Genomic structure and functional control of theDlx3-7 bigene cluster
Kenta Sumiyama
Steven Q Irvine
David W Stock
Kenneth M Weiss
Kazuhiko Kawasaki
Nobuyoshi Shimizu
Cooduvalli S Shashikant
Webb Miller
Frank H Ruddle
To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail:frank.ruddle@yale.edu.
Contributed by Frank H. Ruddle
Accepted 2001 Nov 1; Issue date 2002 Jan 22.
Abstract
TheDlx genes are involved in early vertebrate morphogenesis, notably of the head. The sixDlx genes of mammals are arranged in three convergently transcribed bigene clusters. In this study, we examine the regulation of theDlx3-7 cluster of the mouse. We obtained and sequenced human and mouse P1 clones covering the entireDlx3-7 cluster. Comparative analysis of the human and mouse sequences revealed several highly conserved noncoding regions within 30 kb of theDlx3-7-coding regions. These conserved elements were located both 5′ of the coding exons of each gene and in the intergenic region 3′ of the exons, suggesting that some enhancers might be shared between genes. We also found that the protein sequence ofDlx7 is evolving more rapidly than that ofDlx3. We conducted a functional study of the 79-kb mouse genomic clone to locate cis-element activity able to reproduce the endogenous expression pattern by using transgenic mice. We inserted alacZ reporter gene into the first exon of theDlx3 gene by using homologous recombination in yeast. StronglacZ expression in embryonic (E) stage E9.5 and E10.5 mouse embryos was found in the limb buds and first and second visceral arches, consistent with the endogenousDlx3 expression pattern. This result shows that the 79-kb region contains the major cis-elements required to direct the endogenous expression ofDlx3 at stage E10.5. To test for enhancer location, we divided the construct in the mid-intergenic region and injected theDlx3 gene portion. This shortened fragment lackingDlx7-flanking sequences is able to drive expression in the limb buds but not in the visceral arches. This observation is consistent with a cis-regulatory enhancer-sharing model within theDlx bigene cluster.
The mammalianDlx family consists of six genes with homeoboxes related to that ofDrosophila Distal-less (Dll). The mammalian genes take the form of bigene clusters. The paired genes, termedDlx2–1,Dlx5–6, andDlx3–7, are organized in an inverted, convergently transcribed manner (1–3). It has been proposed that a singleDlx gene duplicated to form an ancestral inverted bigene cluster during the evolution of the early chordates and subsequent duplications gave rise to multiple bigene clusters (4). This hypothesis is based on phylogenetic clustering ofDlx2, 3, 5 to the exclusion ofDlx1, 6, 7. It is likely that the threeDlx clusters underwent duplication together with the Hox gene clusters, becauseDlx2–1,5–6, and3–7 are closely linked to the Hox D, A, and B clusters, respectively (1,3,5). There is a certain degree of spatial and temporal expression overlap between the linkedDlx genes around embryonic stage (E) E10.5 (6). Models are proposed to explain this overlapping pattern, including cis-regulatory sharing between paired genes (7). In this report, we will focus on theDlx3–7 bigene cluster with the ultimate goal of testing the shared enhancer hypothesis of bigene expression control.
The mouseDlx3 gene is first expressed weakly in the rostral ectoderm, anterior to the neural plate during the head fold stage (6).Dlx3 is expressed by E8.5 in the ectoplacental cone and chorionic plate, developing into a high level of expression by day E10.5 in the labyrinthine layer of the embryonic placenta (8).Dlx3 is expressed in the first and second visceral arches and fronto-nasal ectoderm at E9.5 (9). Later in development,Dlx3 is also expressed in the external respiratory epithelium of the nares, in whisker follicles, taste bud primordia, dental and mammary gland epithelia, apical ectodermal ridge (AER) of limb buds, genital primordia, and in several additional sites of epithelial-mesenchymal interaction (8,9). By the end of embryonic development,Dlx3 is down-regulated, except in the skin, where it is transcribed in stratified epidermis and in the matrix cells of the hair follicles (10). TheDlx3 pattern of expression is different in some respects in comparison with the bigene clustersDlx2–1 andDlx5–6 in thatDlx3 is not expressed in the central nervous system and is largely expressed in recently acquired structures common to the mammals.Dlx7 has an overlapping expression pattern with theDlx3 gene in the visceral arches and limb buds before E10.5 (ref.11 and unpublished data).
