Brinker is a sequence-specific transcriptional repressor in the ...

RESEARCH COMMUNICATION

Brinker is a sequence-specific transcriptional repressor in the Drosophila embryo Hailan Zhang, Michael Levine,2 and Hilary L. Ashe1 Department Molecular Cell Biology, Division of Genetics and Development, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA

A Dpp activity gradient specifies multiple thresholds of gene expression in the dorsal ectoderm of the early embryo. Some of these thresholds depend on a putative repressor, Brinker, which is expressed in the neurogenic ectoderm in response to the maternal Dorsal gradient and Dpp signaling. Here we show that Brinker is a sequence-specific transcriptional repressor. It binds the consensus sequence, TGGCGc/tc/t, and interacts with the Groucho corepressor through a conserved sequence motif, FKPY. An optimal Brinker binding site is contained within an 800-bp enhancer from the tolloid gene, which has been identified as a genetic target of the Brinker repressor. A tolloid-lacZ transgene containing point mutations in this site exhibits an expanded pattern of expression, suggesting that Brinker directly represses tolloid transcription. We discuss other examples of transcriptional repressors constraining the activities of signaling pathways. Received October 23, 2000; revised version accepted December 7, 2000.

Dpp signaling gradients pattern the dorsal ectoderm of gastrulating embryos and the wing imaginal disks of third-instar larvae (for review, see Podos and Ferguson 1999). In disks, the gradient is formed by the localized transcription of dpp at the anterior-posterior compartment boundary (e.g., Sanicola et al. 1995). The secreted Dpp protein is thought to diffuse away from this localized source to form a broad gradient across the presumptive wing blade. In embryos, dpp is uniformly transcribed throughout the dorsal ectoderm, but its activity is inhibited by an extracellular inhibitor, Sog, which is expressed in the neurogenic ectoderm (St. Johnston and Gelbart 1987; Francois et al. 1994; Holley et al. 1995; Marques et al. 1997). Sog-Dpp interactions create a Dpp activity gradient, with peak signaling in the dorsal-most regions (far from the localized source of Sog inhibitor) and lower levels in dorsolateral and lateral regions (Fer-

[Key Words: Brinkes repressor; Drosophila embryo; Dpp gradient] 1 Present Address: Centre for Developmental Genetics, Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK 2 Corresponding author. E-MAIL [email protected]; FAX (510) 643-5785. Article and publication are at www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/ gad.861201.

guson and Anderson 1992; Holley et al. 1995; Ashe and Levine 1999). Dpp directs several thresholds of gene activity. Peak levels activate target genes such as Race and hindsight within the presumptive amnioserosa (Rusch and Levine 1997; Yip et al. 1997; Ashe et al. 2000). Intermediate levels activate tail-up and u-shaped in the amnioserosa and dorsal epidermis (Frank and Rushlow 1996; Cubadda et al. 1997; Jazwinska et al. 1999b), whereas low levels directly or indirectly activate pannier and tolloid throughout the dorsal ectoderm (Ramain et al. 1993; Winick et al. 1993; Kirov et al. 1994; Jazwinska et al. 1999b; Ashe et al. 2000). Some of these thresholds depend on a putative repressor, Brinker, which is expressed in lateral stripes within the neurogenic ectoderm just outside the limits of the dorsal ectoderm (Jazwinska et al. 1999b Ashe et al. 2000). Here we present evidence that Brinker functions as a sequence-specific transcriptional repressor. Results Many sequence-specific repressors interact with one of two ubiquitous corepressor proteins in the early embryo, dCtBP and Groucho (e.g., Nibu et al. 1998b; Poortinga et al. 1998). Huckebein, Hairy, Goosecoid, and Engrailed are among the repressors that interact with Groucho (Paroush et al. 1994; Goldstein et al. 1999), whereas Kruppel, Knirps, and Snail interact with dCtBP (Nibu et al. 1998a). These corepressors interact with two distinct sequence motifs. Groucho interacts with W/F-RP-W/Y and FxLxxIL; dCtBP interacts with PxDLSxR/K/H. The 704-amino-acid Brinker protein contains potential dCtBP and Groucho motifs: PMDLSLG at position 377 and FKPY at position 461 (Campbell and Tomlinson 1999; Jazwinska et al. 1999a). Groucho is required for Brinker-mediated repression A GST–Brinker fusion protein was mixed with 35S-labeled dCtBP and Groucho proteins that were synthesized with a rabbit reticulocyte lysate. The fusion protein contains the entire Brinker sequence, amino acid residues 1–704. It weakly binds dCtBP (Fig. 1A, asterisk), but strongly interacts with Groucho (Fig. 1A, arrow). At least 20% of the total input Groucho protein specifically binds to the fusion protein. The conversion of the FKPY motif into AAGA results in a ∼10-fold reduction in binding (Fig. 1B). Brinker was misexpressed in transgenic embryos using the eve stripe 2 enhancer (Kosman and Small 1997; Fig. 2, cf. B with A). Normal and mutant versions of the gene (containing AAGA in place of FKPY) were examined. The anterior portion of the pannier expression pattern is repressed in embryos carrying the wild-type stripe2– Brinker transgene (Fig. 2C, arrowhead; Ashe et al. 2000). In contrast, the mutant transgene lacking the FKPY motif fails to repress pannier (Fig. 2D). This transgene me-

