Transcription factor interactions explain the context-dependent activity of CRX binding sites.

The effects of transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) on the activity of a cis-regulatory element (CRE) depend on the local sequence context. In rod photoreceptors, binding sites for the transcription factor (TF) Cone-rod homeobox (CRX) occur in both enhancers and silencers, but the sequence context that determines whether CRX binding sites contribute to activation or repression of transcription is not understood. To investigate the context-dependent activity of CRX sites, we fit neural network-based models to the activities of synthetic CREs composed of photoreceptor TFBSs. The models revealed that CRX binding sites consistently make positive, independent contributions to CRE activity, while negative homotypic interactions between sites cause CREs composed of multiple CRX sites to function as silencers. The effects of negative homotypic interactions can be overcome by the presence of other TFBSs that either interact cooperatively with CRX sites or make independent positive contributions to activity. The context-dependent activity of CRX sites is thus determined by the balance between positive heterotypic interactions, independent contributions of TFBSs, and negative homotypic interactions. Our findings explain observed patterns of activity among genomic CRX-bound enhancers and silencers, and suggest that enhancers may require diverse TFBSs to overcome negative homotypic interactions between TFBSs.

A test of the pioneer factor hypothesis using ectopic liver gene activation.

The pioneer factor hypothesis (PFH) states that pioneer factors (PFs) are a subclass of transcription factors (TFs) that bind to and open inaccessible sites and then recruit non-pioneer factors (non-PFs) that activate batteries of silent genes. The PFH predicts that ectopic gene activation requires the sequential activity of qualitatively different TFs. We tested the PFH by expressing the endodermal PF FOXA1 and non-PF HNF4A in K562 lymphoblast cells. While co-expression of FOXA1 and HNF4A activated a burst of endoderm-specific gene expression, we found no evidence for a functional distinction between these two TFs. When expressed independently, both TFs bound and opened inaccessible sites, activated endodermal genes, and 'pioneered' for each other, although FOXA1 required fewer copies of its motif for binding. A subset of targets required both TFs, but the predominant mode of action at these targets did not conform to the sequential activity predicted by the PFH. From these results, we hypothesize an alternative to the PFH where 'pioneer activity' depends not on categorically different TFs but rather on the affinity of interaction between TF and DNA.

Cells only use a fraction of their genetic information to make the proteins they need. The rest is carefully packaged away and tightly bundled in structures called nucleosomes. This physically shields the DNA from being accessed by transcription factors ­ the molecular actors that can read genes and kickstart the protein production process. Effectively, the genetic sequences inside nucleosomes are being silenced. However, during development, transcription factors must overcome this nucleosome barrier and activate silent genes to program cells. The pioneer factor hypothesis describes how this may be possible: first, 'pioneer' transcription factors can bind to and 'open up' nucleosomes to make target genes accessible. Then, non-pioneer factors can access the genetic sequence and recruit cofactors that begin copying the now-exposed genetic information. The widely accepted theory is based on studies of two proteins ­ FOXA1, an archetypal pioneer factor, and HNF4A, a non-pioneer factor ­ but the predictions of the pioneer factor hypothesis have yet to be explicitly tested. To do so, Hansen et al. expressed FOXA1 and HNF4A, separately and together, in cells which do not usually make these proteins. They then assessed how the proteins could bind to DNA and impact gene accessibility and transcription. The experiments demonstrate that FOXA1 and HNF4A do not necessarily follow the two-step activation predicted by the pioneer factor hypothesis. When expressed independently, both transcription factors bound and opened inaccessible sites, activated target genes, and 'pioneered' for each other. Similar patterns were observed across the genome. The only notable distinction between the two factors was that FOXA1, the archetypal pioneering factor, required fewer copies of its target sequence to bind DNA than HNF4A. These findings led Hansen et al. to propose an alternative theory to the pioneer factor hypothesis which eliminates the categorical distinction between pioneer and non-pioneer factors. Overall, this work has implications for how biologists understand the way that transcription factors activate silent genes during development.