TheDlx genes provide an interesting model for the regulation of clustered genes because their arrangement in pairs is the simplest case of gene clustering. The fact that all of the mammalian clusters have the same genomic arrangement suggests that the clusters have not undergone extensive rearrangement since their formation and may help elucidate the fate of cis-regulatory elements after gene duplication. TheDlx3–7 cluster is of special interest to us because its expression pattern lacks the complication of CNS expression. In this report, we provide detailed information on the structural organization of theDlx3–7 bigene cluster, identify conserved sequence elements in the coding and noncoding domains, and by means of functional transgenic analysis test the enhancer activity forDlx3–7 expression control.
Materials and Methods
P1 Artificial Chromosome (PAC) Clones and Sequencing.
The clones P1–972 and P1–1490 were isolated from Incyte Genomics (Palo Alto, CA) mouse and human PAC libraries, respectively, by PCR screening of pooled libraries by using primers for the 3′ end of theDlx3/DLX3 homeodomain (3,12).
Nucleotide sequences were primarily determined by using the shotgun method, and unsequenced gaps were filled by primer walking (see ref.13 for methods). The sequence was confirmed by comparing a restriction map deduced from genomic sequence with an experimentally constructed restriction map.
Cluster Alignments and Sequence Comparisons.
Alignments were computed withpipmaker (14) (available athttp://bio.cse.psu.edu/pipmaker/). Theblast 2 sequences program accessed through the National Center for Biotechnology Information website (15) was also used for identifying local sequence conservation.
Construction of the MouseDlx3-lacZ Reporter Gene.
The 80-kb insert of the P1–972 was captured into the pPAC-ResQ vector by using homologous recombination in yeast (16) to make constructDlx37-A8. In brief, 50 ng of linearized pPAC-ResQ vector and 400 ng of circular PAC P1–972 were cotransformed into yeast strain Y724 (17). More than 60% of the 200 clones obtained were identified as recombinant by hybridization tests by using theDlx3 5′ upstream region as probe. Yeast genomic DNA from recombinant clones was isolated by using the PureGene kit (Gentra Systems), transformed intoEscherichia coli DH10B cells by electroporation (16), and checked for rearrangement by restriction analysis.
ThelacZ reporter gene was inserted in-frame into the first exon of the mouseDlx3 gene by using another round of homologous recombination in yeast. A targeting vector (pLZFSV-Dlx3AB) was generated in which alacZ-Ura3 cassette (18) was flanked by PCR generated recombinogenic ends (Fig.4a) from 5′ of theDlx3-coding region [primers KL001 (5′-GGT AAC AAC AAA GAG GGT TGA GA-3′) and KL 002 (5′-GAA GGA GCC GCT CAT GCT-3′)], and portions of exon 1 and the downstream intron [primers KL003 (5′-CAC GCG GCC GCC AGC ATC CTC ACC GAC ATC T-3′) and KL 004 (5′-GCG GCG GCC GCA AGC TTC CTC TTC GGA GTG TCG TTC A-3′)]. The resulting pLZFSV-Dlx3AB was linearized and transformed into yeast harboring constructDlx37-A8. One recombinant clone (constructDlx37-lacZ-79kb) was transformed intoE. coli DH10B and verified by restriction analysis which confirmed thelacZ insertion and lack of genomic rearrangement (Fig.4b). The 5′ integration site was sequenced to confirm proper integration. ConstructDlx37-lacZ-19kb was subsequently made byHindIII digestion of constructDlx37-lacZ-79kb.
Figure 4.
Procedure diagram to make theDlx37-lacZ-79kb construct. (a) Linearized pPAC-ResQ yeast-bacteria shuttle vector captures P1–972 insert by homologous recombination in yeast. Further homologous recombination makeslacZ-URA3 insertion after eighth amino acid from first methyonine. (b)EcoRI restriction enzyme digestion patterns of original P1–972 (lane 1), pPAC-ResQ with P1–972 insert (lane 2), and withlacZ-URA3 insertion (lane 3). A 5.7-kb fragment is a diagnostic fragment forlacZ-URA3 insertion (lane 3, indicated by arrow).
Production of Transgenic Mice.
Inserts were released from the 9.8-kb vector by digestion of 150 μg with I-Sce I (Boehringer Mannheim) and purified by ultra centrifugation on a 10–40% sucrose gradient. Concentration of dialyzed DNA was adjusted to 4 ng/μl and injected into pronuclei of one-cell mouse embryos as described previously (19). Injected embryos were transferred into the oviduct of pseudopregnant CD1 mice, dissected at appropriate stages, and stained for β-galactosidase activity.