GENES & DEVELOPMENT 15:261–266 © 2001 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press ISSN 0890-9369/01 $5.00; www.genesdev.org

261

Zhang et al.

Figure 1. GST pull-down assays. (A) A GST–Brinker fusion protein containing the full-length Brinker (Brk) sequence was attached to glutathione-agarose beads and mixed with 35SdCtBP (CtBP) or 35S-Groucho. The bound protein was eluted and fractionated on a SDS-polyacrylamide gel. Aliquots containing 20% of the total amount of 35S-labeled protein used in the binding reactions were loaded in lanes 1 and 4. There is virtually no binding of either CtBP or Groucho to the GST moiety lacking Brinker sequences (lanes 2 and 5). Labeled dCtBP binds weakly to the GST–Brinker fusion protein (asterisk, lane 3), whereas Groucho binds strongly to the fusion protein (arrow, lane 6). (B) 35 S-labeled Groucho protein was incubated with GST, the wildtype GST–Brinker fusion protein, and a mutant version of the fusion protein containing AAGA in place of the FKPY motif (GST–Brk⌬FKPY). Groucho binds the wild-type fusion protein (lane 3) but exhibits only residual binding to the mutant protein (lane 4). There is no binding to the GST moiety (lane 2). Lane 1 contains 20% of the total amount of 35S-labeled Groucho protein used in the binding reactions.

diates weak repression of dpp (Fig. 2F, arrowhead), although the wild-type transgene produces a more substantial gap in the dpp pattern (Ashe et al. 2000; Fig. 2E, arrowhead). Identification of Brinker binding sites Brinker contains a potential helix–turn–helix motif, suggesting that it might bind specific DNA sequences. SELEX assays were done with random oligonucleotides and a GST–Brinker fusion protein that contains the putative helix–turn–helix motif (amino acid residues 44– 99). After four rounds of selection, a total of 12 random clones were selected and sequenced (Fig. 3A). Alignment of these sequences reveals a tightly conserved core motif, TGGCG. Eleven of the 12 sequences contain a T at position 1, whereas all 12 contain G, G, C, and G at positions 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. In addition, all 12 sequences contain either C or T at positions 6 and 7. Thus, the SELEX assays identify the following consensus sequence: T-G-G-C-G-t/c-t/c. Previous studies have identified several potential target genes that are regulated by the Brinker repressor, including tolloid, pannier, and tail-up (Jazwinska et al.

