCTTTA) found in the D. hydei ortholog of E(spl)m4. Overall, the presence of canonical K box and Brd box sequences in the 3' UTRs of Bob, Tom and malpha strongly suggests that most genes of the Brd-C and E(spl)-C
are subject to the same two modes of negative post-transcriptional
regulation (Lai, 2000).
A third class of conserved 3' UTR sequence motif, the GY box
(GTCTTCC), is also shared by Brd and genes of the E(spl)-C. Although
the precise function of this motif is poorly understood, it is possible that this motif has a role in forming RNA:RNA duplexes with a complementary sequence motif (the proneural box, AATGGAAGACAAT) found in the 3' UTRs of proneural genes, including ac, lethal of scute. and atonal (ato). The 3' UTRs of both Bob and Tom each contain a pair of GY boxes. Closer examination of the GY boxes of Bob, Tom and Brd reveals an unexpected degree of sequence identity in the nucleotides flanking the GY box heptamer in Brd-C genes. The GY boxes of Tom are found within a 19/19 direct repeat in the Tom 3' UTR, while Bob's GY boxes fall within a 15/15 direct repeat in its 3' UTR. Moreover, an exact 16-bp sequence including a GY box is common to the 3' UTRs of Brd, Bob, and Tom, and all five GY boxes in these Brd-C genes are contained within an exact 15/15 identity. It is striking that this latter sequence is exactly complementary to a 15-nt sequence shared by proneural boxes located in the ato and l'sc 3' UTRs. That the GY boxes of all Brd-C genes should share such an exceptional relationship with the proneural boxes of divergent proneural genes located on different chromosomes (ato and l'sc) strongly suggests that these complementary sequence elements are subject to common constraint. The two GY boxes in the 3' UTR of E(spl)m4 are more related to the extended GY box consensus just described than are the GY boxes of most E(spl)-C bHLH transcripts. Thus, the constraint on m4's GY boxes similarly appears to extend well beyond the core seven nucleotides of this motif, in a way that is also evidently connected to the proneural box sequence. Finally, the 3' UTR segments containing the second GY box of Bob and the first GY box of Tom are related by an extraordinary 32-nt exact identity. That members of distinct subfamilies of the Brd gene family should share such an extended GY box-containing identity further underscores the sequence constraint associated with this motif, and may suggest the existence of a common 'partner' gene for Bob and Tom that carries a complementary sequence. The complementary 3' UTR sequence motifs found in proneural genes and Brd family genes can mediate the formation of RNA:RNA duplexes in vitro. Since transcripts of members of the proneural gene family and the Brd gene family co-accumulate in all developmental settings where neurogenesis occurs, it is suggested that these RNA:RNA duplexes also form in vivo, although the possible regulatory consequences of this association remain to be determined (Lai, 2000).
The sequences of Drosophila ESTs encoding apparent paralogs of both Brd and
E(spl)m4 have been deposited in the GenBank database. PCR products containing these
EST sequences were used as probes to isolate full-length
cDNA and genomic DNA clones for both genes, which
have been named Bob ( Brother of Brd) and Tom (Twin of m4),
respectively. In addition, genomic DNA has been cloned and sequenced that includes the previously identified E(spl)malpha locus: its predicted protein product is also strongly related to that of E(spl)m4. The predicted amino acid sequences of what is referred
to as Brd family proteins can be classified as Brd-like (Brd and Bob) or m4-like (m4, malpha,
and Tom), based on their relative sizes and degree of amino
acid similarity. Although there are a few well-conserved
regions in these proteins, particularly within the C-terminal
half of the longer m4-like proteins, it is obvious that Brd family
members are not in general highly related at the primary
structure level. Brd and m4 are related by secondary structure, since a domain
located near the N-terminus in both proteins is predicted to
form a basic amphipathic helix. Similar N-terminal domains found in Bob and E(spl)malpha
are likewise strongly predicted to form basic amphipathic helices, while a proline residue in the center of the corresponding region of Tom suggests that its 'helix' may be kinked or separated into two helices. The strong basic amphipathic character of these N-terminal domains of
Brd family proteins may be considered a defining structural
feature. Brd family proteins also share certain classes of
consensus phosphorylation sites, namely protein kinase C
(PKC) sites in their N-terminal regions and casein kinase II
(CK II) sites in their C-terminal portions. The similar
placement of these consensus sites in the context of otherwise
weakly related amino acid sequences suggests that they may
be relevant for the regulation of Brd family protein function (Lai, 2000).
