HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

Published online before print May 30, 2006

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jlb.0705390v1 80/2/383    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hale, J. S. Articles by Weis, J. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hale, J. S. Articles by Weis, J. H.

(Journal of Leukocyte Biology. 2006;80:383-398.)
© 2006 by Society for Leukocyte Biology

Transcriptional control of Pactolus: evidence of a negative control region and comparison with its evolutionary paralogue, CD18 (ß2 integrin)

Division of Cell Biology and Immunology, Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City

²Correspondence: Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132. john.weis{at}path.utah.edu

The mouse Pactolus and CD18 genes are highly conserved paralogues. The expression patterns of these genes are diverse in that most cells of hematopoietic lineage express CD18, but Pactolus is only expressed by maturing neutrophils. The minimal promoters of these two genes are homologous, including the conservation of two tandem PU.1-binding sites upstream of the transcriptional start site. To define the means by which these two structurally similar but functionally distinct promoters operate, a series of reporter assays, electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) and chromatin immunoprecipitation analyses, were performed. Transfection of Pactolus constructs into mouse macrophages, which do not express Pactolus, defined a negative control element within the first 100 base pairs. The presence of this negative regulatory site, distinct from the PU.1-binding site, was confirmed by EMSA oligonucleotide competition and gene reporter assays of Pactolus/CD18 chimeric constructs. Although PU.1 binding can be detected on Pactolus and CD18 minimal promoter segments with EMSA, only the CD18 promoter shows PU.1 binding in vivo, suggesting that the negative regulatory protein may block PU.1 from binding to the Pactolus promoter, thus inhibiting transcription of the gene. Sequence analysis of the negative control region in the Pactolus promoter suggested potential control by Snail and/or Smad families of transcription regulators. EMSA supershift analysis with antibodies against these proteins, using extracts from macrophages and mucosal mast cells, identified specific binding of Smuc to the promoter element, including a Smuc/PU.1/DNA trimeric complex. These data implicate Smuc as blocking Pactolus transcription in cells expressing PU.1 (and CD18) but not Pactolus.

Key Words: granulocytes • neutrophils • macrophages

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. Debnath, K. M. Roundy, J. J. Weis, and J. H. Weis Defining In Vivo Transcription Factor Complexes of the Murine CD21 and CD23 Genes J. Immunol., June 1, 2007; 178(11): 7139 - 7150. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]