262

GENES & DEVELOPMENT

1999b; Ashe et al. 2000). Among these genes, tolloid has been studied in the most detail (Kirov et al. 1994; see below). The tolloid 5⬘ regulatory region contains an 800bp enhancer that has the potential to direct gene expression throughout precellular embryos (Kirov et al. 1994). It is kept off in ventral and lateral regions by the maternal Dorsal gradient. After cellularization, the enhancer directs restricted expression within the dorsal ectoderm in direct or indirect response to Dpp signaling. This pattern expands into lateral regions in Brinker− mutant embryos (Jazwinska et al. 1999b; see below). Inspection of the 800-bp enhancer sequence identifies three potential Brinker binding sites (Fig. 3B). Gel shift assays suggest that only one of these, site 2, binds Brinker (Fig. 3C, lanes 2,3). This site contains a perfect match to the consensus sequence. In contrast, sites 1 and 3 exhibit little or no binding (Fig. 3C, lanes 7,8,10,11) and contain 6 of 7 matches to the consensus recognition sequence. Additional binding assays were done with a larger DNA fragment containing both sites 1 and 2 (Fig. 3C, lanes 13,14). There is no evidence for cooperative DNA-binding interactions between sites 1 and 2 because a single protein–DNA complex is observed, similar to the Brinker–site 2 complex. Point mutations were introduced into the core TGGCG motif within the site 2 recognition sequence (Fig. 3B). The mutagenized binding site essentially fails to bind the GST–Brinker fusion protein (Fig. 3C, lanes 16,17). Brinker functions as a sequence-specific repressor in vivo By the onset of gastrulation, tolloid expression is restricted to the dorsal ectoderm and excluded from the neurogenic ectoderm in lateral regions (e.g., Fig. 4A, arrowheads). There is extensive modulation of the tolloid staining pattern along the anterior-posterior axis. Male embryos hemizygous for a null mutation in the Brinker gene, brkM68, exhibit altered patterns of tolloid expression, including lateral expansion into the neurogenic ectoderm (Fig. 4B, arrowheads; Jazwinska et al. 1999b). To determine whether Brinker–tolloid interactions are direct, site 2 was mutagenized in the context of an otherwise normal tolloid/lacZ transgene (see diagrams beneath Fig. 4C,D). The wild-type enhancer directs lacZ expression throughout the dorsal ectoderm; the pattern is quite similar to that observed for the endogenous gene (Fig. 4, cf. C with A). At this stage in development (midnuclear cleavage 14), expression is no longer under the control of the maternal Dorsal gradient but, instead, depends on Dpp signaling. Staining is excluded from the lateral neurogenic ectoderm where Brinker is expressed. The mutagenized tolloid enhancer directs a consistently expanded staining pattern (arrowheads, Fig. 4, cf. D with C). This altered pattern is similar to, but perhaps not quite as severe as, the expansion observed for the endogenous tolloid gene in Brinker− embryos (Fig. 4, cf. D with B). These results suggest that Brinker directly represses tolloid transcription in the neurogenic ectoderm.

Figure 2. Brinker represses pannier and dpp. Embryos were collected from transgenic strains containing either wild-type (C,E) or mutant (D,F) stripe2–Brinker transgenes. The embryos in A and B were hybridized with a Brinker antisense RNA probe, those in C and D were hybridized with a pannier probe, and the embryos in E and F were hybridized with a dpp probe. All embryos are undergoing cellularization and are oriented with anterior to the left. (A) Wild-type embryo. Brinker is expressed in two broad lateral stripes within the presumptive neurogenic ectoderm. (B) Same as A except that the embryo contains a copy of the wild-type stripe2–Brinker transgene (see diagram). The FRT–STOP–FRT cassette was removed by introducing the transgene into a parental male that expresses the FLP recombinase under the control of a sperm-specific tubulin promoter. The transgenic embryo exhibits both lateral neurogenic stripes and an ectopic stripe2–Brinker pattern. A similar staining pattern is observed for a mutant form of the stripe2–Brinker transgene containing AAGA in place of FKPY (data not shown). (C) The anterior portion of the pannier expression pattern (“stripe 1”) is repressed by the wild-type stripe2–Brinker transgene (arrowhead). (D) Same as C except that the embryo contains the mutant stripe2–Brinker transgene lacking the FKPY Groucho interaction motif. A normal pannier expression pattern is observed. In particular, stripe 1 is restored in anterior regions (arrowhead; cf. with C). (E) The wild-type stripe2–Brinker transgene produces a broad gap in the dpp expression pattern (arrowhead). (F) The mutant transgene retains some repression activity, although the gap in the pattern is not as pronounced as compared with that obtained with the wild-type transgene.