In Situ Hybridization.
Sense and antisense RNA probes were transcribed from aDlx3 partial cDNA (clone 62895–57). This 757-bp probe contains the most 3′ 27 bp of the homeobox, a further 300 bp of coding sequence, and 468 bp of 3′ untranslated region (positions 538-1295 of GenBank databank accession no.S81932). The protocol forin situ hybridization was modified from that of T. Sanders and C. Ragsdale (personal communication) and is available from the authors on request. Control embryos were hybridized with sense probe verify the specificity of the antisense probe signal.
Results
Genomic Organization of theDlx3–7 Bigene Cluster.
We obtained human and mouse P1/PAC clones covering the entireDlx3–7 bigene clusters including flanking regions. The clones were completely sequenced: the human clone termed hP1–1490 measures 75,022 nt, whereas the mouse clone termed mP1–972 measures 78,651 nt.
The general genomic organization of the human and mouseDlx3–7bigene clusters was determined by comparisons of genomic and cDNA sequences. TheDlx7 andDlx3 genes in both species are transcribed convergently and contain three exons in agreement with our earlier studies (3). Thus, we can divide the bigene clusters into three domains: an intergenic 3′ region shared by both genes, a flanking 5′ upstream region unique to theDlx7 gene, and a flanking 5′ region unique to theDlx3 gene (Figs.1 and2). The intergenic regions measure 17 kb in both species. At least 7 kb of sequence upstream of theDlx3 translation start site and at least 37 kb upstream of theDlx7 translation start site are captured in both the human and mouse clones. A close comparison of the human and mouse clones showed no other genes in the P1 clones, although several expressed sequence tag sequences show similarity in the first 20 kb upstream ofDlx7.
Figure 1.
Dot plot analysis between mouseDlx3–7 cluster (P1–972: horizontal line) and humanDLX3–7 cluster (P1–1490: vertical line). Black boxes indicate exons. Exon and intron positions of mouseDlx3 andDlx7 are color coded as green and yellow, respectively.Dlx7- andDlx3-flanking conservation motifs (F7–1, F3–1,2) are indicated in red. Intergenic conservation motifs (from I37–1 to 5) are shown in orange.
Figure 2.
Percentage identity plot of mouseDlx3–7 cluster (horizontal line) to humanDLX3–7 cluster. Vertical axis shows percentage of sequence identity from 50% (bottom) to 100% (top). Large black and gray boxes on the plot represent coding and untranslated region, respectively. Small rectangles and triangles are repetitive elements (see percentage identity plot legend). Exon and intron positions are color coded as green and yellow, respectively.Dlx7 andDlx3 flanking conservation motifs (F7–1, F3–1, 2) are indicated in red. Intergenic conservation motifs (from I37–1 to 5) are shown in orange.
We compared the mouseDlx3-7bigene cluster to its human paralogs, namely,DLX2–1 andDLX5–6 (data not shown). The general genomic organization is similar among the clusters. All show convergent translation, three exons, and 5′-flanking and 3′-intergenic domains. TheDLX2–1 andDLX5–6 intergenic regions both measure 10 kb. Sequence similarities are found only in the homeodomains, whereas other coding and noncoding domains show low sequence conservation. The absence of sequence similarity in the noncoding domains is interesting, considering the paralogous nature of the bigene clusters and their overlapping patterns of expression during development.
Protein Sequence Comparisons BetweenDlx7 andDlx3.
The nucleotide sequences of coding regions of the mouse and human exons was subjected to comparative analysis to determine the extent of functional evolutionary constraints on theDlx7 andDlx3 proteins. We calculated synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution rates for coding regions of bothDlx7 andDlx3 genes between human and mouse in each exon by using the method of Nei and Gojobori (20). The result shows that theDlx3 gene coding sequence is highly conserved, whereas theDlx7 gene is much less conserved in all three exons (Table1). Note that a nonsynonymous to synonymous ratio (dN/dS) of one is predicted for neutrally evolving genes. Both genes in all three exons show ratio values significantly less than one, indicating thatDlx3 andDlx7 are under functional constraint. However, all three exons ofDlx7 have ratio values much higher thanDlx3, indicating that theDlx7 protein is evolving more rapidly than theDlx3 protein. We will consider the implications of this situation in theDiscussion.