Bob and Tom genes were localized to the Drosophila genome physical map using a filter grid library of P1 clones. Interestingly, Bob and Tom map to a set of P1 clones covering cytological region 71A1-2, the known chromosomal location of Brd. Characterization of this genomic region shows that Tom gene is found to lie only about 2 kb upstream of the previously described Brd transcription unit, with Bob about 20 kb upstream of Tom. Surprisingly, the genomic DNA corresponding to the Bob EST and cDNA clones is triplicated, such that three distinct, tandemly arranged genomic loci have the capacity to encode nearly identical Bob transcripts. This triplicated structure has been observed in two independent, overlapping lambda phage genomic DNA
clones. Significantly, small sequence differences in the transcribed portions
of the different Bob genomic loci are also represented in the cDNA clones,
allowing for the conclusion that at least two copies are transcriptionally active
in wild-type flies. The three gene copies have been designated Bob A, B, and C, the encoded transcripts and proteins are referred collectively as 'Bob'. Thus, a
minimum of five Brd family genes are contained within an approximately 30-kb interval that is referred to as the Brd Complex (Brd-C), and this complex contains both Brd-like (Brd and Bob) and m4-like (Tom) genes. The E(spl)-C contains at least two m4-like genes, m4 and malpha. Promoter regions of Brd family genes within the Brd-C and E(spl)-C contain consensus binding sites for proneural proteins and for Suppressor of Hairless (Lai, 2000).
The commonality of an N-terminal basic domain in all Brd
family proteins, along with their similar phenotypic effects
when over- or mis-expressed, suggests that they may have a
common biochemical mechanism of action and may interact
with a common target or targets. The conserved C-terminal
extension found in the m4-related proteins (m4, ma, and Tom) further suggests that this subfamily may have additional functions that are not shared by the shorter Brd-related
proteins (Brd and Bob). In particular, it is possible that
the terminal DRWV/AQA motif in these proteins, by analogy
with the conserved C-terminal domain of the E(spl)-C bHLH
proteins (which recruits the co-repressor Groucho), may also
mediate protein-protein interactions. A similar
possibility exists for the shared PVXFXRTXXGTFFWT motif (Lai, 2000).
Barbu (Bbu), an alternative name applied to Twin of m4 (Tom), can antagonize
Notch signaling activity during Drosophila development. In this study Barbu/Tom was isolated in a search for proteins that physically interact with Tinman. As explained below, it is uncertain whether this physical interaction is of biological significance, but it is clear that this gene functions to antagonize Notch signaling, as does E(spl) region transcript m4,.
Ectopic expression studies with Barbu provide evidence
that Barbu can antagonize Notch during lateral inhibition
processes in the embryonic mesoderm, sensory organ
specification in imaginal discs and cell type specification in
developing ommatidia. Barbu loss-of-function mutations
cause lethality and disrupt the establishment of planar
polarity and photoreceptor specification in eye imaginal
discs, which may also be a consequence of altered Notch
signaling activities. Furthermore, in the embryonic
neuroectoderm, Barbu expression is inducible by activated
Notch. Taken together, it is proposed that Barbu functions in
a negative feed-back loop, which may be important for the
accurate adjustment of Notch signaling activity and the
extinction of Notch activity between successive rounds of
signaling events (Zaffran, 2000).