Discussion Brinker is the fourth sequence-specific repressor that has been shown to interact with Groucho through the tetrapeptide motif, aromatic-basic-pro-aromatic. The first version of this motif that was identified is WRPW, located at the carboxyl terminus of the Hairy repressor (Paroush et al. 1994; Fisher et al. 1996). The related WRPY motif was subsequently shown to mediate Runt– Groucho interactions (Aronson et al. 1997; Levanon et al. 1998), and FRPW permits Huckebein to bind Groucho (Goldstein et al. 1999). The Brinker repression domain identified in this study, FKPY, conforms to the other three Groucho motifs except for the lysine residue at position 2. Genetic studies are consistent with the occurrence of Brinker–Groucho interactions in the early embryo. The tail-up and pannier expression patterns appear to expand into lateral regions of embryos derived from groucho germ-line clones (H. Ashe, unpubl.). It is conceivable that Brinker mediates both Groucho-dependent and Groucho-independent transcriptional repression because the removal of the FKPY motif does not abolish the ability of an otherwise normal stripe2–-Brinker transgene to repress dpp expression (see Fig. 2). The residual activity of the mutagenized transgene might be mediated by cryptic Groucho interaction motifs in Brinker (see Fig.

1B). Alternatively, Brinker might repress certain target enhancers via competition between Smad activators and the Brinker repressor to overlapping DNA-binding sites. A similar situation has been described for the Kruppel and Knirps repressors. They require the dCtBP corepressor to regulate some, but perhaps not all, target genes (Nibu et al. 1998a; La Rosee-Borggreve et al. 1999; Keller et al. 2000). The Groucho and dCtBP corepressors might be required only when activators and repressors bind to distinct, nonoverlapping sites within a target enhancer. Dpp–Brinker interactions represent a particularly vivid example of how sequence-specific transcriptional repressors can limit inductive interactions by extracellular signaling molecules. Brinker helps promote neurogenesis by blocking Dpp signaling in the neurogenic ectoderm (Jazwinska et al. 1999b; Ashe et al. 2000). It might also work as a gradient repressor to subdivide the dorsal ectoderm into dorsal epidermis and amnioserosa. There are other examples of repressors limiting signaling pathways. High levels of the Spaetzle ligand lead to optimal activation of the Toll–Dorsal signaling pathway and the induction of the Snail repressor in the presumptive mesoderm of early embryos (for reviews, see Belvin and Anderson 1996; Rusch and Levine 1996). Snail prevents high levels of Spaetzle from activating neurogenic genes (e.g., Brinker, acaete-scute, and rhomboid) in the mesoderm.

GENES & DEVELOPMENT

263

Zhang et al.

The interplay between extracellular signaling molecules and localized transcriptional repressors is reminiscent of the segmentation pathway in the early Drosophila embryo. Pair-rule stripes of gene expression are established by broadly distributed transcriptional activators, such as Bicoid and dStat. The stripe borders are formed by localized gap repressors, including Hunchback, Kruppel, and Knirps (e.g., Small et al. 1991; Yan et al. 1996). Similarly, the activation of tolloid and pannier might depend on broadly distributed Smad proteins, whereas the lateral limits of the expression patterns are established by the localized Brinker repressor. It is likely that vertebrates also employ one or more transcriptional repressors to restrict TGF-␤ signaling interactions. Materials and methods GST pull-down assays Brinker coding sequences (codons 1–704 and 23–103) were cloned into the pGEX-5X-1 expression vector (Pharmacia). GST fusion proteins were induced in Escherichia coli strain BL21::De3pLysS as described by Nibu et al. (1998b). The fusion proteins were immobilized on glutathioneagarose beads (Sigma), and aliquots containing 5 µg of GST or GST– Brinker (1–704) were mixed with 5 µL of 35S-labeled dCtBP or Groucho proteins. These proteins were synthesized in the TNT transcription/ translation system (Promega) using pBluescript plasmids. Labeled proteins were eluted and fractionated by SDS-PAGE as described by Zhang et al. (1996).

