GATA switches as developmental drivers

Supplemental Material can be found at: http://www.jbc.org/content/suppl/2010/10/07/285.41.31087.DC1.html

MINIREVIEW

This paper is available online at www.jbc.org THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY VOL. 285, NO. 41, pp. 31087–31093, October 8, 2010 © 2010 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc. Printed in the U.S.A.

GATA Switches as Developmental Drivers* Published, JBC Papers in Press, July 29, 2010, DOI 10.1074/jbc.R110.159079

Emery H. Bresnick‡1, Hsiang-Ying Lee‡2, Tohru Fujiwara‡, Kirby D. Johnson‡, and Sunduz Keles§ From the ‡Division of Hematology/Oncology, Departments of Pharmacology and Medicine, Paul Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin 53705 and the §Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

The actions of diverse signaling and regulatory factors must be intricately interwoven to ensure the flawless execution of complex developmental processes. Major efforts are ongoing to dissect how such networks are established and remodeled. This is particularly challenging given the large number of variables involved, as a complete inventory of relevant signals/factors is often unavailable. Furthermore, the necessity to consider the dynamics of the underlying mechanisms creates formidable obstacles. With the major progress in dissecting mechanisms underlying hematopoiesis, in which stem cells differentiate into multipotent progenitors, lineage-committed progenitors, and ultimately diverse blood cell types (Fig. 1), this is a particularly attractive system for addressing these issues. Hematopoiesis is controlled by numerous transcription and signaling factors with tightly integrated functions (1). Foundational studies defined the involvement of members of a family of developmental regulators, the GATA transcription factors (2– 6). GATA-1, GATA-2, and GATA-3 are termed the hematopoietic GATA factors, based on their important activities to control distinct and overlapping aspects of hematopoiesis (7). GATA-1 is expressed in erythroid precursors, megakaryocytes, eosinophils, and mast cells, as well as testis (3, 4, 8 –10).

GATA Factor-dependent Transcriptional Control Foundational Studies—GATA factors have a characteristic dual zinc finger module that is highly conserved among the six mammalian proteins (23). The C-terminal finger mediates sequence-specific DNA binding (24 –26), whereas the N-terminal finger modulates DNA binding and contacts DNA with sequence specificity in certain contexts (Fig. 2) (24, 27, 28). The zinc fingers interact with multiple coregulators, which are discussed below. By contrast to the highly conserved fingers, GATA factor N and C termini are divergent. The N and C termini confer differential stabilities to GATA-1 and GATA-2, with GATA-1 being more stable than GATA-2 (29). GATA-1, but not GATA-2, contains sequences within the N terminus that bind the retinoblastoma protein (30). The GATA-1 N terminus is differentially required for the control of distinct target genes (31). Within the GATA-1 N terminus is a sumoylation site (Lys137) (32) that facilitates GATA-1-mediated activation and repression of select target genes (33). However, many questions remain unanswered regarding how the N and C termini of different GATA factors function. The molecular principles underlying GATA factor function have emerged largely from studies of GATA-1 and GATA-2. Pioneering work by Evans and Felsenfeld identified a common DNA motif (WGATAR) present at cis-regulatory elements that activate transcription in an erythroid cell-specific manner (2). These studies laid the foundation for the cloning of GATA-1, the founding member of the GATA factor family (3, 4). Elegant functional analyses utilizing knock-out ES cells and mutant mouse strains unequivocally established a role for GATA-1 in controlling red blood cell, megakaryocyte, mast cell, and eosinophil development (34 – 41). The cloning of GATA-1 ushered in the discovery of additional GATA factor family members. Coregulator Usage—Having established the GATA factor family and implicated GATA factors as critical regulators of specific developmental processes, a paramount question was whether they function through canonical transcriptional mechanisms, or if their mechanisms differ fundamentally from conventional transcription factors. Yeast two-hybrid screening

* This work was supported, in whole or in part, by National Institutes of Health Grants DK50107 and DK68034. This minireview will be reprinted in the 2010 Minireview Compendium, which will be available in January, 2011. To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. 2 Supported by an American Heart Association predoctoral fellowship. 1

OCTOBER 8, 2010 • VOLUME 285 • NUMBER 41

3

The abbreviations used are: HSC, hematopoietic stem cell; NuRD, nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase; CtBP, C-terminal domain-binding protein; CBP, cAMP-responsive element-binding protein-binding protein.

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY

31087

Downloaded from www.jbc.org at University of Wisconsin-Madison, on December 1, 2010

Transcriptional networks orchestrate complex developmental processes. Such networks are commonly instigated by master regulators of development. Considerable progress has been made in elucidating GATA factor-dependent genetic networks that control blood cell development. GATA-2 is required for the genesis and/or function of hematopoietic stem cells, whereas GATA-1 drives the differentiation of hematopoietic progenitors into a subset of the blood cell lineages. GATA-1 directly represses Gata2 transcription, and this involves GATA-1-mediated displacement of GATA-2 from chromatin, a process termed a GATA switch. GATA switches occur at numerous loci with critical functions, indicating that they are widely utilized developmental control tools.

GATA-2 is expressed in hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs),3 multipotent hematopoietic progenitors, erythroid precursors, megakaryocytes, eosinophils, and mast cells (11–13). Beyond the hematopoietic system, GATA-2 is expressed in differentiated endothelial cells (5, 14) and in specific neurons (15–17). GATA-3 is expressed in HSCs, T-lymphocytes, neurons, kidney, and mammary gland (18 –20). GATA-4, GATA-5, and GATA-6 are expressed in endoderm- and mesoderm-derived tissues and control such critical processes as heart and lung development (21, 22). Analogous to their shared and unique biological roles, GATA factors have both common and distinct biochemical attributes.

