In mammals, a C2H2 zinc finger (C2H2) protein, CTCF, acts as the master regulator of chromosomal architecture and of the expression of Hox gene clusters. Like mammalian CTCF, the Drosophila homolog, dCTCF, localizes to boundaries in the bithorax complex (BX-C). Here, we have determined the minimal requirements for the assembly of a functional boundary by dCTCF and two other C2H2 zinc finger proteins, Pita and Su(Hw). Although binding sites for these proteins are essential for the insulator activity of BX-C boundaries, these binding sites alone are insufficient to create a functional boundary. dCTCF cannot effectively bind to a single recognition sequence in chromatin or generate a functional insulator without the help of additional proteins. In addition, for boundary elements in BX-C at least four binding sites for dCTCF or the presence of additional DNA binding factors is required to generate a functional insulator.

Expression of the three bithorax complex homeotic genes is orchestrated by nine parasegment-specific regulatory domains. Autonomy of each domain is conferred by boundary elements (insulators). Here, we have used an in situ replacement strategy to reanalyze the sequences required for the functioning of one of the best-characterized fly boundaries, Fab-7. It was initially identified by a deletion, Fab-7¹, that transformed parasegment (PS) 11 into a duplicate copy of PS12. Fab-7¹ deleted four nuclease hypersensitive sites, HS*, HS1, HS2, and HS3, located between the iab-6 and iab-7 regulatory domains. Transgenic and P-element excision experiments mapped the boundary to HS*+HS1+HS2, while HS3 was shown to be the iab-7 Polycomb response element (PRE). Recent replacement experiments showed that HS1 is both necessary and sufficient for boundary activity when HS3 is also present in the replacement construct. Surprisingly, while HS1+HS3 combination has full boundary activity, we discovered that HS1 alone has only minimal function. Moreover, when combined with HS3, only the distal half of HS1, dHS1, is needed. A ~1,000 kD multiprotein complex containing the GAF protein, called the LBC, binds to the dHS1 sequence and we show that mutations in dHS1, that disrupt LBC binding in nuclear extracts, eliminate boundary activity and GAF binding in vivo. HS3 has binding sites for GAF and Pho proteins that are required for PRE silencing. In contrast, HS3 boundary activity only requires the GAF binding sites. LBC binding with HS3 in nuclear extracts, and GAF association in vivo, depend upon the HS3 GAF sites, but not the Pho sites. Consistent with a role for the LBC in HS3 boundary activity, the boundary function of the dHS1+HS3^mPho combination is lost when the flies are heterozygous for a mutation in the GAF gene. Taken together, these results reveal a novel function for the iab-7 PREs in chromosome architecture. Polycomb group proteins (PcG) are important epigenetic regulators of developmental genes in all higher eukaryotes. In Drosophila, these proteins are bound to specific regulatory DNA elements called Polycomb group Response Elements (PREs). Drosophila PREs are made up of binding sites for a complex array of DNA binding proteins, including GAF and Pho. In the regulatory region of the bithorax complex (BX-C), the boundary/insulator elements organize the autonomous regulatory domains, and their active or repressed states are regulated by PREs. Here, we studied functional properties of sequences that constitute the Fab-7 boundary and the adjacent iab-7 PRE. It was previously thought that the sole function of the iab-7 PRE is to recruit PcG proteins in parasegments anterior to PS12 and silence the iab-7 domain. However, we found that the iab-7 PRE also functions as a component of the Fab-7 boundary. The boundary activity of the iab-7 PRE sequence depends upon a large complex called the LBC. We show that it is possible to reconstitute a fully functional boundary by combining the LBC binding sequences in HS1 with the iab-7 PRE. Moreover, its boundary function is independent of its PcG silencing activity.

Drosophila bithorax complex (BX-C) is one of the best model systems for studying the role of boundaries (insulators) in gene regulation. Expression of three homeotic genes, Ubx, abd-A, and Abd-B, is orchestrated by nine parasegment-specific regulatory domains. These domains are flanked by boundary elements, which function to block crosstalk between adjacent domains, ensuring that they can act autonomously. Paradoxically, seven of the BX-C regulatory domains are separated from their gene target by at least one boundary, and must “jump over” the intervening boundaries. To understand the jumping mechanism, the Mcp boundary was replaced with Fab-7 and Fab-8. Mcp is located between the iab-4 and iab-5 domains, and defines the border between the set of regulatory domains controlling abd-A and Abd-B. When Mcp is replaced by Fab-7 or Fab-8, they direct the iab-4 domain (which regulates abd-A) to inappropriately activate Abd-B in abdominal segment A4. For the Fab-8 replacement, ectopic induction was only observed when it was inserted in the same orientation as the endogenous Fab-8 boundary. A similar orientation dependence for bypass activity was observed when Fab-7 was replaced by Fab-8. Thus, boundaries perform two opposite functions in the context of BX-C–they block crosstalk between neighboring regulatory domains, but at the same time actively facilitate long distance communication between the regulatory domains and their respective target genes. Drosophila bithorax complex (BX-C) is one of a few examples demonstrating in vivo role of boundary/insulator elements in organization of independent chromatin domains. BX-C contains three HOX genes, whose parasegment-specific pattern is controlled by cis-regulatory domains flanked by boundary/insulator elements. Since the boundaries ensure autonomy of adjacent domains, the presence of these elements poses a paradox: how do the domains bypass the intervening boundaries and contact their proper regulatory targets? According to the textbook model, BX-C regulatory domains are able to bypass boundaries because they harbor special promoter targeting sequences. However, contrary to this model, we show here that the boundaries themselves play an active role in directing regulatory domains to their appropriate HOX gene promoter.