SELEX assays Figure 3. DNA binding assays. (A) A GST–Brinker fusion protein containing amino acid residues 23–103 from Brinker was incubated with a mixture of 76mer oligonucleotides containing a variable central region of 26 nt. Twelve of the oligonucleotides were sequenced after four rounds of binding and gel fractionation (see Materials and Methods). All 12 sequences contain a common core motif that is indicated in boldface. (B) Summary of putative binding sites in the 800-bp tolloid enhancer. There are three sequences in the enhancer that contain at least a 6 of 7 match to the consensus (T-G-G-C-G-c/t-c/t). The sequences of each site are indicated beneath the diagram. Only site 2 contains a perfect match to the consensus. It was mutagenized (site 2M) by replacing the five core nucleotides (TGGCG into GTTTT). (C) Gel shift assays were done with double-stranded oligonucleotides containing each of the three potential Brinker binding sites from the tolloid enhancer. The oligonucleotides were labeled with 32P, mixed with the GST–Brinker (23–103) fusion protein, and fractionated on a polyacrylamide gel. A strong protein–DNA shifted complex is observed for site 2 (lanes 2,3). Lane 3 contains twice as much of the GST–Brinker fusion protein as lane 2; lane 1 displays the labeled probe without the fusion protein. Addition of a 40-fold (lane 4) or 80-fold (lane 5) molar excess of the unlabeled site 2 oligonucleotide inhibits the formation of shifted complexes. Neither site 1 (lanes 7,8) nor site 3 (lanes 10,11) exhibit binding to the GST– Brinker fusion protein. A larger oligonucleotide containing both sites 1 and 2 was labeled with 32P and incubated with the GST– Brinker fusion protein (lanes 13,14). The shifted complex is similar to the one obtained with the site 2 oligonucleotide (lanes 2,3), suggesting that the binding of the GST–Brinker protein to site 2 does not facilitate binding of site 1 via cooperative protein–protein interactions. There is a marked reduction in the binding of the GST–Brinker fusion protein to a mutant version of the site 1 + site 2 oligonucleotide containing the five substitutions in site 2 (lanes 16,17; see panel B)

264

GENES & DEVELOPMENT

A mixture of 76mer oligonucleotides containing 26 random residues was labeled with [␣-32P]dCTP (800 Ci/mmol; purchased from NEN) as described by Pollock (1996). Aliquots containing 1 µL of the labeled oligonucleotides (∼0.4 ng) were mixed with 0.65–1.3 µg of GST–Brinker (23– 103), and protein–DNA complexes were fractionated on polyacrylamide gels as described by Catron et al. (1993). The shifted complexes were eluted from the gel using a buffer containing 0.5 M ammonium acetate and 1 mM EDTA (pH 8). The eluted oligonucleotides were amplified by PCR (Pollock 1996) and mixed with the GST–Brinker fusion protein, as described above. After four rounds of selection, the DNA was amplified by PCR using 5⬘ and 3⬘ primers containing BamH1 and EcoRI restriction sites, respectively, and cloned into the pBluescript SK (+) vector (Stratagene). Twelve randomly selected recombinant plasmids were sequenced. Gel shift assays The GST–Brinker (23–103) fusion protein was mixed with the following double-stranded oligonucleotides that contain the three best matches to the Brinker consensus sequence (boldface) within the 800-bp tolloid enhancer: 5⬘-CTTCTGCCTGGCGTG GCAAGGT-3⬘ (site 1); 5⬘-CAAG AGCCATGGCGCTTCTGCC3⬘ (site 2); 5⬘-CTCCTCATTGGCGATTC GGGAT-3⬘ (site 3). Additional binding assays were done with both a wild-type doublestranded oligonucleotide containing sites 1 and 2, as well as a mutant version that contains single nucleotide substitutions within the core TGGCG motif (underlined): 5⬘-AGAGCCATGGCGCTTCTGCCTGGCGTGGCAAGGT-3⬘ (wild type); 5⬘-GCTATTCAAGAGCCAGTTTT CTTCTGCCTGGCGTGG-3⬘ (mutant). The double-stranded oligonucleotides were labeled with [␥-32P]ATP (6000 Ci/mmol; NEN) at the 5⬘-end using T4 polynucleotide kinase (New England Biolabs). Aliquots containing 1 µL of labeled DNA were mixed with 0.25–0.5 µg of the GST–Brinker fusion protein and fractionated on 5% polyacrylamide gels. Transgenic assays Wild-type and mutant Brinker coding sequences were cloned into the P-element transformation vector 22FPE containing two tandem copies of the eve stripe 2 enhancer (MSE) and an FRT-Stop-FRT cassette (Kosman and Small 1997). The FKPY motif (ttt aag ccc tat) at codons 461–464 was mutated to AAGA (gca gcc ggc gca) using PCR and mutant oligos. The

scribed by Small et al. (1992). The expression patterns of the lacZ reporter gene and various endogenous genes (e.g., Brinker, pannier, dpp) were visualized by in situ hybridization using digoxigenin-labeled antisense RNA probes (Jiang et al. 1991).