MINIREVIEW: GATA Factor Mechanisms

FIGURE 2. Functional attributes of GATA-1. Murine GATA-1 sequences within its N terminus are implicated in conferring transactivation. These sequences include the sumoylation site Lys137 (32), which facilitates GATA-1 activity in a context-dependent manner (33). Met83 represents an alternative translation start site that yields a leukemogenic GATA-1 protein in acute megakaryoblastic leukemia (87). As described in the text, the C-terminal finger mediates binding to GATA motifs, whereas the N-terminal finger stabilizes DNA binding and mediates sequence-specific DNA binding in certain contexts. The zinc fingers (ZnF) mediate multiple protein/protein interactions, with the FOG-1 interaction with the N-terminal finger being particularly critical. EKLF, erythroid Kru¨ppel-like factor.

revealed a cell type-restricted coregulator designated FOG-1 (friend of GATA-1), which, like GATA-1, is required for erythropoiesis and megakaryopoiesis (42, 43). Using a novel mammalian suppressor mutation approach, the functional importance of the GATA-1/FOG-1 interaction was established (44). Even mutation of a single residue (Val205) in the GATA-1 N-terminal zinc finger sufficed to reduce FOG-1 binding to GATA-1, and strikingly, Val205 mutations characterize a human hematopoietic disorder, familial dyserythropoietic anemia and thrombocytopenia (45). Although numerous GATA-1 target genes are activated or repressed via a FOG-1-dependent mechanism (44), several have been shown to be activated or repressed without FOG-1 (33, 46, 47). Although FOG-1 has nine zinc fingers, they have not been shown to have intrinsic DNA binding activity. At least one of their functions is to mediate GATA-1 binding, as four fingers contact the GATA-1 N-terminal finger (48, 49). FOG-1 facili-

31088 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY

VOLUME 285 • NUMBER 41 • OCTOBER 8, 2010

Downloaded from www.jbc.org at University of Wisconsin-Madison, on December 1, 2010

FIGURE 1. GATA-1 directly represses the Gata2 locus during hematopoiesis. GATA-2 occupies multiple regulatory regions (GATA switch sites) at its own locus (71–73). Upon induction of GATA-1 expression, GATA-1 displaces GATA-2 (GATA switch), instigating transcriptional repression. Although the GATA switch is depicted to occur in the erythroid lineage, GATA-1 is also expressed in megakaryocytes, eosinophils, and mast cells, but mechanistic analyses of GATA switches are incomplete in these systems. CLP, common lymphoid progenitor; GMP, granulocyte-monocyte progenitor; BFU-E, burstforming unit-erythroid; CFU-E, colony-forming unit-erythroid; CMP, common myeloid progenitor; MEP, megakaryocyte-erythroid progenitor; Pro Ery, proerythroblast; Poly, polychromatic normoblast; Ret, reticulocyte.

tates GATA-1 occupancy of a subset of its chromatin target sites (50, 51) and GATA-1-dependent chromatin looping (52). Because GATA-1-instigated looping requires GATA-1 chromatin occupancy, FOG-1-induced looping may be secondary to its facilitation of GATA-1 chromatin occupancy or may represent a novel pro-looping activity. In aggregate, it appears that GATA-1 utilizes a non-canonical transcriptional mechanism. However, FOG-1 contains an N-terminal sequence that binds the NuRD chromatin-remodeling complex (53), raising the possibility that FOG-1 also functions via a conventional mechanism to mediate recruitment of chromatin-remodeling and/or chromatin-modifying components. Analyses of knock-in mice lacking this NuRD-binding region indicated its importance for regulating erythropoiesis and megakaryopoiesis (54, 55). The mutant mice are viable, however, and defects are not as pronounced as those of GATA-1- and FOG-1-null mice. FOG-1 also contains a sequence that binds the corepressor CtBP (56), which associates with the histone demethylase LSD1 (lysinespecific demethylase 1) (57). A knock-in mouse bearing a deletion of the CtBP-binding sequence lacks a phenotype (58), although the CtBP interaction was not completely abolished by the mutation (59). Because FOG-1 translational isoforms differentially bind CtBP (59), a further assessment of the functional importance of this interaction is warranted. Besides FOG-1 binding, the zinc finger module of GATA-1 binds the histone acetyltransferase CBP/p300 (60), which commonly mediates trans-acting factor function (61), and the Mediator complex subunit MED1 (62). GATA-1 recruits CBP/ p300 (47, 63, 64), MED1 (65), and the chromatin remodeler BRG1 (66) to chromatin sites in a context-dependent manner. Unlike FOG-1 binding, the molecular underpinnings of these interactions are unresolved. Studies with BRG1 knock-out mice indicate that BRG1 mediates chromatin looping at the ␤- and ␣-globin loci and confers maximal transcriptional activity of the adult globin genes (47, 66 – 68). Knockdown studies suggest that MED1 modestly contributes to GATA-1 activity at endogenous loci (65), whereas the relative importance of CBP/p300 binding for GATA-1 function in vivo remains unclear. Negotiating Chromatin—As literally millions of WGATAR motifs reside in complex genomes, this raises the question of whether GATA-1 occupies the majority or minority of these sites in vivo (69). With the development of ChIP assays to measure GATA-1 and GATA-2 chromatin occupancy, it became clear that only a small subset of the WGATAR motifs (even when evolutionarily conserved) are occupied in cells (70 –73). Recent genome-wide analyses confirmed that GATA-1 (74 – 76) and GATA-2 (74) discriminate exquisitely among highly abundant WGATAR motifs in genomes. In erythroid precursor cells, GATA-1 and GATA-2 share many chromatin sites, although GATA-1- and GATA-2-selective sites also exist (74). GATA-1/2 occupancy sites commonly reside distal to promoters, indicative of a canonical long-range mechanism, although a minority (⬃10%) of the sites are promoter-localized (74). De novo motif finding with GATA-1 genomic data sets led to the refinement of the GATA-1-binding sequence WGATAR to yield (CG)(AT)GATAA(GAC)(GAC) (74). Although GATA-1 occupies a significantly greater percentage of these extended