The temporal and spatial pattern of BBU/TOM mRNA was
determined by Northern blot and whole-mount in situ
hybridizations. A single 1.3 kb BBU transcript appears at 2-4
hours of development with a peak expression at 4-8 hours after
fertilization. BBU mRNA expression decreases
dramatically following late embryonic stages until its
expression becomes barely detectable after the first instar larval
stage.
Whole-mount in situ hybridization using the Bbu cDNA
insert as a probe first detects Bbu expression in the anterior-most
and in central regions of early blastoderm embryos. At the end of the blastoderm stage, Bbu is uniformly
expressed, but expression is excluded from the ventralmost
part of the embryo, which corresponds to the presumptive
mesoderm domain. Because the zinc finger
protein Snail is known to act as a repressor within the
mesodermal territory, a
test was performed to see whether Bbu expression is negatively regulated by
snail. Indeed Bbu is ectopically expressed in the presumptive mesoderm in snail mutants. Later, however, shortly after
gastrulation and until the end of the germband
elongation, Bbu expression is seen throughout
the mesoderm. Bbu and Tin co-localize during
stages 8 and 9 in the entire mesoderm and
during stage 10 in most of the dorsal mesodermal cells. During late germband elongation, when the specification
of mesodermal tissues and muscle progenitors initiates, Bbu
expression assumes a segmental pattern in the ventral
mesoderm. At the same time, Bbu expression in
the ectoderm becomes patchy and expression levels increase
in the tracheal pit territories. BBU mRNA expression
in the ectodermal layer was further studied using confocal
microscopy. During germband elongation and at the
beginning of neuroblast segregation, BBU mRNA is excluded
from one or two rows of ventral ectodermal and
mesectodermal cells in each segment. Slightly later,
rapid and complex changes in the Bbu expression pattern
occur, during which Bbu expression becomes transiently
excluded from segmental, bilaterally symmetric patches of
cells. Furthermore, at the beginning of germband
retraction when most neuroblasts have segregated, Bbu
becomes more weakly expressed in the ventral region of the
ectoderm as compared to its dorsal expression.
During germband retraction, Bbu expression rapidly decays
and, after dorsal closure, is only seen in the pair of lymph glands close to the anteriormost portion of
the dorsal vessel. An antibody to Bbu protein reveals that Bbu protein expression matches that of BBU mRNA expression (Zaffran, 2000).
In the neuroectoderm, Bbu expression is
excluded from the proneural clusters and neuroblasts in which
these proneural proteins are expressed. In
clusters from which single cells have been selected to maintain
proneural gene expression, all cells except for the presumptive
neuroblast express Barbu mRNA. These observations raised the possibility that the Notch
signaling pathway, while repressing proneural genes, may
activate Bbu in the presumptive non-neuroblast cells. Ectopic expression of activated Notch results in the overexpression of BBU
mRNA. The presence of three putative Su(H) binding sites in
the presumed Bbu promoter sequence indicates that activation of Bbu by Notch is
possibly direct. One of these sequences ([-791]CGTGGG-AAA)
matches exactly the previously reported consensus
sequence for Su(H) sites [(C/T)GTG(G/A)GAA(C/A)]. Thus, the control of Bbu expression with respect
to its dynamic 'filling in' of proneural clusters and exclusion
from prospective neuroblasts seems to be a direct result of
its activation by the Notch signaling pathway in the
neuroectoderm. Additional experiments show that overepxression of Bbu in the mesoderm antagonizes Notch signaling giving rise to an increased number of Even-skipped expressing heart cells. Overexpression of Bbu also affects the development of
lateral and ventral muscle progenitor muscles. Likewise, overexpression of Bbu increases the number of bristles in the adult (Zaffran, 2000).
Bbu mutants were induced by P-element excision. Although the presumed null allele Bbu99 confers embryonic
lethality, no specific
abnormalities could be detected in ectodermally or mesodermally derived tissues
in homozygous embryos for this mutation. However, the
phenotypic analysis of the hypomorphic alleles Bbu8 and
Bbu105 proved to be informative. Both Bbu8 and Bbu105 confer
pupal lethality and pharate adults homozygous for these
mutations fail to undergo head eversion. Bbu hypomorphic alleles rescues the phenotype of homozygous Su(H)
mutants, which are larval lethal with small eye discs. Bbu;Su(H) double mutants develop into the pupal stage with pharate adults
displaying partially everted heads. Thus, reduced
levels of Notch/Su(H) signaling can partially rescue the pupal
phenotype caused by reduced levels of Bbu expression.