Acknowledgments We thank Michele Markstein and Angela Stathopoulos for helpful suggestions. This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH; GM46638; M.L.) and Wellcome Trust (061865; H.A). H.Z. is supported by an NIH postdoctoral fellowship (GM19516). The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Note added in proof Sivasankaran et al. (2000) recently reported direct regulatory interactions between Brinker and omb in the Drosophila wing imaginal disk.

References Aronson, B.D., Fisher, A.L., Blechman, K., Caudy, M., and Gergen, J.P. 1997. Groucho-dependent and -independent repression activities of Runt domain proteins. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17: 5581–5587. Ashe, H.L. and Levine, M. 1999. Local inhibition and longrange enhancement of Dpp signal transduction by Sog. Nature 398: 427–431. Ashe, H.L., Mannervik, M., and Levine, M. 2000. Dpp signaling thresholds in the dorsal ectoderm of the Drosophila embryo. Development 127: 3305–3312. Belvin, M.P. and Anderson, K.V. 1996. A conserved signaling pathway: The Drosophila toll–dorsal pathway. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 12: 393–416. Cai, H. and Levine, M. 1995. Modulation of enhancer-promoter interactions by insulators in the Drosophila embryo. Nature 376: 533–536. Campbell, G. and Tomlinson, A. 1999. Transducing the Dpp morphogen gradient in the wing of Drosophila: Regulation of Dpp targets by brinker. Cell 96: 553–562. Catron, K.M., Iler, N., and Abate, C. 1993. Nucleotides flanking a conserved TAAT core dictate the DNA binding specificity of three murine homeodomain proteins. Mol. Cell. Biol. 13: 2354–2365. Cubadda, Y., Heitzler, P., Ray, R.P., Bourouis, M., Ramain, P., Gelbart, W., Simpson, P., and Haenlin, M. 1997. Ushaped encodes a zinc finger protein that regulates the proneural genes achaete and scute during the formation of bristles in Drosophila. Genes & Dev. 11: 3083–3095. Ferguson, E.L. and Anderson, K.V. 1992. Decapentaplegic acts as a morphogen to organize dorsal-ventral pattern in the Drosophila embryo. Cell 71: 451–461. Fisher, A.L., Ohsako, S., and Caudy, M. 1996. The WRPW motif of the hairy-related basic helix–loop–helix repressor proteins acts as a 4-amino-acid transcription repression and protein–protein interaction domain. Mol. Cell. Biol. 16: 2670–2677. Francois, V., Solloway, M., O’Neill, J.W., Emery, J., and Bier, E. 1994. Dorsal-ventral patterning of the Drosophila embryo depends on a putative negative growth factor encoded by the short gastrulation gene. Genes & Dev. 8: 2602–2616. Frank, L.H. and Rushlow, C.A. 1996. A group of genes required for maintenance of the amnioserosa tissue in Drosophila. Development 122: 1343–1352. Goldstein, R.E., Jimenez, G., Cook, O., Gur, D., and Paroush, Z. 1999. Huckebein repressor activity in Drosophila terminal patterning is mediated by Groucho. Development 126: 3747–3755. Holley, S.A., Jackson, P.D., Sasai, Y., Lu, Y.B., De Robertis, E.M., Hoffmann, F.M., and Ferguson, E.L. 1995. A conserved system for dorsal-