MINIREVIEW: GATA Factor Mechanisms

OCTOBER 8, 2010 • VOLUME 285 • NUMBER 41

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY

31089

Downloaded from www.jbc.org at University of Wisconsin-Madison, on December 1, 2010

sequences of the GATA motif at the shared sites, consistent with their highly similar DNA-binding domains. As GATA-1 and GATA-2 function redundantly to support the genesis and/or survival of primitive erythroblasts (41), this is consistent with the finding that both factors share a large cohort of target genes. Furthermore, either the GATA-1 or GATA-2 interaction with FOG-1 is sufficient to support megakaryopoiFIGURE 3. GATA switch model. In early-stage erythroblasts, GATA-2 and FOG-1 colocalize at chromatin sites, and upon elevation of GATA-1 levels as erythropoiesis proceeds, GATA-1 displaces GATA-2. FOG-1 facilitates esis (78). GATA-1 occupancy and GATA switches, but in certain contexts, GATA-1 chromatin occupancy appears to be In certain contexts, GATA-1 and FOG-1-independent. As the GATA-1 N-terminal zinc finger can contact multiple FOG-1 zinc fingers (48, 49), we GATA-2 exert distinct activities. predict that GATA-1 enters the GATA-2䡠FOG-1 complex, creating a transient biochemical intermediate in which both GATA factors engage distinct FOG-1 zinc fingers simultaneously. Proteasome inhibitors stabilize GATA-2 GATA-2 uniquely regulates early and impair GATA switches (29), and therefore, the low stability of GATA-2 appears to ensure efficient GATA hematopoiesis by controlling the switches. However, whether the proteasome acts on chromatin-bound GATA-2 in unknown. An additional key aspect of the mechanism that requires additional study is to establish the precise precursor during hemato- genesis and/or survival of HSCs poiesis in vivo in which GATA-1 levels rise sufficiently to gain a competitive advantage over GATA-2 bound to and/or multipotent progenitors (11, chromatin target sites. Given the role of FOG-1 in promoting switches, presumably mechanisms that increase 12, 79). GATA-2, but not GATA-1, or decrease FOG-1 activity and/or alter FOG-1 levels control GATA switches, but this possibility has not yet been knock-out hematopoietic precurexperimentally tested. sors are competent to undergo versus WGATAR motifs, the percent of occupied motifs is still erythroid and myeloid terminal differentiation (12). In a low, indicating the importance of parameters distinct from the GATA-1 knock-out context in which erythropoiesis is blocked, GATA-2 is up-regulated, and this is insufficient to support motif itself. What additional mechanisms facilitate and/or preclude erythropoiesis (80, 81). GATA-2, but not GATA-1, is crucial for GATA factor chromatin occupancy? FOG-1 facilitates mast cell development (12). Based on these differences, it is GATA-1 chromatin occupancy (50, 51), but this mechanism is attractive to propose that GATA-1 and GATA-2 function disoperational only at certain sites. Another parameter likely to be tinctly in different regulatory milieus. Given the common sharimportant is nearest-neighbor cis-elements. Genomic analyses ing of target sites, either GATA-1 and GATA-2 function disrevealed enrichments of several cis-elements at GATA-1 occu- tinctly through common sites, thereby yielding different pancy sites (74, 77), albeit the sequences lacked strong predic- biological activities, or GATA-1- and GATA-2-selective targets tive power. Finally, the chromatin environment in which underlie the unique biological outputs. The concept that GATA factors can function differently GATA motifs reside is almost certainly critical. The epigenetic landscape at GATA-2-occupied and GATA-2-unoccupied through shared chromatin sites emerged from studies on how conserved GATA motifs differs greatly (77). Diacetylated H3 GATA-1 represses transcription (23, 71). Although GATA-1 and H3-dimeK4 are enriched at occupied sites, whereas H3-tri- and GATA-2 were known to be expressed reciprocally during meK9 and H3-trimeK27 are often under-represented. Unoccu- erythropoiesis (8, 80, 81), mechanisms underlying these patpied sites are characterized by high-level H3-trimeK9 or terns were unclear. We demonstrated that GATA-1 directly H3-trimeK27 (and occasionally both) and are often devoid of represses Gata2 transcription using a complementation assay the active marks (77). Genome-wide comparisons of GATA-1 in the GATA-1-null proerythroblast-like cell G1E (71). GATAoccupancy and histone marks also revealed distinct patterns at 1-mediated Gata2 repression was associated with GATA-1 GATA-1-bound versus GATA-1-unoccupied sites. The dis- occupancy at five dispersed regions of the Gata2 locus (⫺77, tinctive histone marks may be primary determinants of GATA ⫺3.9, ⫺2.8, ⫺1.8, and ⫹9.5 kb relative to the 1S promoter tranfactor occupancy, perhaps through direct interactions with one scription start site), broad histone deacetylation, and RNA or more GATA factor complex components. Alternatively, polymerase II expulsion (72, 73, 82). GATA-2 associates with GATA factors may recruit the respective chromatin-modifying these identical sites when Gata2 is transcriptionally active. components that establish and/or maintain the specific pat- Studies in zebrafish revealed that, although GATA-2 is terns. Distinguishing between these possibilities will be essen- expressed earlier than GATA-1 during embryogenesis, GATA-1 and GATA-2 are expressed in primitive blood precurtial to understand how GATA factors select chromatin sites. sors (83). Only loss of GATA-1 induces a fate switch involving Integrating GATA Factor Mechanisms via GATA Switches conversion of primitive blood precursors into myeloid cells GATA Switch Model—Studies of GATA factor mechanisms rather than predominant red blood cells (84). In addition, evirevealed compelling similarities between the actions of differ- dence was provided for GATA-1-specific and GATA-1/2ent GATA factors. GATA-1 and GATA-2 bind chromatin sites shared target genes in this system. We proposed the GATA switch model, in which GATA-1 with high selectivity and share the majority of target sites in the cells studied (64, 71, 73, 74). Their mode of chromatin recogni- displaces GATA-2 from chromatin sites, often (but not always) tion appears to be nearly identical, at least based on the precise instigating a distinct transcriptional output (Fig. 3) (23, 71, 85).