Table 1.
Genetic distances of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions between human and mouseDlx3andDlx7genes computed by using Nei and Gojobori's method
| Region | Dlx3 | Dlx7 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dS ± SE | dN ± SE | dN/dS | dS ± SE | dN ± SE | dN/dS | |
| Exon 1 | 0.34 ± 0.076 | 0.0084 ± 0.0060 | 0.025 | 0.62 ± 0.13 | 0.15 ± 0.030 | 0.24 |
| Exon 2 | 0.56 ± 0.15 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.65 ± 0.17 | 0.090 ± 0.026 | 0.13 |
| Exon 3 | 0.39 ± 0.084 | 0.016 ± 0.0078 | 0.040 | 0.27 ± 0.080 | 0.13 ± 0.029 | 0.48 |
Noncoding Genomic Domain Comparisons Between the Mouse and HumanDlx3–7 Bigene Clusters.
We carried out several types of homology plot analyses between the human and mouseDlx3–7bigene clusters to identify putative cis-regulatory elements. We predict that cis-regulatory elements will be highly conserved unless the gene expression patterns have changed dramatically during species divergence. First, we performed dot plot analysis between mouse and human (Fig.1) and observed similarities in most regions except for the mouse 12- to 21-kb region (Fig.2) equivalent to the human map position 8–15 kb. Genomic rearrangement may have taken place in this region.
Second, we used percentage identity plot analysis to compare mouse (reference sequence) and human genomic sequences to find shared conserved motifs (Fig.2).
An interesting aspect of the sequence comparison analysis is the striking conservation of a 30-kb region at mouse map position 44–74 kb that includes theDlx7 andDlx3 genes (Fig.2). There are three strong matches of ≈85% similarity between human and mouse in the flanking domains (Fig.2; red color code). There are also five conserved noncoding regions in theDlx3–7intergenic region (Fig.2, orange color code, and Fig.3). Element I37–1 is the most highly conserved element with 90% identity between human and mouse. Element I37–5 appears to be a partial duplication of I37–1 with 80% identity >40 bp (Fig.3). Element I37–1 also shows similarity with an element in the zebrafishdlx3–7 intergenic domain (M. Ekker, unpublished data). The three remaining conserved elements, I37–2, I37–3, and I37–4 have identities of 88%, 82%, and 87%, respectively, between human and mouse (Fig.3). All of these noncoding genomic regions are more highly conserved than the exon 1 coding domains (Fig.2).
Figure 3.
Diagram showing locations and information of five highest sequence similarities in the human and mouseDlx3–7 intergenic region (from I37–1 to 5). Numbers below are length of conservation and the percentage of sequence identity within the alignment between human and mouse. A 40-bp region with 80% sequence identity is found between I37–1 and I37–5, as noted.
Functional Properties of Intergenic Domain Conserved Elements.
We carried out functional characterization of the intergenic putative control elements to explore their specific regulatory features. The P1–972/79-kb insert was transferred into a yeast-bacterial shuttle vector, pClasper, by homologous recombination in yeast cells (17) (Fig.4a). Homologous recombination was also used to insert alacZ reporter gene together with aura3 yeast selection marker in-frame into the first exon of theDlx3 gene. The transfer of the large insert into pClasper and its subsequent modification into a reporter construct was successfully accomplished without apparent rearrangement (Fig.4b). The resultingDlx37-lacZ-79-kb reporter was excised from pClasper and injected into the pronuclei of mouse zygotes to produce transgenic animals. Two types of transgenic mice were studied: “transient” transgenic animals sampled after injection at various developmental stages, and “stable” transgenic animals obtained from stably transformed lines derived from independent founder transformants. The stable transformants are advantageous in that they can be analyzed reproducibly. We analyzed four transient embryos and five independently derived stable transformed lines.
The expression pattern of thelacZ reporter in the transient and stable embryos was largely similar but differed in some instances in signal intensity (Fig.5). Reporter expression is found in fore and hind limb buds and tail bud at stage E9.5 (Fig.5bB). Expression is also seen in the first and second visceral arches. Expression is observed in the AER of the limb buds and some ventral ectodermal cells on the fore and hind limb buds at stage E10.5. Strong expression is found in the mesenchyme of the distal caudal portion of the mandibular process of the first visceral arch and the distal lateral portion of the second visceral arch (Fig.5bE). Both E9.5 and E10.5 embryos show similar reporter expression patterns in limbs and visceral arches in comparison to the endogenous patterns of expression as determined byin situ hybridization (Fig.5bA andbD). We conclude from these results that a considerable proportion of the endogenous expression of theDlx3 gene is reconstituted by theDlx37-lacZ-79-kb reporter construct, implying that critical control elements necessary for the appropriate expression ofDlx3 in the visceral arches and limb buds are present in the construct.
