Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T12:57:48.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Plenary Lecture 2 Transcription factors, regulatory elements and nutrient–gene communication

Conference on ‘Over- and undernutrition: challenges and approaches’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2009

Robert J. Cousins*
Affiliation:
Center for Nutritional Sciences, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Tolunay B. Aydemir
Affiliation:
Center for Nutritional Sciences, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Louis A. Lichten
Affiliation:
Center for Nutritional Sciences, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Professor Robert J. Cousins, fax +1 352 359 1008, email cousins@ufl.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dramatic advances have been made in the understanding of the differing molecular mechanisms used by nutrients to regulate genes that are essential for their biological roles to carry out normal metabolism. Classical studies have focused on nutrients as ligands to activate specific transcription factors. New interest has focused on histone acetylation as a process for either global or limited gene activation and is the first mechanism to be discussed. Nuclear ATP-citrate lyase generates acetyl-CoA, which has been shown to have a role in the activation of specific genes via selective histone acetylation. Transcription factor acetylation may provide a second mode of control of nutrient-responsive gene transcription. The third mechanism relates to the availability of response elements within chromatin, which as well as the location of the elements in the gene may allow or prevent transcription. A fourth mechanism involves intracellular transport of Zn ions, which can orchestrate localized enzyme inhibition–activation. This process in turn influences signalling molecules that regulate gene expression. The examples provided in the present review point to a new level of complexity in understanding nutrient–gene communication.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009

Abbreviations:
ACL

ATP-citrate lyase

MTF-1

metal-responsive transcription factor 1

siRNA

small interfering RNA

The understanding of how specific genes and groups of genes are regulated by nutrients has advanced dramatically in recent years. A historical perspective and some general concepts relating to nutritional regulation of gene expression have been presented earlier(Reference Cousins, Shils, Shike, Ross, Caballero and Cousins1). Since the nutrition–gene regulation field is now well developed, the latest methods for the study of gene regulation are rapidly being incorporated into projects designed specifically to examine how dietary components affect the genome to produce specific phenotypic effects. As a result, modes of nutrient action, once viewed as classical ligand–nuclear receptor interactions acting in a Newtonian fashion, now extend into aspects of genomic structure and intracellular trafficking of nutrients. The goal of the present brief discussion is to illustrate three newly-identified pathways in which nutrients use widely-divergent processes to influence gene expression.

Most attention in the area of nutrient control of gene expression has focused on the ligand-activated transcription factor-mediated activity. The ligands include metabolites of vitamins A or D, sterols, fatty acids and a plethora of organic compounds, such as flavinoids, present in foods as well as specific drugs(Reference Cousins, Shils, Shike, Ross, Caballero and Cousins1Reference Martini and Pallottini3). These transcription factors, of which currently about fifty have been described(Reference Robinson-Rechavi, Carpentier and Duffraisse4), usually termed nuclear receptors, bind to response elements (such as the sterol regulatory element) as homo- or heterodimers and, unless modified, activate gene transcription. Such interactions have therapeutic potential(Reference Jones5). The metal-responsive transcription factor 1 (MTF-1) has an approximately analogous role in Zn (and other transition metal)-activated gene transcription(Reference Lichtlen, Wang and Belser6). The ligand-activated mode of nutrient control is illustrated in Fig. 1(A).

Fig. 1. Modes of nutrient–gene communication. (A) Nuclear receptor-mediated transcription. Ligand (L)-activated transcription factors (TF) as hetero- or homodimers interact with response elements (RE) and activate transcription. Without L they may act as repressors. (B) Acetylation-activated gene transcription. Histone acetylation can produce global and possibly limited activation of specific genes. Alternatively, acetylation of specific TF may provide a focused level of control of gene expression via production of acetyl-CoA (AC). HDAC, histone deacetylases; HAT, histone acetyltransferases. (C) Nutrient transport modifies cell signalling pathways and indirectly influences TF activity. P, phosphate. (D) Placement of the RE within the non-coding region can dictate whether a nutrient-binding TF acts as an activator or a repressor of transcription. Placement that prevents RNA polymerase (pol) II movement causes the TF to act as a gene repressor.