MINIREVIEW: GATA Factor Mechanisms

31090 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY

another target that controls the GATA switch. To distinguish among these possibilities, it will be instructive to test whether stabilized GATA-2 mutants are refractory to GATA-1-mediated expulsion from chromatin. Studies in FOG-1-null hematopoietic precursors expressing endogenous GATA-1 and GATA-2 revealed that expressing estrogen receptor/GATA-1 ⬃30-fold higher than endogenous GATA-1 is insufficient to displace GATA-2 from chromatin (51). As GATA switches are rescued by expressing FOG-1, FOG-1 promotes GATA switches. This activity might reflect FOG-1 chromatin occupancy facilitator activity, which enhances GATA-1 chromatin occupancy at select sites (51), or its role in mediating GATA-1-dependent chromatin looping (52). Regardless, FOG-1 is a determinant of GATA switches. Is the FOG-1 activity to promote GATA switches intrinsic to FOG-1, or does it require associated components, perhaps with specific enzymatic activities? Because FOG-1 co-purifies with theNuRDcomplex(53),theFOG-1activitymightrequireNuRDdependent chromatin remodeling and/or other activities. Knock-in mice have been generated in which endogenous FOG-1 was replaced with N-terminal mutants defective in NuRD binding (e.g. FOG-1R3K5A) (54, 55). Although these mice do not precisely phenocopy GATA-1- or FOG-1-null mice, they exhibit defective erythropoiesis and megakaryopoiesis, consistent with impaired GATA-1 function. As GATA-2 expression is elevated in megakaryocytic and erythroid precursors from FOG-1R3K5A mice, the authors concluded that FOG-1 binding to NuRD is required for GATA switches that repress Gata2 transcription (55). The biochemical underpinnings of this requirement are unclear, but importantly, the mechanism by which a trans-acting factor utilizes coregulators to displace a related protein with distinct activities from a chromatin site represents a new paradigm. In the context of molecular endocrinology, steroidal or nonsteroidal small molecule ligands bind to nuclear receptors, inducing a switch in receptor binding to corepressors or coactivators (89). Although GATA switches are not instigated by ligands, whether GATA switches share common attributes with these ligand-dependent switches requires further investigation. As GATA-1 recruits additional coregulators, including MED1 (62), BRG1 (64, 66), and CBP/p300 (60), it will be important to determine whether the FOG-1/NuRD requirement for GATA switches is unique or if any coregulator that promotes GATA-1 activity also facilitates GATA switches.

GATA Switches beyond Red Blood Cell Development Because multiple GATA factors can be expressed in the same cell type and/or distinct cells in a cell lineage and have a common naked DNA binding specificity, distinct GATA factors may commonly compete for identical chromatin sites. If different GATA factors exert qualitatively or quantitatively distinct activities, this would be analogous to the erythroid GATA switch. Although this is largely unexplored, evidence has emerged consistent with GATA switches in mast cells, megakaryocytes, and trophoblasts. Analogous to the erythroid GATA-1/2 switch, a similar switch has been described in mast cells (90). FOG-1 expression in mast cell precursors blocks their maturation into VOLUME 285 • NUMBER 41 • OCTOBER 8, 2010

Downloaded from www.jbc.org at University of Wisconsin-Madison, on December 1, 2010

Of note, we define “GATA switch” as the replacement of one GATA factor by another at a chromatin site and not the loss of expression of a GATA factor concomitant with expression of a distinct GATA factor. This is an important difference because the expression of specific GATA factors changes during development, and such changes are often measured in cell populations. Thus, a change in GATA factor expression in a cell population may not necessarily reflect a switch in the expression of specific GATA factors in the same cell, and therefore, in this scenario, a GATA factor would not have the opportunity to displace a distinct GATA factor from a common chromatin target site. Furthermore, although GATA factor concentrations are certainly important determinants of switches, as noted below, other factors can be critical regulators of the switch in chromatin site occupancy. A change in factor concentration therefore may be insufficient to instigate a bona fide switch at a target gene. GATA switches occur in primary cells and in vivo (55, 86). Three aspects of this proposed mechanism are of considerable interest. First, GATA factors have the capacity to function differently through identical chromatin sites. Second, because GATA switches occur at genes encoding critical regulators of hematopoiesis (e.g. Gata2), the switches may drive hematopoiesis. Finally, given mutations of GATA-1 and GATA-2 in human leukemias (87, 88), such alterations may impede GATA switches as a key step in hematologic malignancies. Molecular Determinants of GATA Switches—In the context of naked DNA, the capacity of a protein to displace another from a common binding site is dictated by well defined biophysical parameters of the binding reactions. However, given the unpredictable influence of chromatin on DNA-binding site affinities, the residence of DNA-binding components in large multiprotein complexes, and poorly understood forces exerted by the subnuclear environment, defining the biophysical attributes of a displacement reaction, such as a GATA switch, in vivo is fraught with difficulties. Despite this formidable hurdle, progress has been made in dissecting GATA switch mechanisms. The initial studies on GATA switches utilized a conditionally active GATA-1 protein containing the estrogen receptor ligand-binding domain expressed at a level similar to that of endogenous GATA-1 in erythroleukemia cells and erythroblasts (71, 73). Estrogen receptor/GATA-1 displacement of GATA-2 from chromatin increases in a graded fashion upon increasing the ligand concentration or time in the presence of a maximally effective ligand concentration. Thus, the ratio of the concentrations of active GATA-1 to GATA-2 is a critical determinant of GATA switches. Although both GATA-1 and GATA-2 are degraded by the proteasome, GATA-2 is considerably less stable than GATA-1 (t1⁄2 ⫽ ⬃1 h versus ⬎4 h, respectively) (29). We reasoned that GATA-2 instability might be an important determinant of the GATA switch. Proteasome inhibitors increase GATA-2 stability, and under these conditions, GATA-1 has less efficacy to displace GATA-2 from chromatin (29). The proteasome inhibitor opposition to GATA switches may reflect a higher steadystate level of GATA-2, a requirement for rapid GATA-2 turnover to expel it from chromatin, or an indirect influence on