Figure 5.
(a) Diagram of transgenes and summary of reporter expression patterns in transgenic animals. Blue boxes and open circles indicate exons and conserved motifs, respectively.Dlx37-lacZ-79kb has the full-length of P1–972, whereasDlx37-lacZ-19kb is truncated at the middle of the intergenic region, retaining 7 kb upstream and 4 kb downstream ofDlx3. (b)In situ hybridization ofDlx3 (A andD) and β-galactosidase staining showing transgene expression (B,C,E, andF). (A–C) Stage E9.5. (D–F) Stage E10.5. (B andE) β-galactosidase staining ofDlx37-lacZ-79kb transgenic embryos. Note staining in visceral arches (indicated by red arrow) and limbs (black filled arrow) detected inin situ hybridization. (C andF) β -galactosidase staining inDlx37-lacZ-19kb transgenic embryos. Note loss of staining in visceral arches (red arrow). Frontonasal ectoderm expression detected inin situ hybridization (white open arrow) is not detected in transgenic animals.
Other regions show differences between reporter and endogenous patterns of expression. First, expression in frontonasal ectoderm and rostral midline ectoderm of the first arch is detected inin situ hybridization experiments (Fig.5bA andbD) but not in transgenics (Fig.5bB andbE). Second, some transgenic embryos showLacZ expression on the dorsal midline, which is not detected byin situ hybridization. One transient embryo and one stable transgenic line show pronounced expression on the dorsal midline and in the cranio-facial region. Interestingly, the stable transformant animals in this line show a neural tube closure defect with 50% penetrance. We have not determined the reason for this anomaly; however, it may result from the over- or misexpression ofDlx7, which is not disabled in the construct.
In an effort to discover specific control elements in theDlx3-7bigene cluster, we initiated experiments in which subregions of theDlx37-lacZ-79kb reporter construct are tested for expression properties in transgenic mice. In an initial experiment, we have tested a subconstruct,Dlx37-lacZ-19kb that lacksDlx7 and its flanking elements. This reporter construct contains theDlx3-coding exons withlacZ insertion and intergenic conserved elements I37–1 and I37–3 (Fig.5a). We obtained three transient and two stable transgene lines with this construct. Once again, the expression patterns between the independent founders are highly consistent (Fig.5bC andbF). Expression is seen in the AER of both fore and hind limb buds at stages E9.5 and E10.5. Moreover, the pattern is highly similar in this respect to that of theDlx37-lacZ-79kb construct. However, there is a striking difference in that there is no detectable expression of theDlx3 reporter in the first and second visceral arches. This result provides strong initial evidence that the conserved elements proximal toDlx7 are necessary for visceral arch expression ofDlx3.
Discussion
TheDlx3–7bigene cluster is one of threeDlx clusters in mammals. These clusters share a convergent transcriptional orientation and are linked to the Hox clusters, suggesting that they are all derived from cluster duplications subsequent to an initial tandem duplication event (4).
Nonsynonymous to synonymous rate analysis, between human and mouse protein sequences, shows thatDlx3 is more evolutionarily conserved thanDlx7 (Table1). There are two possible explanations. In the first,Dlx3 has retained more of its original functions since the two genes duplicated, whereasDlx7 has been evolving more free of functional constraints. In the second,Dlx7 is evolving under directional selection. Some evidence points to important differences in function of the two genes despite partially overlapping patterns of expression. First,Dlx7 appears to have an important role in hematopoeisis (3), which has not been found forDlx3. Both genes, on the other hand, are expressed in the placenta, butDlx7 cannot compensate for a loss-of-functionDlx3 mutation, which causes embryonic death because of placental failure (8). The divergence in theDlx7 protein sequence between human and mouse may relate to as yet unknown changes in protein function.