Transcription factor acetylation

Much has been written about histones and regulation of gene expression and the roles that environmental factors, including diet and specific nutrients, play as modifiers of regulation(Reference Jaenisch and Bird7Reference Fukuda, Sano and Muto9) and which histone modifications are truly epigenetic(Reference Kouzarides10). While much attention has focused on methylation as a post-translational modifier of histones, recently major strides have been made in understanding how histone acetylation, also a post-translational modification, influences gene expression(Reference Fukuda, Sano and Muto9). The concept of histone acetylation as a factor in gene regulation was first advanced 35 years ago(Reference Allfrey, Faulkner and Mirsky11). Acetylation of the lysine residues of histone tails removes positive charges, thus decreasing histone–DNA affinity. This process yields easier access for RNA polymerase II and transcription factors to promoter regions. Targeted regions of chromatin are acted on by histone acetyltransferases and histone deacetylases to regulate transcription of specific genes.

Recently, an elegant example of histone acetylation has been shown to link acetyl-CoA production from glycolysis to the expression of genes that influence glucose metabolism(Reference Wellen, Hatzivassiliou and Sachdeva12). Focusing specifically on ATP-citrate lyase (ACL), an enzyme that generates acetyl-CoA from citrate, it was found that, surprisingly, ACL is present in both cytoplasm and the nucleus. This finding suggests that citrate may diffuse into the nucleus, where it may facilitate acetyl-CoA production. Silencing of ACL with small interfering RNA (siRNA) decreases the acetylation of numerous histones. The effect on histone acetylation is prevented by the addition of acetate, which is an acetylation substrate used by histone acetyltransferases. ACL siRNA suppression reduces the expression of the glucose transporter GLUT4 as well as genes needed for glucose metabolism, i.e. hexokinase, phosphofructokinase-1 and lactate dehydrogenase A. Other genes not involved in glucose metabolism are not influenced by ACL siRNA. Acetate also reverses effects on those genes that are inhibited by ACL siRNA. Finally, immunoprecepitation studies with the GLUT4 promoter using antibodies for two histone acetylases (Ac-H3 and Ac-H4) have shown that histone acetylation at the GLUT4 promoter is reduced when ACL production is inhibited with siRNA. GLUT4 promoter activity is rescued with acetate. It was not possible to fully rule out that the observed effects on the GLUT4 gene and those for the glucose-metabolizing enzymes (hexakinase 2, phosphofructokinase and lactate dehydrogenase A) are produced by global changes in acetylation. Nevertheless, histone acetylation by ACL at promoters relevant to a particular metabolic pathway opens a new avenue of inquiry.

The experiments on ACL acetylation have all been carried out with cells in culture (see Rathmell & Newgard(Reference Rathmell and Newgard13)). However, experiments in animals are lending support for the role of acetylation in nutrient-responsive transcription factor activation. A notable example is the transcriptional activation of the fatty acid synthase gene on feeding(Reference Wong, Chang and Hudak14). In this model a transcription factor upstream, transcription factor 1, associates with histone deacetylase 9, which acts as a transcriptional repressor through upstream transcription factor 1 deacetylation. On feeding, upstream transcription factor 1 is acetylated and activated, thus allowing recruitment of accessory factors and increased fatty acid synthase expression. The results in relation to fatty acid synthase gene expression suggest that histone deacetylases may influence transcription factor access to specific promoters of other genes that respond to nutrients. In this context histone deacetylase 9 has been shown to associate with numerous transcription factors(Reference Mejat, Ramond and Bassel-Duby15). This mode of nutrient–transcription factor responsiveness is illustrated further in Fig. 1(B). It needs to be further explored through further research.