MINIREVIEW: GATA Factor Mechanisms

OCTOBER 8, 2010 • VOLUME 285 • NUMBER 41

Perspective The further dissection of GATA switch mechanisms has potential to yield critical mechanistic, biological, and pathophysiological insights. Key unresolved issues include the following. 1) Because different GATA factors can exert qualitatively distinct functions through an identical chromatin site, what molecular attributes underlie the unique identities of individual GATA factor family members? 2) Although GATA factor concentrations, FOG-1, and proteasome-sensitive factor(s) control GATA switches, how important are these and other parameters in vivo? 3) What are the functional consequences of GATA switches at endogenous loci in vivo? Although cis-element functionality is commonly inferred based on transfection and transgenic studies, it is critical to assess function at their endogenous chromosomal sites. Using a cis-element knock-out approach, we demonstrated that the Gata2 ⫺1.8 kb site is selectively required to maintain repression in late-stage erythroblasts in vivo (100). This conclusion would not have emerged from other modes of functional analysis. 4) Because GATA switches occur at a host of important regulatory genes, do GATA switches dominantly establish and/or orchestrate genetic networks that drive developmental processes? 5) Do GATA switches occur synchronously upon achieving the requisite concentration of a given GATA factor or asynchronously over a spectrum of GATA factor concentrations, dependent on the chromosomal environment and subnuclear neighborhood in vivo? 6) As noted above, GATA switches occur in distinct cellular contexts, raising the question as to what is the spectrum of GATA switch-dependent developmental processes, and does incorporating GATA switches into a developmental regulatory mechanism endow it with unique regulatory properties? 7) Although we have discussed binary GATA switches, because more than two GATA factors can be expressed in certain cell types, in principle, complex iterations of GATA switches may involve greater than two factors. Do ternary or even higher order GATA switches occur? 8) GATA-1 and GATA-2 function distinctly through certain common chromatin sites, raising the question as to what extent do GATA switches induce qualitative differences in the transcriptional and biological outputs? 9) Can the GATA switch concept be generalized to other transcription factor families, including the highly related Ets and/or Kru¨ppel-like transcription factors? As exemplified by the shear number and broad scope of these unresolved issues, future efforts will almost certainly yield a rich set of discoveries that impact upon many fields. REFERENCES 1. Orkin, S. H., and Zon, L. I. (2008) Cell 132, 631– 644 2. Evans, T., Reitman, M., and Felsenfeld, G. (1988) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 85, 5976 –5980 3. Evans, T., and Felsenfeld, G. (1989) Cell 58, 877– 885 4. Tsai, S. F., Martin, D. I., Zon, L. I., D’Andrea, A. D., Wong, G. G., and Orkin, S. H. (1989) Nature 339, 446 – 451 5. Wilson, D. B., Dorfman, D. M., and Orkin, S. H. (1990) Mol. Cell. Biol. 10, 4854 – 4862 6. Yamamoto, M., Ko, L. J., Leonard, M. W., Beug, H., Orkin, S. H., and Engel, J. D. (1990) Genes Dev. 4, 1650 –1662 7. Orkin, S. H. (1992) Blood 80, 575–581 8. Leonard, M., Brice, M., Engel, J. D., and Papayannopoulou, T. (1993) Blood 82, 1071–1079

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY

31091

Downloaded from www.jbc.org at University of Wisconsin-Madison, on December 1, 2010

mast cells and reprograms precursors into cells with erythroid, megakaryocytic, and granulocytic phenotypes (90). Similar to expressing FOG-1 in FOG-1-null erythroid precursors (51), FOG-1 expression in mast cell precursors induces a GATA switch at the Gata2 locus ⫺2.8 kb site (90). This GATA switch-associated Gata2 repression was proposed to underlie the FOG-1-dependent reprogramming of mast cell precursors. GATA switches can involve additional GATA factors besides GATA-1 and GATA-2. Evidence for a GATA-2/3 switch emerged from studies of placental development. GATA-2 and GATA-3 are expressed in trophoblast giant cells and regulate the expression of placental hormones (91). Although knockouts of either gene individually do not block giant cell differentiation, both factors coordinately regulate genes involved in giant cell differentiation (92, 93). The GATA-2 knock-out exerted a greater inhibitory influence on placental angiogenesis versus the GATA-3 knock-out, highlighting quantitative differences in their activities to control angiogenesis. Studies in a cultured trophoblast cell line indicate that GATA-2 and GATA-3 can also exert qualitatively distinct functions (91). In trophoblast precursors, GATA-3 occupies two regulatory regions of the Gata2 locus, ⫺3.9 and ⫹9.5 kb relative to the promoter, which correlates with Gata2 repression (91). In a differentiation-dependent manner, GATA-2 displaces GATA-3, which is linked to Gata2 transcriptional activation. Thus, analogous to the erythroid GATA switch, GATA-2 occupancy appears to reflect positive autoregulation, whereas distinct GATA factors functioning through GATA switch sites confer repression (GATA-1 and GATA-3 in erythroid cells and trophoblast precursors, respectively). GATA-3 (followed by GATA-2) expression has also been observed during the ontogeny of the allantois (94), although the functional implications of this expression pattern are unclear. Whereas there are compelling examples of cells expressing multiple GATA factors, additional work is required to assess whether GATA switches occur in these systems. GATA-2/3/ 4/6 are expressed in human hepatocytes (95). GATA-3 represses erythropoietin expression in murine hepatocytes, whereas GATA-4 induces erythropoietin expression in human hepatocytes (95). It was proposed that GATA-4 functions through the erythropoietin promoter in fetal hepatocytes to activate transcription, and the lack of GATA-4 in adult hepatocytes and/or the function of GATA-2/3 might confer repression in the adult. By contrast to these qualitatively distinct activities, GATA-4 and GATA-6 function cooperatively to induce expression of cardiac genes in cardiomyocytes (96). Endothelial cells express multiple GATA factors, and GATA3 is implicated in activating transcription of Tie2 (97), which encodes a tyrosine kinase receptor for the angiopoietin-1 ligand (98). The activation mechanism involves GATA-3 binding to sites within the 5⬘-untranslated region. GATA-2 has been implicated as a mediator of mechanosignaling-dependent angiogenesis, and this is associated with induction of VEGFR2 transcription (99). Elucidating the dynamics of GATA factor expression and chromatin occupancy in endothelial cells in vivo will provide important insights into the role of GATA switches in controlling angiogenesis and other critical endothelial celldependent processes.