A comparison between human and mouseDlx3–7bigene clusters reveals striking conservation in noncoding regions, including the 5′ upstream promoter regions of both genes and the 3′ downstream intergenic region common to both. We have focused on the intergenic region because we hypothesize that this region might be the site of critical shared enhancers produced in the tandem duplication that created the bigene cluster (7). There are five putative control elements that show a high level of sequence similarity between human and mouse in the intergenic region (Fig.3). Moreover, element IG73–1 shows a sequence match to an element in the corresponding zebrafishdlx3–7 bigene cluster. The zebrafish has additionalDlx7 gene, termeddlx8, in comparison to mammals. One of these, designateddlx8, is actually an ortholog of the mammalianDlx7 gene. Therefore, it is possible that additional conserved elements between mammals and zebrafish might exist between the mammalianDlx3–7cluster and the zebrafishdlx8 gene as a consequence of cis-element subfunctionalization between duplicated gene clusters (21).
We have made sequence comparisons,inter se, among the threeDlx bigene clusters found within mammalian species. We find significant similarity only in the homeodomains but none in other coding or the noncoding regions. We find this anomalous because all of the clusters are derived from a common ancestor and the expression patterns of all genes partially overlap. How might expression patterns be conserved, in part, while control sequences undergo major modification after cluster duplication? We postulate two interrelated processes. In the first, termed “fine-tuning”, the transcription factor binding elements that themselves cluster in modules or enhanceosomes undergo loss, gain, or modification randomly, but some of these changes are advantageous, and are selected or drift to fixation, resulting in novel adaptive patterns of expression (22). In the second process, termed “compensation”, sequence changes occur randomly and are not immediately eliminated by purifying selection because of redundancy or buffering in the overall enhancer module. Constant expression patterns are maintained by balancing selection for subsequent compensatory changes, as proposed by Kreitman and coworkers (23–26). We hypothesize that both these processes are occurring in theDlx bigene clusters. Thus, sequence modifications are constantly introduced, erasing the similarity in the sequences as originally inherited from the common ancestral cluster. Fine tuning in control elements results in functionally important changes in individual gene or cluster expression patterns while compensation maintains the overall similarities in the overlapping patterns of expression between the genes.
We report here initial transgenic experiments to directly ascertain the function of noncoding conserved elements. A reporter construct consisting of a 79-kb genomic fragment with aLacZ insertion in exon 1 of theDlx3 gene is capable of reconstituting expression in tail bud, limbs, and visceral arches in a manner closely resembling endogenousDlx3 expression in stage E9.5 and E10.5 embryos (Fig.5). This finding supports the view that most of the cis-elements required for properDlx3 expression are contained in the construct. In the visceral arches, theDlx37-lacZ-79kb construct can initiate mesenchymal expression in the distal tip of the arches at E9.5 where postmigratory neural crest cells are present. At stage E10.5, reporter expression is restricted to the caudal portion of the mandibular process in conformity with endogenous expression (9). In the fore and hind limb buds, expression is detected at E9.5. At this developmental stage, the reporter is expressed in a broad area of lateral epithelium and weakly in the AER. Expression is restricted to the AER later at E10.5. Reporter expression is absent in the fronto-nasal process althoughDlx3 transcripts are detected byin situ hybridization. This may be explained by the absence of certain control elements in our construct. In particular, theDlx3 5′-flanking portion ofDlx37-lacZ-79kb is relatively short, being only 7 kb in length.
TheDlx bigene clusters are notable in that the two genes have overlapping patterns of expression ≈E10.5. Ellieset al. (6) proposed that the similarities in expression pattern within a cluster are due to enhancer sharing between the linked genes, and they put forward three hypothetical models of the original tandem gene duplication to explain similarity in expression patterns. In model A, a single control element upstream of one gene can regulate both genes similarly. In model B, a single control element located in the intergenic region regulates both genes similarly. In model C, separate elements located upstream of each gene regulate both similarly. Models A and B are consistent with enhancer sharing betweenDlx7 andDlx3. Our transgene results with the constructDlx37-LacZ-19kb rule out model C because visceral arch expression ofDlx3 is lost when cis-elements proximal toDlx7 are deleted. This result argues in favor of enhancer sharing. We will reexamine this question by transgenic experiments in which the putative enhancer elements are deleted singly and in combination.
Acknowledgments
We thank Marc Ekker for sharing zebrafish sequence data and Günter Wagner for insightful comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant GM 09966 and National Science Foundation Grant IBN-9905403 (to F.H.R.); National Science Foundation/Sloan Postdoctoral Fellowship in Molecular Evolution (to S.Q.I.); and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research Abroad (to K.S.).
