Competencia metafórica y fluidez conceptual

MSB11 has been classified as both a neural stem cell active and also a neuronal enhancer (Figure 3.9B). Diagram in Figure 4.3K represents enhancer MSB11 and the binding motifs identified and mutated. Overexpression of Ascl1 or Sox2 shows only minimal effect in the regulation of this enhancer (Figure 4.3J). The activity of the wt element was minimally increased when the two TFs were overexpressed simultaneously in NS5 cells. This suggests additive effects of the two regulators, which might act independently. Mutation of the E-box 1 in mutant MSB11-M1 showed a minor reduction by exogenous Ascl1 compared with the wt element suggesting that this TF might directly bind to its motif for the regulation of this enhancer. Overall, variations of the activity of the mutant constructs compared with the wt element are only minimal and it is hard to draw conclusions on the interaction between Ascl1 and Sox2 in the regulation of this enhancer.

In conclusion, the mutagenesis of the TF binding motifs of the neural enhancers gave in depth insight in the mechanisms of transcriptional regulation, in particular for the neuronal enhancers MSB4, MSB18 and MSB22. Results give evidence that Ascl1 activates these elements through direct DNA binding to the E-boxes here identified and mutated. Results also distinguish among binding motifs identified within the same regulatory element. For instance, Ascl1 appears to bind specifically E-box 1 but not E- box 2 and E-box 3 in enhancer MSB 18.

Mechanisms of regulation of the neural enhancers by exogenous Sox2 appear to be more elusive, since mutations of the Sox motifs did not suggest direct binding of this TF for most of the elements mutated, with the exception of MSB24 enhancer. In this case, mutation of the Sox motif caused a minor reduction of the activation by exogenous

Sox2. Direct DNA binding of Sox2 to enhancer MSB24 needs to be further investigated. It is possible that Sox2 regulates the neural enhancers without direct DNA binding to the identified motifs. However, it is worth noticing that Sox2 acts as a weak regulator of the transcriptional activity of all enhancers identified in this study. In this perspective, the lack of effect of disrupted Sox motifs in the regulation of these enhancers is consistent with a poor function of Sox2 as transcriptional activator of these elements. Binding of Sox2 might be non-functional in the transcriptional activity and output of these enhancers. Therefore, mutation of the Sox motifs disrupting the binding might equally not show any effect in the regulation of the mutated enhancers.

Moreover, mutagenesis analysis of the Sox motifs shows different roles for different Sox motifs identified, suggesting that different Sox factors might be recruited and involved in the regulation of the neural enhancers identified in this study. For instance, another Sox factor rather than Sox2 might bind to Sox motif 2 and repress the activity of enhancer MSB18. Therefore, other experiments are required to gain insight on the recruitment of the Sox factors and their regulation of the neural enhancers identified in this study.

Finally, the most interesting result emerging from the mutagenesis analysis is the requirement of a Sox motif for Ascl1-induced activation of the neuronal enhancer MSB4. This result suggests that a Sox factor binding to this motif might enhance recruitment or activity of Ascl1 in the regulation of MSB4. It is also possible that protein-protein interactions are involved between Ascl1 and a Sox factor binding to the identified motif in the regulation of this enhancer. This mechanism needs to be further dissected.

Figure 4.3. Mutagenesis of the E-box and Sox motifs affect the regulation by exogenous Ascl1 and Sox factors in the neural enhancers.

Mutant and wt enhancers were cotransfected in NS5 cells together with expression vectors for Ascl1 and Sox2 overexpressed either alone or simultaneously (as shown in the legend of the graphs). Luciferase activity was measured after 24 h. For each enhancer, luciferase activity was normalised to the activity of the same enhancer after overexpression of GFP as control. For each enhancer, luciferase activity of the wt element is shown on grey background in the graphs. Data are presented as the mean ± SD of triplicate assays. Panels B, D, G, I, K J represent diagram of each enhancer as in Figure 4.1 and the sequence of the motifs within each element, as explained in Figure 4.2. (A) Mutation of the E-box abolished the activation of enhancer MSB4 by exogenous Ascl1 (as shown by the black arrow in the graph). Mutation of the Sox motif did not change the activity by exogenous Sox2. Mutation of the Sox motif also abolished activation of the enhancer by exogenous Ascl1 (mutant element M2 vs wt) as shown by the red arrow in the graph. The experiment shown for enhancer MSB4 is representative of three independent biological replicates. (C) Mutagenesis of enhancer MSB18 shows that different binding motifs give different contribution to the regulation of the enhancer. Mutation of the E-box 1 abolished Ascl1-induced activation of this neuronal enhancer (mutant element M1 vs wt, as indicated by the arrow in the graph). Mutation of the Sox motif 1 did not change the activity by exogenous Sox2, which did not show activation of the enhancer. Mutation of the E-box 2, E-box 3 and Sox motif 2 (mutant elements M2, M3, and M5 vs wt element) increased strongly the activation of the enhancer by exogenous Ascl1 and also by exogenous Sox2 in mutant M5 (as indicated by the three black arrows in the graph) when Ascl1 was overexpressed alone or together with Sox2, respectively. (E) Luciferase activity of neuronal enhancer MSB22-short compared with MSB22 full-length after overexpression of Ascl1 and Sox2 either alone or together. Exogenous Sox2 still inhibited the activation of the enhancer by exogenous Ascl1 in both elements. MSB22-short exhibited a reduced activation by exogenous Ascl1 and an increased activation by exogenous Sox2 compared with the full-length element. (F) In enhancer MSB22-short, mutation of the E- box abolished activation of the element by exogenous Ascl1 (as shown by the black arrow) (mutant element M1 vs wt element on grey background). Mutation of the Sox motif did not affect regulation by exogenous Sox2, also when the two Sox motifs were mutated together in the same element (mutant element M6, and also M2 and M3 vs wt). Mutation of the two Sox motifs in mutant element M6 increased the activation of the enhancer by exogenous Ascl1. The experiment shown for enhancer MSB22-short is representative of two independent biological replicates. (H) Enhancer MSB24-short wt shows an increased activation by exogenous Sox2 compared with the full-length wt element. Mutation of the E-box and Sox motif did not change the values of activity by exogenous Ascl1, which doesn’t regulate this NSC active enhancer, as shown in the wt element (either full-length or short). Mutation of the Sox motif reduced minimally the activation of the enhancer by exogenous Sox2. (J) For enhancer MSB11, overexpression of Ascl1 or Sox2 shows only minimal effect in the regulation. The activity of the wt element was minimally increased when the two TFs were overexpressed simultaneously in NS5 cells.

4.4.1 SoxC factors, Sox4 and Sox11, synergise with Ascl1 in the