MINIREVIEW: GATA Factor Mechanisms

31092 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY

12, 1176 –1188 44. Crispino, J. D., Lodish, M. B., MacKay, J. P., and Orkin, S. H. (1999) Mol. Cell 3, 219 –228 45. Nichols, K. E., Crispino, J. D., Poncz, M., White, J. G., Orkin, S. H., Maris, J. M., and Weiss, M. J. (2000) Nat. Genet. 24, 266 –270 46. Johnson, K. D., Boyer, M. E., Kang, J. A., Wickrema, A., Cantor, A. B., and Bresnick, E. H. (2007) Blood 109, 5230 –5233 47. Kim, S. I., Bultman, S. J., Jing, H., Blobel, G. A., and Bresnick, E. H. (2007) Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 4551– 4565 48. Fox, A. H., Liew, C., Holmes, M., Kowalski, K., Mackay, J., and Crossley, M. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 2812–2822 49. Cantor, A. B., Katz, S. G., and Orkin, S. H. (2002) Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 4268 – 4279 50. Letting, D. L., Chen, Y. Y., Rakowski, C., Reedy, S., and Blobel, G. A. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 476 – 481 51. Pal, S., Cantor, A. B., Johnson, K. D., Moran, T. B., Boyer, M. E., Orkin, S. H., and Bresnick, E. H. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 980 –985 52. Vakoc, C. R., Letting, D. L., Gheldof, N., Sawado, T., Bender, M. A., Groudine, M., Weiss, M. J., Dekker, J., and Blobel, G. A. (2005) Mol. Cell 17, 453– 462 53. Hong, W., Nakazawa, M., Chen, Y. Y., Kori, R., Vakoc, C. R., Rakowski, C., and Blobel, G. A. (2005) EMBO J. 24, 67–78 54. Miccio, A., Wang, Y., Hong, W., Gregory, G. D., Wang, H., Yu, X., Choi, J. K., Shelat, S., Tong, W., Poncz, M., and Blobel, G. A. (2010) EMBO J. 29, 442– 456 55. Gao, Z., Huang, Z., Olivey, H. E., Gurbuxani, S., Crispino, J. D., and Svensson, E. C. (2010) EMBO J. 29, 457– 468 56. Turner, J., and Crossley, M. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 5129 –5140 57. Shi, Y. J., Matson, C., Lan, F., Iwase, S., Baba, T., and Shi, Y. (2005) Mol. Cell 19, 857– 864 58. Katz, S. G., Cantor, A. B., and Orkin, S. H. (2002) Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 3121–3128 59. Snow, J. W., and Orkin, S. H. (2009) J. Biol. Chem. 284, 29310 –29319 60. Blobel, G. A., Nakajima, T., Eckner, R., Montminy, M., and Orkin, S. H. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 2061–2066 61. Goodman, R. H., and Smolik, S. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 1553–1577 62. Stumpf, M., Waskow, C., Kro¨tschel, M., van Essen, D., Rodriguez, P., Zhang, X., Guyot, B., Roeder, R. G., and Borggrefe, T. (2006) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 18504 –18509 63. Letting, D. L., Rakowski, C., Weiss, M. J., and Blobel, G. A. (2003) Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 1334 –1340 64. Im, H., Grass, J. A., Johnson, K. D., Kim, S. I., Boyer, M. E., Imbalzano, A. N., Bieker, J. J., and Bresnick, E. H. (2005) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 17065–17070 65. Pope, N. J., and Bresnick, E. H. (2010) Nucleic Acids Res. 38, 2190 –2200 66. Kim, S. I., Bultman, S. J., Kiefer, C. M., Dean, A., and Bresnick, E. H. (2009) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 2259 –2264 67. Bultman, S. J., Gebuhr, T. C., and Magnuson, T. (2005) Genes Dev. 19, 2849 –2861 68. Kim, S. I., Bresnick, E. H., and Bultman, S. J. (2009) Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 6019 – 6027 69. Bresnick, E. H., Johnson, K. D., Kim, S. I., and Im, H. (2006) Prog. Nucleic Acids Res. Mol. Biol. 81, 435– 471 70. Johnson, K. D., Grass, J. A., Boyer, M. E., Kiekhaefer, C. M., Blobel, G. A., Weiss, M. J., and Bresnick, E. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 11760 –11765 71. Grass, J. A., Boyer, M. E., Pal, S., Wu, J., Weiss, M. J., and Bresnick, E. H. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 8811– 8816 72. Martowicz, M. L., Grass, J. A., Boyer, M. E., Guend, H., and Bresnick, E. H. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 1724 –1732 73. Grass, J. A., Jing, H., Kim, S. I., Martowicz, M. L., Pal, S., Blobel, G. A., and Bresnick, E. H. (2006) Mol. Cell. Biol. 26, 7056 –7067 74. Fujiwara, T., O’Geen, H., Keles, S., Blahnik, K., Linnemann, A. K., Kang, Y. A., Choi, K., Farnham, P. J., and Bresnick, E. H. (2009) Mol. Cell 36, 667– 681 75. Cheng, Y., Wu, W., Kumar, S. A., Yu, D., Deng, W., Tripic, T., King, D. C., Chen, K. B., Zhang, Y., Drautz, D., Giardine, B., Schuster, S. C., Miller,