Abbreviations
- E
embryonic stage
- AER
apical ectodermal ridge
- PAC
P1 artificial chromosome
Footnotes
References
- 1.Simeone A, Acampora D, Pannese M, D'Esposito M, Stornaiuolo A, Gulisano M, Mallamaci A, Kastury K, Druck T, Huebner K, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:2250–2254. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.6.2250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.McGuinness T, Porteus M, Smiga S, Bulfone A, Kingsley C, Qiu M, Liu J, Long J, Xu D, Rubenstein J. Genomics. 1996;35:473–485. doi: 10.1006/geno.1996.0387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Nakamura S, Stock D W, Wydner K L, Bollekens J A, Takeshita K, Nagai B M, Chiba S, Kitamura T, Freeland T M, Zhao Z, et al. Genomics. 1996;38:314–324. doi: 10.1006/geno.1996.0634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Stock D W, Ellies D L, Zhao Z, Ekker M, Ruddle F H, Weiss K M. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:10858–10863. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.20.10858. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rossi E, Faiella A, Zeviani M, Labeit S, Floridia G, Brunelli S, Cammarata M, Boncinelli E, Zuffardi O. Genomics. 1994;24:34–40. doi: 10.1006/geno.1994.1579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Quint E, Zerucha T, Ekker M. J Exp Zool. 2000;288:235–241. doi: 10.1002/1097-010x(20001015)288:3<235::aid-jez4>3.0.co;2-j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ellies D L, Stock D W, Hatch G, Giroux G, Weiss K M, Ekker M. Genomics. 1997;45:580–590. doi: 10.1006/geno.1997.4978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Morasso M I, Grinberg A, Robinson G, Sargent T D, Mahon K A. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:162–167. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.1.162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Robinson G W, Mahon K A. Mech Dev. 1994;48:199–215. doi: 10.1016/0925-4773(94)90060-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Beanan M, Sargent T. Dev Dyn. 2000;218:545–553. doi: 10.1002/1097-0177(2000)9999:9999<::AID-DVDY1026>3.0.CO;2-B. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zhao Z, Stock D W, Buchanan A V, Weiss K M. Dev Genes Evol. 2000;210:270–275. doi: 10.1007/s004270050314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Weiss K M, Ruddle F H, Bollekens J. Connect Tissue Res. 1995;32:35–40. doi: 10.3109/03008209509013703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kawasaki K, Minoshima S, Nakato E, Shibuya K, Shintani A, Asakawa S, Sasaki T, Klobeck H-G, Combriato G, Zachau H G, et al. Eur J Immunol. 2001;31:1017–1028. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Schwartz S, Zhang Z, Frazer K A, Smit A, Riemer C, Bouck J, Gibbs R, Hardison R, Miller W. Genome Res. 2000;10:577–586. doi: 10.1101/gr.10.4.577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tatusova T A, Madden T L. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1999;174:247–250. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1999.tb13575.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bhargava J, Shashikant C, Carr J, Bentley K, Amemiya C, Ruddle F. Genomics. 1999;56:337–339. doi: 10.1006/geno.1998.5710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Bradshaw M S, Bollekens J A, Ruddle F H. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995;23:4850–4856. doi: 10.1093/nar/23.23.4850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bradshaw M S, Shashikant C S, Belting H-G, Bollekens J A, Ruddle F H. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:2426–2430. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.6.2426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Shashikant C S, Bieberich C J, Belting H G, Wang J C, Borbely M A, Ruddle F H. Development (Cambridge, UK) 1995;121:4339–4347. doi: 10.1242/dev.121.12.4339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Nei M, Gojobori T. Mol Biol Evol. 1986;3:418–426. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Force A, Lynch M, Pickett F B, Amores A, Yan Y, Postlethwait J. Genetics. 1999;151:1531–1545. doi: 10.1093/genetics/151.4.1531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Tautz D. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2000;10:575–579. doi: 10.1016/s0959-437x(00)00130-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kreitman M, Ludwig M. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 1996;7:583–592. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Ludwig M Z, Kreitman M. Mol Biol Evol. 1995;12:1002–1011. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ludwig M Z, Patel N H, Kreitman M. Development (Cambridge, UK) 1998;125:949–958. doi: 10.1242/dev.125.5.949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Ludwig M Z, Bergman C, Patel N H, Kreitman M. Nature (London) 2000;403:564–567. doi: 10.1038/35000615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]