Figure 4. Expression of tolloid/lacZ transgenes. Embryos were collected from wild type, Brinker mutant (brkM68), and transgenic strains that contain either a wild-type or mutant version of the tolloid/lacZ fusion gene (see diagrams beneath panels C and D). Embryos have completed cellularization and are oriented with anterior to the left and dorsal up. They were hybridized with either a tolloid (A,B) or lacZ (C,D) antisense RNA. (A) Wild-type embryo hybridized with a tolloid probe. Staining is restricted to the dorsal ectoderm. The pattern has been resolved into a series of stripes and bands along the anterior-posterior axis (e.g., arrowheads). (B) Mutant embryo derived from brkM68 heterozygous female. The tolloid staining pattern is expanded and extends into the lateral neurogenic ectoderm (e.g., arrowheads). (C) Transgenic embryo that expresses the wild-type tolloid/lacZ transgene. The lacZ staining pattern is restricted to the dorsal ectoderm and includes various stripes and bands along the anterior-posterior axis. Two of the stripes are indicated by arrowheads. The overall lacZ pattern is very similar to the expression pattern of the endogenous tolloid gene (A). (D) Same as C except that the embryo contains a mutant version of the tolloid enhancer with nucleotide substi-tutions in the core TGGCG motif. The lacZ staining pattern is somewhat broader than the normal pattern. In particular, the two stripes indicated by arrowheads expand into lateral regions. This expansion is similar to the one observed for the endogenous tolloid gene in brkM68 mutants (B). mutation introduces a NgoMIV site (gccggc). SpeI–NgoMIV and NgoMIV– Eag1 PCR fragments were ligated into SpeI–EagI digested SKAsc2brk (Ashe et al. 2000), and the mutant Brinker gene was transferred as an AscI fragment into the 22FPE vector. Both the wild-type and mutant (⌬FKPY) stripe2–Brinker transgenes were crossed into males that express the yeast Flp recombinase in sperm (Kosman and Small 1997). The recombinase removes the Stop cassette, thereby permitting expression of the transgenes in F1 embryos. Previous studies have identified an 800-bp enhancer from the tolloid 5⬘ flanking region that is sufficient to direct the expression of a lacZ reporter gene within the dorsal ectoderm of transgenic embryos (Kirov et al. 1994). The enhancer was cloned into a modified version of the −42-bp eve–lacZ P-element transformation vector, which contains the eve promoter and lacZ reporter gene (Small et al. 1992). This modified vector, eve2gypsy, contains a unique NotI cloning site and two copies of the 340-bp gypsy insulator DNA (e.g., Cai and Levine 1995) inserted into the EcoRI and PstI sites. The insulators are located 5⬘ of the tolloid enhancer and 3⬘ of the lacZ gene to limit the effects of neighboring cis-regulatory elements (position effects). Both the wild-type enhancer and a mutant version containing point mutations in site 2 within the core TGGCG motif (Fig. 4) were cloned into the P-element vector. Transformation vectors were introduced into the yw67 strain as de-

GENES & DEVELOPMENT

265

Zhang et al.