VOLUME 285 • NUMBER 41 • OCTOBER 8, 2010

Downloaded from www.jbc.org at University of Wisconsin-Madison, on December 1, 2010

9. Martin, D. I., Zon, L. I., Mutter, G., and Orkin, S. H. (1990) Nature 344, 444 – 447 10. Ito, E., Toki, T., Ishihara, H., Ohtani, H., Gu, L., Yokoyama, M., Engel, J. D., and Yamamoto, M. (1993) Nature 362, 466 – 468 11. Tsai, F. Y., Keller, G., Kuo, F. C., Weiss, M., Chen, J., Rosenblatt, M., Alt, F. W., and Orkin, S. H. (1994) Nature 371, 221–226 12. Tsai, F. Y., and Orkin, S. H. (1997) Blood 89, 3636 –3643 13. Minegishi, N., Ohta, J., Yamagiwa, H., Suzuki, N., Kawauchi, S., Zhou, Y., Takahashi, S., Hayashi, N., Engel, J. D., and Yamamoto, M. (1999) Blood 93, 4196 – 4207 14. Lee, M. E., Temizer, D. H., Clifford, J. A., and Quertermous, T. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 16188 –16192 15. Nardelli, J., Thiesson, D., Fujiwara, Y., Tsai, F. Y., and Orkin, S. H. (1999) Dev. Biol. 210, 305–321 16. Zhou, Y., Yamamoto, M., and Engel, J. D. (2000) Development 127, 3829 –3838 17. Craven, S. E., Lim, K. C., Ye, W., Engel, J. D., de Sauvage, F., and Rosenthal, A. (2004) Development 131, 1165–1173 18. Kobayashi-Osaki, M., Ohneda, O., Suzuki, N., Minegishi, N., Yokomizo, T., Takahashi, S., Lim, K. C., Engel, J. D., and Yamamoto, M. (2005) Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 7005–7020 19. Lim, K. C., Lakshmanan, G., Crawford, S. E., Gu, Y., Grosveld, F., and Engel, J. D. (2000) Nat. Genet. 25, 209 –212 20. Kouros-Mehr, H., Slorach, E. M., Sternlicht, M. D., and Werb, Z. (2006) Cell 127, 1041–1055 21. Charron, F., and Nemer, M. (1999) Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 10, 85–91 22. Molkentin, J. D. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 38949 –38952 23. Bresnick, E. H., Martowicz, M. L., Pal, S., and Johnson, K. D. (2005) J. Cell. Physiol. 205, 1–9 24. Martin, D. I., and Orkin, S. H. (1990) Genes Dev. 4, 1886 –1898 25. Ko, L. J., and Engel, J. D. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 4011– 4022 26. Merika, M., and Orkin, S. H. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 3999 – 4010 27. Newton, A., Mackay, J., and Crossley, M. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 35794 –35801 28. Pedone, P. V., Omichinski, J. G., Nony, P., Trainor, C., Gronenborn, A. M., Clore, G. M., and Felsenfeld, G. (1997) EMBO J. 16, 2874 –2882 29. Lurie, L. J., Boyer, M. E., Grass, J. A., and Bresnick, E. H. (2008) Biochemistry 47, 859 – 869 30. Kadri, Z., Shimizu, R., Ohneda, O., Maouche-Chretien, L., Gisselbrecht, S., Yamamoto, M., Romeo, P. H., Leboulch, P., and Chretien, S. (2009) PLoS Biol. 7, e1000123 31. Johnson, K. D., Kim, S. I., and Bresnick, E. H. (2006) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 15939 –15944 32. Collavin, L., Gostissa, M., Avolio, F., Secco, P., Ronchi, A., Santoro, C., and Del Sal, G. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 8870 – 8875 33. Lee, H. Y., Johnson, K. D., Fujiwara, T., Boyer, M. E., Kim, S. I., and Bresnick, E. H. (2009) Mol. Cell 36, 984 –995 34. Pevny, L., Simon, M. C., Robertson, E., Klein, W. H., Tsai, S. F., D’Agati, V., Orkin, S. H., and Costantini, F. (1991) Nature 349, 257–260 35. Simon, M. C., Pevny, L., Wiles, M. V., Keller, G., Costantini, F., and Orkin, S. H. (1992) Nat. Genet. 1, 92–98 36. Pevny, L., Lin, C. S., D’Agati, V., Simon, M. C., Orkin, S. H., and Costantini, F. (1995) Development 121, 163–172 37. Fujiwara, Y., Browne, C. P., Cunniff, K., Goff, S. C., and Orkin, S. H. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 12355–12358 38. Yu, C., Cantor, A. B., Yang, H., Browne, C., Wells, R. A., Fujiwara, Y., and Orkin, S. H. (2002) J. Exp. Med. 195, 1387–1395 39. Hirasawa, R., Shimizu, R., Takahashi, S., Osawa, M., Takayanagi, S., Kato, Y., Onodera, M., Minegishi, N., Yamamoto, M., Fukao, K., Taniguchi, H., Nakauchi, H., and Iwama, A. (2002) J. Exp. Med. 195, 1379 –1386 40. Migliaccio, A. R., Rana, R. A., Sanchez, M., Lorenzini, R., Centurione, L., Bianchi, L., Vannucchi, A. M., Migliaccio, G., and Orkin, S. H. (2003) J. Exp. Med. 197, 281–296 41. Fujiwara, Y., Chang, A. N., Williams, A. M., and Orkin, S. H. (2004) Blood 103, 583–585 42. Tsang, A. P., Visvader, J. E., Turner, C. A., Fujiwara, Y., Yu, C., Weiss, M. J., Crossley, M., and Orkin, S. H. (1997) Cell 90, 109 –119 43. Tsang, A. P., Fujiwara, Y., Hom, D. B., and Orkin, S. H. (1998) Genes Dev.