Nutrient transport-influenced transcription factors

Homeostatically-influenced transport of nutrients control cell function through provision of needed substrates. Recent evidence from experiments with various cell types and integrative systems suggest targeted nutrient transport has physiological consequences. Of particular interest for the authors' laboratory has been the linkage of Zn transport with cellular signalling. The idea that Zn could act as a specific second messenger was initially presented in 1984(Reference Williams16). Cellular compartmentalization and transport are central to the signalling role of Zn. Zn transporters are from either the ZnT family (ten members) or ZIP family (fourteen members)(Reference Lichten and Cousins17). The most-clearly-defined evidence for transporter-mediated signalling roles for Zn have been derived for the ZIP family. Specifically, ZIP6, ZIP8 and ZIP10 have each been identified with signalling processes(Reference Yamashita, Miyagi and Fukada18Reference Murakami and Hirano20). Of the three transporters, nutrient–transcription factor communication has been shown for ZIP8 in transcriptional activation of the interferon-γ gene(Reference Aydemir, Liuzzi and McClellan19).

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells provide a resource to evaluate the effects of Zn supplementation on expression of specific genes in human subjects. Using T-cells purified by negative magnetic selection and a procedure that simulates antigen presentation, Zip8 mRNA has been identified as the most responsive Zn transporter transcript on cell activation(Reference Aydemir, Liuzzi and McClellan19). The concurrent activation-induced increase in interferon-γ expression is further stimulated by supplemental Zn. Suppression of ZIP8 by siRNA silencing markedly reduces interferon-γ. ZIP8 has been found by confocal microscopy to be localized to the lysosome. On activation Zn is transported from the acidic environment of the lysosome, as shown using a Zn-responsive fluorophore (FluoZin 3). Analysis of the T-cell activation pathway involving calcineurin reveals that activation of the transcription factor cAMP-response element-binding protein, i.e. phosphorylated cAMP-response element-binding protein, is responsive to Zn. In addition, activation of cAMP-response element-binding protein is inversely correlated with calcineurin phosphatase activity. This activity is very sensitive to inhibition by Zn. It is concluded that ZIP8 produces a release of lysosomal Zn into the cytoplasm thereby inhibiting dephosphorylation by calcineurin and maintaining the cAMP-response element-binding protein transcription factor in its active phosphorylated form(Reference Aydemir, Liuzzi and McClellan19).

It is proposed that this experimental T-cell model is but one example of how, through mediated transport, Zn may communicate with a transcription factor. In this particular example, the influence could be through a classical enzyme inhibition mechanism involving a transcription factor that is active in its phosphorylated form. Similar roles for Zn and Zn transport influencing receptor-initiated events has been proposed(Reference Beyersmann and Haase21) as shown in Fig. 1(C).

Nutrient-influenced gene repression via response element placement

Homeostatic balance in nutrient utilization implies that positive and negative control points are needed. Tight control of cellular Zn flux is of paramount importance because, unlike some other nutrients, Zn is not stored. The identification of the first mammalian Zn transporter, ZnT1, was through its ability to rescue cells in conditions of high extracellular Zn(Reference Palmiter and Findley22). The positive response to Zn was traced to MTF-1. Indeed, nutritional transitions to an elevated Zn supply increase ZnT1 expression in the intestine and pancreas(Reference McMahon and Cousins23, Reference Liuzzi, Bobo and Lichten24). Most of the twenty-four genes in the ZnT and Zip families are refractory to changes in dietary Zn intake in these same tissues(Reference Liuzzi, Bobo and Lichten24).

An expanding base of information has led to an analysis of most of these transporter genes in many tissues and their response to conditions of both dietary Zn restriction and Zn supplementation. Of particular note is the up-regulation of Zip10 expression with Zn restriction in mice(Reference Lichten, Liuzzi and Cousins25, Reference Ryu, Lichten and Liuzzi26).The experiments have shown that an increase in Zip10 expression occurs in liver and brain and is also detected in the erythrocyte membrane at the protein level on Zn restriction. Those observations merge well with those made with the Zip10 orthologue in zebrafish (Danio rerio) gill(Reference Zheng, Feeney and Kille27). Sequence analysis of the Zip10 promoter has revealed no KLF4 binding site, which has been implicated in the similar up-regulation of Zip4(Reference Liuzzi, Guo and Chang28). However, there is a conserved metal response element for mouse, human and zebrafish Zip10. In each species this response element is placed downstream from the transcription start site of Zip10.