ventral patterning in insects and vertebrates involving sog and chordin. Nature 376: 249–253. Jazwinska, A., Kirov, N., Wieschaus, E., Roth, S., and Rushlow, C. 1999a. The Drosophila gene brinker reveals a novel mechanism of Dpp target gene regulation. Cell 96: 563–573. Jazwinska A., Rushlow, C., and Roth, S. 1999b. The role of brinker in mediating the graded response to Dpp in early Drosophila embryos. Development 126: 3323–3334. Jiang, J., Kosman, D., Ip, Y.T., and Levine, M. 1991. The dorsal morphogen gradient regulates the mesoderm determinant twist in early Drosophila embryos. Genes & Dev. 5: 1881–1891. Keller, S.A., Mao, Y., Struffi, P., Margulies, G., Yurk, C.E., Anderson, A.R., Amey, R.L., Moore, S., Ebels, J.M., Foley, K., et al. 2000. dCtBPdependent and -independent repression activities of the Drosophila knirps protein. Mol. Cell. Biol. 20: 7247–7258. Kirov, N., Childs, S., O’Connor, M., and Rushlow, C. 1994. The Drosophila dorsal morphogen represses the tolloid gene by interacting with a silencer element. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14: 713–722. Kosman, D. and Small, S. 1997. Concentration-dependent patterning by an ectopic expression domain of the Drosophila gap gene knirps. Development 124: 1343–1354. La Rosee-Borggreve, A., Hader, T., Wainwright, D., Sauer, F., and Jackle, H. 1999. hairy stripe 7 element mediates activation and repression in response to different domains and levels of Kruppel in the Drosophila embryo. Mech. Dev. 89: 133–140. Levanon, D., Goldstein, R.E., Bernstein, Y., Tang, H., Goldenberg, D., Stifani, S., Paroush, Z., and Groner, Y. 1998. Transcriptional repression by AML1 and LEF-1 is mediated by the TLE/Groucho corepressors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95: 11590–11595. Marques, G., Musacchio, M., Shimell, M.J., Wunnenberg-Stapleton, K., Cho, K.W., and O’Connor, M.B. 1997. Production of a DPP activity gradient in the early Drosophila embryo through the opposing actions of the SOG and TLD proteins. Cell 91: 417–426. Nibu, Y., Zhang, H., Bajor, E., Barolo, S., Small, S., and Levine, M. 1998a. dCtBP mediates transcriptional repression by Knirps, Kruppel and Snail in the Drosophila embryo. EMBO J. 17: 7009–7020. Nibu, Y., Zhang, H., and Levine, M. 1998b. Interaction of short-range repressors with Drosophila CtBP in the embryo. Science 280: 101– 104. Paroush, Z., Finley Jr., R.L., Kidd, T., Wainwright, S.M., Ingham, P.W., Brent, R., and Ish-Horowicz, D. 1994. Groucho is required for Drosophila neurogenesis, segmentation, and sex determination and interacts directly with hairy-related bHLH proteins. Cell 79: 805–815. Podos, S.D. and Ferguson, E.L. 1999. Morphogen gradients: New insights from DPP. Trends Genet. 15: 396–402. Pollock, R.M. 1996. Determination of protein–DNA sequence specificity by PCR-assisted binding-site selection. In Current protocols in molecular biology (ed. F.M. Ausubel et al.), pp. 12.11.1–12.11.11. Wiley. Poortinga, G., Watanabe, M., and Parkhurst, S.M. 1998. Drosophila CtBP: A Hairy-interacting protein required for embryonic segmentation and hairy-mediated transcriptional repression. EMBO J. 17: 2067–2078. Ramain, P., Heitzler, P., Haenlin, M., and Simpson, P. 1993. Pannier, a negative regulator or achaete and scute in Drosophila, encodes a zinc finger protein with homology to the vertebrate factor GATA-1. Development 119: 1277–1291. Rusch, J. and Levine, M. 1996. Threshold responses to the dorsal regulatory gradient and the subdivision of primary tissue territories in the Drosophila embryo. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 6: 416–423. ———. 1997. Regulation of a dpp target gene in the Drosophila embryo. Development 124: 303–311. Sanicola, M., Sekelsky, J., Elson, S., and Gelbart, W.M. 1995. Drawing a stripe in Drosophila imaginal disks: Negative regulation of decapentaplegic and patched expression by engrailed. Genetics 139: 745–756. Sivasankaran R., Vigano, M.A., Muller, B., Affolter, M., Basler, K. 2000. Direct transcriptional control of the dpp target omb by the DNA binding protein brinker. EMBO J. 19: 6162–6172. Small, S., Kraut, R., Hoey, T., Warrior, R., and Levine, M. 1991. Transcriptional regulation of a pair-rule stripe in Drosophila. Genes & Dev. 5: 827–839. Small, S., Blair, A., and Levine, M. 1992. Regulation of even-skipped stripe 2 in the Drosophila embryo. EMBO J. 11: 4047–4057. St. Johnston, R.D. and Gelbart, W.M. 1987. Decapentaplegic transcripts are localized along the dorsal–ventral axis of the Drosophila embryo.

266

GENES & DEVELOPMENT

EMBO J. 6: 2785–2791. Winick, J., Abel, T., Leonard, M.W., Michelson, A.M., Chardon-Loriaux, I., Holmgren, R.A., Maniatis, T., and Engel, J.D. 1993. A GATA family transcription factor is expressed along the embryonic dorsoventral axis in Drosophila melanogaster. Development 119: 1055–1065. Yan, R., Small, S., Desplan, C., Dearolf, C.R., and Darnell, Jr., J.E. 1996. Identification of a Stat gene that functions in Drosophila development. Cell 84: 421–430. Yip, M.L., Lamka, M.L., and Lipshitz, H.D. 1997. Control of germ-band retraction in Drosophila by the zinc-finger protein HINDSIGHT. Development 124: 2129–2141. Zhang, H., Catron, K.M., and Abate-Shen, C. 1996. A role for the Msx-1 homeodomain in transcriptional regulation: Residues in the N-terminal arm mediate TATA binding protein interaction and transcriptional repression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93: 1764–1769.