MINIREVIEW: GATA Factor Mechanisms

76.

77. 78.

79.

80. 81. 82.

84. 85. 86.

87. 88.

OCTOBER 8, 2010 • VOLUME 285 • NUMBER 41

89. Perissi, V., Aggarwal, A., Glass, C. K., Rose, D. W., and Rosenfeld, M. G. (2004) Cell 116, 511–526 90. Cantor, A. B., Iwasaki, H., Arinobu, Y., Moran, T. B., Shigematsu, H., Sullivan, M. R., Akashi, K., and Orkin, S. H. (2008) J. Exp. Med. 205, 611– 624 91. Ray, S., Dutta, D., Rumi, M. A., Kent, L. N., Soares, M. J., and Paul, S. (2009) J. Biol. Chem. 284, 4978 – 4988 92. Ng, Y. K., George, K. M., Engel, J. D., and Linzer, D. I. (1994) Development 120, 3257–3266 93. Ma, G. T., Roth, M. E., Groskopf, J. C., Tsai, F. Y., Orkin, S. H., Grosveld, F., Engel, J. D., and Linzer, D. I. (1997) Development 124, 907–914 94. Caprioli, A., Minko, K., Drevon, C., Eichmann, A., Dieterlen-Lie`vre, F., and Jaffredo, T. (2001) Dev. Biol. 238, 64 –78 95. Dame, C., Sola, M. C., Lim, K. C., Leach, K. M., Fandrey, J., Ma, Y., Kno¨pfle, G., Engel, J. D., and Bungert, J. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 2955–2961 96. Charron, F., Paradis, P., Bronchain, O., Nemer, G., and Nemer, M. (1999) Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 4355– 4365 97. Song, H., Suehiro, J., Kanki, Y., Kawai, Y., Inoue, K., Daida, H., Yano, K., Ohhashi, T., Oettgen, P., Aird, W. C., Kodama, T., and Minami, T. (2009) J. Biol. Chem. 284, 29109 –29124 98. Davis, S., Aldrich, T. H., Jones, P. F., Acheson, A., Compton, D. L., Jain, V., Ryan, T. E., Bruno, J., Radziejewski, C., Maisonpierre, P. C., and Yancopoulos, G. D. (1996) Cell 87, 1161–1169 99. Mammoto, A., Connor, K. M., Mammoto, T., Yung, C. W., Huh, D., Aderman, C. M., Mostoslavsky, G., Smith, L. E., and Ingber, D. E. (2009) Nature 457, 1103–1108 100. Snow, J. W., Trowbridge, J. J., Fujiwara, T., Emambokus, N. E., Grass, J. A., Orkin, S. H., and Bresnick, E. H. (2010) PLOS Genet., in press

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY

31093

Downloaded from www.jbc.org at University of Wisconsin-Madison, on December 1, 2010

83.

W., Chiaromonte, F., Zhang, Y., Blobel, G. A., Weiss, M. J., and Hardison, R. C. (2009) Genome Res. 19, 2172–2184 Yu, M., Riva, L., Xie, H., Schindler, Y., Moran, T. B., Cheng, Y., Yu, D., Hardison, R., Weiss, M. J., Orkin, S. H., Bernstein, B. E., Fraenkel, E., and Cantor, A. B. (2009) Mol. Cell 36, 682– 695 Wozniak, R. J., Keles, S., Lugus, J. J., Young, K. H., Boyer, M. E., Tran, T. M., Choi, K., and Bresnick, E. H. (2008) Mol. Cell. Biol. 28, 6681– 6694 Chang, A. N., Cantor, A. B., Fujiwara, Y., Lodish, M. B., Droho, S., Crispino, J. D., and Orkin, S. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 9237–9242 Ling, K. W., Ottersbach, K., van Hamburg, J. P., Oziemlak, A., Tsai, F. Y., Orkin, S. H., Ploemacher, R., Hendriks, R. W., and Dzierzak, E. (2004) J. Exp. Med. 200, 871– 882 Weiss, M. J., Keller, G., and Orkin, S. H. (1994) Genes Dev. 8, 1184 –1197 Weiss, M. J., Yu, C., and Orkin, S. H. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 1642–1651 Wozniak, R. J., Boyer, M. E., Grass, J. A., Lee, Y., and Bresnick, E. H. (2007) J. Biol. Chem. 282, 14665–14674 Heicklen-Klein, A., McReynolds, L. J., and Evans, T. (2005) Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 16, 95–106 Galloway, J. L., Wingert, R. A., Thisse, C., Thisse, B., and Zon, L. I. (2005) Dev. Cell 8, 109 –116 Kim, S. I., and Bresnick, E. H. (2007) Oncogene 26, 6777– 6794 Lugus, J. J., Chung, Y. S., Mills, J. C., Kim, S. I., Grass, J., Kyba, M., Doherty, J. M., Bresnick, E. H., and Choi, K. (2007) Development 134, 393– 405 Wechsler, J., Greene, M., McDevitt, M. A., Anastasi, J., Karp, J. E., Le Beau, M. M., and Crispino, J. D. (2002) Nat. Genet. 32, 148 –152 Zhang, S. J., Ma, L. Y., Huang, Q. H., Li, G., Gu, B. W., Gao, X. D., Shi, J. Y., Wang, Y. Y., Gao, L., Cai, X., Ren, R. B., Zhu, J., Chen, Z., and Chen, S. J. (2008) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 2076 –2081