Bbu105 gives rise to a small number of escapers when the
flies are grown at low density. The bristles
on the notum of these adults, particularly in the anterior
portion, show defects in their polarity.
Since both planar polarity and lateral inhibition involve the
Notch signaling pathway, these results suggest that
Bbu may act to adjust the levels of Notch signaling during these
processes (Zaffran, 2000).
During third larval instar, Barbu expression occurs in eye-antennal
imaginal discs and is restricted to narrow bands of
cells on either side of the morphogenetic furrow from which
most cells enter the neuronal pathway. Notch signaling has been shown to participate
in the control of the expression of the proneural protein Atonal
(Ato), which is essential for cell fate specification of the first
neuronal cells (photoreceptors 8: R8). In, Bbu105 the pattern of Ato expression
appears irregular compared with the wild-type pattern and,
occasionally, Ato-stained R8 cells are missing. In
addition, Ato levels anterior to the morphogenetic furrow
appear increased relative to the levels in the R8 cells. Despite
these abnormalities, no obvious defects are detected in the
expression of Elav protein, showing that, in most ommatidia,
eight neuronal photoreceptor cells are formed.
Adult escapers that are homozygous for Bbu105 display
rough eye phenotypes. Scanning electron microscopic analysis
reveals that the roughened appearance in the eyes of Bbu105
escapers is due to the failure to form a regular array of
hexagonal corneal lenses, which is accompanied by an
irregular distribution of interommatidial bristles. This phenotype suggests that the Bbu105
mutation causes polarity defects in the ommatidia, which is
further confirmed by the analysis of tangential sections through
the eyes. The degree of rotation of the
ommatidia from homozygous Bbu105 flies appears random
since some ommatidia have not rotated at all, while others have
rotated only 45°or have continued the rotation beyond the
normal 90°. Similar phenotypes also occur with null mutations in frizzled and in
flies in which Notch activity is altered during photoreceptor
development. Induction of Bbu null mutant clones in the eye results in a
severe roughening as well as a size reduction of the ventral half
of the eyes containing these large Bbu minus clones. The defects include aberrant rotation of some ommatidia
from mutant clones. However,
many ommatidia from Bbu minus clones display stronger defects
and show a significant reduction of the number of
photoreceptor cells to four, five or six cells per ommatidium in
the plane of sectioning. Thus, in addition to
ommatidial polarity, complete loss of Bbu activity appears to
disrupt photoreceptor recruitment.
Ectopic expression of Bbu in the eye gives rise to ommatidia that lack a regular
organization. Ectopic Bbu gives rise to defects in the corneal
lenses, which appear to contain extra sockets, suggesting
transformations of photoreceptors to non-neuronal fates. In agreement with this interpretation, tangential sections
of such eyes with ectopic Bbu expression show many
ommatidia with less than the normal number of photoreceptors.
In addition, ommatidia with a full complement of
photoreceptors show defects in their chirality. Thus,
overexpression of Bbu affects not only the chirality, but
frequently also the specification of neuronal cells of the
ommatidia (Zaffran, 2000).