The Abdominal-B (Abd-B) gene belongs to Bithorax complex and its expression is controlled by four regulatory domains, iab-5, iab-6, iab-7 and iab-8, each of which is thought to be responsible for directing the expression of Abd-B in one of the abdominal segments from A5 to A8. A variety of experiments have supported the idea that BX-C regulatory domains are functionally autonomous and that each domain is both necessary and sufficient to orchestrate the development of the segment they specify. Unexpectedly, we discovered that this model does not always hold. Instead, we find that tissue-specific enhancers located in the iab-5 domain are required for the proper activation of Abd-B not only in A5 but also in A6. Our findings indicate that the functioning of the iab-5 and iab-6 domains in development of the adult cuticle A5 and A6 in males fit better with an additive model much like that first envisioned by Ed Lewis.

Drosophila bithorax complex (BX-C) is one of the best model systems for studying the role of boundaries (insulators) in gene regulation. Expression of three homeotic genes, Ubx, abd-A, and Abd-B , is orchestrated by nine parasegment-specific regulatory domains. These domains are flanked by boundary elements, which function to block crosstalk between adjacent domains, ensuring that they can act autonomously. Paradoxically, seven of the BX-C regulatory domains are separated from their gene target by at least one boundary, and must “jump over” the intervening boundaries. To understand the jumping mechanism, the Mcp boundary was replaced with Fab-7 and Fab-8 . Mcp is located between the iab-4 and iab-5 domains, and defines the border between the set of regulatory domains controlling abd-A and Abd-B . When Mcp is replaced by Fab-7 or Fab-8, they direct the iab-4 domain (which regulates abd-A ) to inappropriately activate Abd-B in abdominal segment A4. For the Fab-8 replacement, ectopic induction was only observed when it was inserted in the same orientation as the endogenous Fab-8 boundary. A similar orientation dependence for bypass activity was observed when Fab-7 was replaced by Fab-8 . Thus, boundaries perform two opposite functions in the context of BX-C – they block crosstalk between neighboring regulatory domains, but at the same time actively facilitate long distance communication between the regulatory domains and their respective target genes. Author Summary: Drosophila bithorax complex (BX-C) is one of a few examples demonstrating in vivo role of boundary/insulator elements in organization of independent chromatin domains. BX-C contains three HOX genes, whose parasegment-specific pattern is controlled by cis -regulatory domains flanked by boundary/insulator elements. Since the boundaries ensure autonomy of adjacent domains, the presence of these elements poses a paradox: how do the domains bypass the intervening boundaries and contact their proper regulatory targets? According to the textbook model, BX-C regulatory domains are able to bypass boundaries because they harbor special promoter targeting sequences. However, contrary to this model, we show here that the boundaries themselves play an active role in directing regulatory domains to their appropriate HOX gene promoter.

Expression of the three Bithorax complex homeotic genes is orchestrated by nine parasegment-specific regulatory domains. Autonomy of each domain is conferred by boundary elements (insulators). Here, we have used an in situ replacement strategy to reanalyze the sequences required for the functioning of one of the best-characterized fly boundaries, Fab-7 . It was initially identified by a deletion, Fab-7 ¹ , that transformed parasegment (PS) 11 into a duplicate copy of PS12. Fab-7 ¹ deleted four nuclease hypersensitive sites, HS*, HS1, HS2, and HS3, located in between the iab-6 and iab-7 regulatory domains. Transgene and P -element excision experiments mapped the boundary to HS*+HS1+HS2, while HS3 was shown to be the iab-7 Polycomb response element (PRE). Recent replacement experiments showed that HS1 is both necessary and sufficient for boundary activity when HS3 is also presented in the replacement construct. Surprisingly, while HS1+HS3 combination has full boundary activity, we discovered that HS1 alone has only minimal function. Moreover, when combined with HS3, only the distal half of HS1, dHS1, is needed. A ∼1,000 kD multiprotein complex containing the GAF protein, called the LBC, binds to the dHS1 sequence and we show that mutations in dHS1 that disrupt LBC binding in nuclear extracts eliminate boundary activity and GAF binding in vivo . HS3 has binding sites for GAF and Pho proteins that are required for PRE silencing. In contrast, HS3 boundary activity only requires the GAF binding sites. LBC binding with HS3 in nuclear extracts, and GAF association in vivo depend upon the HS3 GAF sites, but not the Pho sites. Consistent with a role for the LBC in HS3 boundary activity, the boundary function of the dHS1+HS3 ^mPho combination is lost when the flies are heterozygous for a mutation in the GAF gene. Taken together, these results reveal a novel function for the iab-7 PREs in chromosome architecture. Author Summary: Polycomb group proteins (PcG) are important epigenetic regulators of developmental genes in all higher eukaryotes. In Drosophila, these proteins are bound to specific regulatory DNA elements called Polycomb group Response Elements (PREs). PcG support proper patterns of homeotic gene expression throughout development. Drosophila PREs are made up of binding sites for a complex array of DNA binding proteins, including GAF and Pho. In the regulatory region of the bithorax complex (BX-C), the boundary/insulator elements organize the autonomous regulatory domains, and their active or repressed states are regulated by PREs. Here, we studied the domain organization of the Fab-7 boundary and the neighboring PRE, which separate the iab-6 and iab-7 domains involved in transcription of the Abd-B gene. It was previously thought that PRE recruits PcG proteins that inhibit activation of the iab-7 enhancers in the inappropriate domains. However, here we found that PRE contributes to boundary activity and in combination with a key 242 bp Fab-7 region (dHS1) can form a completely functional boundary. Late Boundary Complex (LBC) binds not only to dHS1 but also to PRE and is required for the boundary activity of both elements. At the same time, mutations of Pho binding sites strongly diminish recruiting of PcG but do not considerably affect boundary function, suggesting that these activities can be separated in PRE.