It has been found that MTF-1 is associated with the Zip10 promoter in a manner that is proportional to cellular Zn status(Reference Lichten, Liuzzi and Cousins25). In this context MTF-1 is responding to Zn occupancy in the classical fashion, i.e. the transcription factor translocates to the nucleus on binding Zn in the cytoplasm. Silencing of MTF-1 with siRNA increases Zip10 expression. The most likely explanation for this outcome is that nuclear MTF-1 acts as a repressor of Zip10 under conditions of normal Zn status. Chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis of RNA polymerase II binding to the Zip10 gene has been conducted with antibodies for Ser2 and Ser5 phosphorylated polymerase II forms(Reference Lichten, Liuzzi and Cousins25). The results show that Zn-restricted conditions allow active transcription with clear elongation activity of RNA polymerase II. In Zn-supplemented conditions elongation does not occur. Placement of the metal response element at +17 of the Zip10 gene allows MTF-1 binding, in response to Zn-stimulated nuclear translocation, but then prevents RNA polymerase II movement from the transcription start sites of the Zip10 gene. In this fashion MTF-1 can act as an activator, e.g. for metallothionein and ZnT1, but because of metal response element placement also acts as a repressor of Zip10. A similar conclusion has been reached to explain the inverse relationship between Zn and zebrafish Zip10(Reference Zheng, Feeney and Kille27). This mode of nutrient regulation is shown in Fig. 1(D).

Summary

The examples provided here have been derived from recent literature and point to a new level of complexity in nutrient–gene communication. Nutrition and gene regulation in this context has been commented on previously(Reference Cousins29). However, the application of new technologies such as siRNA silencing, quantitative PCR, global and targeted microarrays, cell transfection and reporter assays, plus the emergence of the understanding of histone acetyltransferases and deacetylases in transcriptional activation and repression, have given a far greater breadth to this area of nutritional science research than was possible a decade ago. Clearly, gene-regulation studies have a place in understanding the challenges and approaches directed at over-and undernutrition, the theme of the Nutrition Society meeting.

Acknowledgements

Research from R. J. C.'s laboratory as discussed in this review was supported by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (DK 31127). Graphics were produced by AASArts, Gainsville, FL, USA. The authors declare no conflict of interest. R. J. C. wrote the paper. T. B. A. performed some of the described research and proof-read the paper. L. A. L. performed some of the described research and proof-read the paper.