Bbu is the first member of this gene family to show a loss-of-function phenotype. While Bbu loss-of-function alleles
cause lethality and developmental defects, null mutants for Brd
and E(spl) m4 are homozygously viable and do not exhibit any
detectable abnormalities. It is likely that the wild-type
phenotypes of Brd and m4 null mutants are due to functional
redundancy among genes of this family. Partial functional
redundancy may also explain the failure to detect any
phenotypes in Bbu null mutant embryos. Nevertheless, the
observed pupal and adult phenotypes, as well as the genetic
interactions of Bbu loss-of-function mutations with Su(H)
mutations, are compatible with a Bbu role in the
downregulation of Notch signaling activity. Prominent features
that are shared with Notch gain-of-function phenotypes are
polarity defects and disrupted cell specification during eye
development. Similar to heat-shock induction of Nintra,
reduction of Bbu activity results in increased levels of atonal
expression anterior to the morphogenetic furrow and, in some
instances, loss of ato expression in the prospective
photoreceptor R8. No overt R3 to R4 transformations
are seen in the mis-oriented ommatidia upon reduction of Bbu activity,
although such cell fate transformations are observed upon
ectopic Notch activation and thought to be a cause for polarity
defects.
Rather, randomly oriented ommatidia are observed with
apparently normally specified photoreceptors, which is very
similar to the defects reported for mutations in frizzled and its
downstream effector gene dishevelled. Recent models for the origin of the
ommatidial polarity have proposed the occurrence of reciprocal
Notch/Delta signaling between the prospective R3 and R4
cells. This mutual interaction is thought to be biased by
increased Frizzled/Dishevelled activities in R3, which
downregulates Notch activity and upregulates the production
of Delta in this cell. The observed Bbu mutant phenotype in
ommatidia suggests that, upon the reduction of Bbu levels, this
bias is removed and the decisions between R3 and R4 fates
within each ommatidum become randomized. Thus, it is
propose that, in the normal situation, Bbu is required together
with activated Frizzled to antagonize Notch activity in the
prospective R3 photoreceptor. While a model is preferred in
which Bbu acts in parallel with Frizzled, perhaps by
potentiating or stabilizing its negative effect on Notch, the alternative that Bbu acts in the Frizzled
pathway upstream of Notch cannot be ruled out. Because Notch has been shown
to participate in the specification of essentially all cell types of
the eye disc, the reduced numbers of
photoreceptors in Bbu null mutant clones may also be due to
increased activities of the Notch pathway during different steps
of eye development. Taken together, the combined data from
overexpression and loss-of-function experiments make a strong
case for a role of Bbu in downregulating Notch activity.
However, by no means do they exclude the possibility that Bbu
(and by extension, E(spl) m4, malpha, and Brd) acts in additional
pathways that do not involve Notch signaling (Zaffran, 2000).
It is intriguing that Bbu was isolated as a result of its protein-protein interactions
with the homeodomain protein Tinman. Although there is no formal proof that this interaction is relevant in vivo,
several lines of evidence support its specificity, including the
fact that three independent clones of Bbu cDNAs were isolated
in the yeast two-hybrid screen and the observation that GST-Bbu
fusion protein specifically associates with radiolabeled
Tinman protein in in vitro binding assays. The observed co-expression of Bbu
and Tinman in the early mesoderm would also favor the
possibility of interactions of the two proteins in vivo. If this
interaction were to occur, it would imply a nuclear function of
Bbu, presumably as a cofactor of Tin in the mesoderm and
additional transcription factors in other tissues. In this
hypothesis, Bbu would interfere with transcriptional outputs of
the Notch signaling cascade that require tissue-specific
transcription factors such as Tinman. For example, it is
possible that activated Notch/Su(H) complexes need to bind to
enhancer sequences of certain target genes together with
Tinman to activate their expression in the mesoderm, and that
the binding of Bbu to Tin interferes with this cooperative
activity. Indeed, tin-dependent specification events in heart and
somatic muscle development also involve Notch signaling. While the predominantly
cytoplasmic localization of Bbu protein seems to argue against
an interaction with Tin in vivo, it is still possible that the nuclei
contain low levels of Bbu protein that cannot be detected above background levels with
antibody stainings (Zaffran, 2000).
Home page: The Interactive Fly © 1995, 1996 Thomas B. Brody, Ph.D.
The Interactive Fly resides on the
E(spl) region transcript m4:
Biological Overview
| Regulation
| Developmental Biology
| Effects of Mutation
| References
Society for Developmental Biology's Web server.