References

1.Cousins, RJ (2005) Nutritional regulation of gene expression and nutritional genomics. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 10th ed., pp. 271285 [Shils, ME, Shike, M, Ross, AC, Caballero, B and Cousins, RJ, editors]. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
2.Sampath, H & Ntambi, JM (2005) Polyunsaturated fatty acid regulation of genes of lipid metabolism. Annu Rev Nutr 25, 317340.Google Scholar
3.Martini, C & Pallottini, V (2007) Cholesterol: from feeding to gene regulation. Genes Nutr 2, 181193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Robinson-Rechavi, M, Carpentier, AS, Duffraisse, M et al. (2001) How many nuclear hormone receptors are there in the human genome? Trends Genet 17, 554556.Google Scholar
5.Jones, AB (2001) Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) modulators: diabetes and beyond. Med Res Rev 21, 540552.Google Scholar
6.Lichtlen, P, Wang, Y, Belser, T et al. (2001) Target gene search for the metal-responsive transcription factor MTF-1. Nucleic Acids Res 29, 15141523.Google Scholar
7.Jaenisch, R & Bird, A (2003) Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nat Genet 33, Suppl., 245254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kim, JK, Samaranayake, M & Pradhan, S (2009) Epigenetic mechanisms in mammals. Cell Mol Life Sci 66, 596612.Google Scholar
9.Fukuda, H, Sano, N, Muto, S et al. (2006) Simple histone acetylation plays a complex role in the regulation of gene expression. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 5, 190208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Kouzarides, T (2007) Chromatin modifications and their function. Cell 128, 693705.Google Scholar
11.Allfrey, VG, Faulkner, R & Mirsky, AE (1964) Acetylation and methylation of histones and their possible role in the regulation of RNA synthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 51, 786794.Google Scholar
12.Wellen, KE, Hatzivassiliou, G, Sachdeva, UM et al. (2009) ATP-citrate lyase links cellular metabolism to histone acetylation. Science 324, 10761080.Google Scholar
13.Rathmell, JC & Newgard, CB (2009) A glucose-to-gene link. Science 324, 10211022.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Wong, RH, Chang, I, Hudak, CS et al. (2009) A role of DNA-PK for the metabolic gene regulation in response to insulin. Cell 136, 10561072.Google Scholar
15.Mejat, A, Ramond, F, Bassel-Duby, R et al. (2005) Histone deacetylase 9 couples neuronal activity to muscle chromatin acetylation and gene expression. Nat Neurosci 8, 313321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Williams, RJ (1984) Zinc: what is its role in biology? Endeavour 8, 6570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Lichten, LA & Cousins, RJ (2009) Zinc transporters. Annu Rev Nutr 29, 153176.Google Scholar
18.Yamashita, S, Miyagi, C, Fukada, T et al. (2004) Zinc transporter LIVI controls epithelial-mesenchymal transition in zebrafish gastrula organizer. Nature 429, 298302.Google Scholar
19.Aydemir, TB, Liuzzi, JP, McClellan, S et al. (2009) Zinc transporter ZIP8 (SLC39A8) and zinc influence IFN-γ expression in activated human T cells. J Leukoc Bio 86, 337348.Google Scholar
20.Murakami, M & Hirano, T (2008) Intracellular zinc homeostasis and zinc signaling. Cancer Sci 99, 15151522.Google Scholar
21.Beyersmann, D & Haase, H (2001) Functions of zinc in signaling, proliferation and differentiation of mammalian cells. Biometals 14, 331341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Palmiter, RD & Findley, SD (1995) Cloning and functional characterization of a mammalian zinc transporter that confers resistance to zinc. EMBO J 14, 639649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.McMahon, RJ & Cousins, RJ (1998) Regulation of the zinc transporter ZnT-1 by dietary zinc. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95, 48414846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Liuzzi, JP, Bobo, JA, Lichten, LA et al. (2004) Responsive transporter genes within the murine intestinal-pancreatic axis form a basis of zinc homeostasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101, 1435514360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Lichten, LA, Liuzzi, JP & Cousins, RJ (2007) Zinc suppresses hepatic Zip10 expression through activation of MTF-1. FASEB J 21, A170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Ryu, MS, Lichten, LA, Liuzzi, JP et al. (2008) Zinc transporters ZnT1 (Slc30a1), Zip8 (Slc39a8), and Zip10 (Slc39a10) in mouse red blood cells are differentially regulated during erythroid development and by dietary zinc deficiency. J Nutr 138, 20762083.Google Scholar
27.Zheng, D, Feeney, GP, Kille, P et al. (2008) Regulation of ZIP and ZnT zinc transporters in zebrafish gill: zinc repression of ZIP10 transcription by an intronic MRE cluster. Physiol Genomics 34, 205214.Google Scholar
28.Liuzzi, JP, Guo, L, Chang, SM et al. (2009) Kruppel-like factor 4 regulates adaptive expression of the zinc transporter Zip4 in mouse small intestine. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 296, G517G523.Google Scholar
29.Cousins, RJ (1998) A role of zinc in the regulation of gene expression. Proc Nutr Soc 57, 307311.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Modes of nutrient–gene communication. (A) Nuclear receptor-mediated transcription. Ligand (L)-activated transcription factors (TF) as hetero- or homodimers interact with response elements (RE) and activate transcription. Without L they may act as repressors. (B) Acetylation-activated gene transcription. Histone acetylation can produce global and possibly limited activation of specific genes. Alternatively, acetylation of specific TF may provide a focused level of control of gene expression via production of acetyl-CoA (AC). HDAC, histone deacetylases; HAT, histone acetyltransferases. (C) Nutrient transport modifies cell signalling pathways and indirectly influences TF activity. P, phosphate. (D) Placement of the RE within the non-coding region can dictate whether a nutrient-binding TF acts as an activator or a repressor of transcription. Placement that prevents RNA polymerase (pol) II movement causes the TF to act as a gene repressor.