The P53 Tumor Suppressor Inhibits Transcription of the TATA-less Mouse DP1 Promoter
Rahul V. Gopalkrishnan,Eric W.‐F. Lam,Claude Kédinger
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.273.18.10972
1998-01-01
Abstract:Cell cycle progression is subject to several regulatory controls, of which the p53 protein plays a major role in growth arrest, subsequent to the detection of cellular aberrations. It is well documented that p53 has the ability to inhibit transcription driven by several promoters, possibly via distinct mechanisms. In this report, we show that expression of the cell cycle regulatory transcription factor DP1 is strongly inhibited by p53, at the level of transcription and probably through the basal TATA-less promoter. This inhibitory activity has a relative specificity for the DP1 promoter compared with the functionally related E2F1 promoter or unrelated promoters such as those of the transcription factor ATFa or the thymidine kinase gene. Inhibition of DP1 transcription has implications in one of the several possible mechanisms through which p53 induces cell cycle arrest. Cell cycle progression is subject to several regulatory controls, of which the p53 protein plays a major role in growth arrest, subsequent to the detection of cellular aberrations. It is well documented that p53 has the ability to inhibit transcription driven by several promoters, possibly via distinct mechanisms. In this report, we show that expression of the cell cycle regulatory transcription factor DP1 is strongly inhibited by p53, at the level of transcription and probably through the basal TATA-less promoter. This inhibitory activity has a relative specificity for the DP1 promoter compared with the functionally related E2F1 promoter or unrelated promoters such as those of the transcription factor ATFa or the thymidine kinase gene. Inhibition of DP1 transcription has implications in one of the several possible mechanisms through which p53 induces cell cycle arrest. The tumor suppressor protein p53 is generally expressed at low levels in normal cells. Up-regulation of p53 has diverse effects on the expression of a variety of genes and the activity of their encoded proteins, cumulating in growth arrest and/or activation of the apoptotic pathway (see Refs. 1Levine A.J. Cell. 1997; 88: 323-331Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (6759) Google Scholar, 2Ko L.J. Prives C. Genes Dev. 1996; 10: 1054-1072Crossref PubMed Scopus (2294) Google Scholar, 3Haffner R. Oren M. Curr. Opin. Genet. & Dev. 1995; 5: 84-90Crossref PubMed Scopus (180) Google Scholar for recent reviews). The p53 protein is a genuine transcription factor and can directly activate a subset of genes important for cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, through binding to specific sequences located within the promoter regions or the first introns of these genes (4el-Deiry W.S. Harper J.W. O'Connor P.M. Velculescu V.E. Canman C.E. Jackman J. Pietenpol J.A. Burrell M. Hill D.E. Wang Y. Cancer Res. 1994; 54: 1169-1174PubMed Google Scholar, 5Bourdon J.-C. Deguin-Chambon V. Lelong J.-C. Dessen P. May P. Debuire B. May E. Oncogene. 1997; 14: 85-94Crossref PubMed Scopus (132) Google Scholar). However, it has also been reported that p53 can repress the transcription of a large number of genes, which do not have consensus p53 binding sequences within their regulatory regions (6Ginsberg D. Mechta F. Yaniv M. Oren M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1991; 88: 9979-9983Crossref PubMed Scopus (390) Google Scholar). The exact mechanism underlying this p53-dependent inhibition is presently unclear, but it is thought to be the consequence of p53 inhibiting transcription activators (7Perrem K. Rayner J. Voss T. Sturzbecher H. Jackson P. Braithwaite A. Oncogene. 1995; 11: 1299-1307PubMed Google Scholar, 8O'Connor D.J. Lam E.W. Griffin S. Zhong S. Leighton L.C. Burbidge S.A. Lu X. EMBO J. 1995; 14: 6184-6192Crossref PubMed Scopus (90) Google Scholar) or components of the basal transcription machinery (9Ragimov N. Krauskopf A. Navot N. Rotter V. Oren M. Aloni Y. Oncogene. 1993; 8: 1183-1193PubMed Google Scholar, 10Leveillard T. Andera L. Bissonnette N. Schaeffer L. Bracco L. Egly J.M. Wasylyk B. EMBO J. 1996; 15: 1615-1624Crossref PubMed Scopus (138) Google Scholar, 11Farmer G. Friedlander P. Colgan J. Manley J.L. Prives C. Nucleic Acids Res. 1996; 24: 4281-4288Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar). This phenomenon, which seemed to be specific for genes with “TATA box” elements, has recently also been demonstrated in promoters without a TATA consensus (12Sandri M.I. Isaacs R.J. Ongkeko W.M. Harris A.L. Hickson I.D. Broggini M. Vikhanskaya F. Nucleic Acids Res. 1996; 24: 4464-4470Crossref PubMed Scopus (92) Google Scholar, 13Iotsova V. Crepieux P. Montpellier C. Laudet V. Stehelin D. Oncogene. 1996; 13: 2331-2337PubMed Google Scholar, 14Wang Q.J. Zambetti G.P. Suttle D.P. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1997; 17: 389-397Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). The E2F/DP family of transcription factors plays a key role in transducing proliferative signals through regulating the expression of genes whose products are involved in DNA synthesis and cell cycle control. E2F/DP significantly contributes to the transcriptional control of cell cycle regulators such as the cyclins A, D, and E, E2F1, E2F2, and c-Myc (15Farnham P.J. Slansky J.E. Kollmar R. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1993; 1155: 125-131Crossref PubMed Scopus (135) Google Scholar, 16Lam E.W.F. La Thangue N.B. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 1994; 6: 859-866Crossref PubMed Scopus (184) Google Scholar, 17Adams P.D. Kaelin Jr., W.G. Semin. Cancer Biol. 1995; 6: 99-108Crossref PubMed Scopus (139) Google Scholar). Consequently, E2F/DP functions as a crucial cellular regulator of the G1 to S phase checkpoint, and dysregulated expression of E2F/DP activity is likely to have a drastic effect on the cell and the organism (reviewed in Ref. 18Weinberg R.A. Cell. 1997; 88: 573-575Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar). E2F/DP is a heterodimeric transcription factor comprising two families of proteins, the E2Fs (E2F1–5) and DPs (DP1–3) (16Lam E.W.F. La Thangue N.B. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 1994; 6: 859-866Crossref PubMed Scopus (184) Google Scholar, 17Adams P.D. Kaelin Jr., W.G. Semin. Cancer Biol. 1995; 6: 99-108Crossref PubMed Scopus (139) Google Scholar). The E2F and DP proteins cooperate to bind DNA and activate transcription of target genes. E2F1 and DP1 were the first members of this transcription factor to be cloned and are probably the best characterized (19Kaelin Jr., W.G. Krek W. Sellers W.R. De Caprio J.A. Ajchenbaum F. Fuchs C.S. Chittenden T. Li Y. Farnham P.J. Blanar M.A. Livingston D.M. Flemington E.K. Cell. 1992; 70: 351-364Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (692) Google Scholar, 20Helin K. Lees J.A. Vidal M. Dyson N. Harlow E. Fattaey A. Cell. 1992; 70: 337-350Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (523) Google Scholar, 21Girling R. Partridge J.F. Bandara L.R. Burden N. Totty N.F. Hsuan J.J. La Thangue N.B. Nature. 1993; 362: 83-87Crossref PubMed Scopus (201) Google Scholar) with respect to their functions and regulation. Several aspects of the DP1 protein have been documented, including its functional domains and its proto-oncogenic potential (16Lam E.W.F. La Thangue N.B. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 1994; 6: 859-866Crossref PubMed Scopus (184) Google Scholar, 22Lowe S.W. Ruley H.E. Genes Dev. 1993; 7: 535-545Crossref PubMed Scopus (613) Google Scholar, 23Helin K. Wu C.L. Fattaey A.R. Lees J.A. Dynlacht B.D. Ngwu C. Harlow E. Genes Dev. 1993; 7: 1850-1861Crossref PubMed Scopus (421) Google Scholar). Its gene locus has also been described recently (24Gopalkrishnan R.V. Dolle P. Mattei M.G. Lathangue N.B. Kedinger C. Oncogene. 1996; 13: 2671-2680PubMed Google Scholar). DP1 is a phosphoprotein, and its activity is believed to be regulated through phosphorylation during the cell cycle (25Bandara L.R. Lam E.W. Sorensen T.S. Zamanian M. Girling R. La Thangue N.B. EMBO J. 1994; 13: 3104-3114Crossref PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar). One of the kinases involved in phosphorylating DP1 is the cyclin A·cdk2 complex, which phosphorylates DP1 at the end of S phase (26Lees E. Faha B. Dulic V. Reed S.I. Harlow E. Genes Dev. 1992; 6: 1874-1885Crossref PubMed Scopus (361) Google Scholar,27Krek W. Ewen M.E. Shirodkar S. Arany Z. Kaelin Jr., W.G. Livingston D.M. Cell. 1994; 78: 161-172Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (414) Google Scholar). This results in reduction in DNA binding activity of the E2F1/DP1 heterodimer and down-regulation of target genes at later stages of the cell cycle. The interaction of the tumor suppressor pocket protein family pRB, p107, and p130 with E2F/DP forms the basis of the mechanism by which E2F/DP activity is regulated, during early phases of the cell cycle (28Whyte P. Semin. Cancer Biol. 1995; 6: 83-90Crossref PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar). Evidence has now emerged that there is cross-talk between the p53 and pRB/E2F pathways and that p53 also has a role in modulating E2F/DP activity. This regulation occurs via direct protein interactions between p53 and components of the E2F1/DP1 heterodimer, resulting in cross-inhibition of p53 and E2F/DP transcription activity (8O'Connor D.J. Lam E.W. Griffin S. Zhong S. Leighton L.C. Burbidge S.A. Lu X. EMBO J. 1995; 14: 6184-6192Crossref PubMed Scopus (90) Google Scholar). Additional level of cross-talk, but in a less direct manner, has been also shown to be mediated by the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, p21 (29Good L. Dimri G.P. Campisi J. Chen K.Y. J. Cell. Physiol. 1996; 168: 580-588Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar, 30Dimri G.P. Nakanishi M. Desprez P.Y. Smith J.R. Campisi J. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1996; 16: 2987-2997Crossref PubMed Scopus (130) Google Scholar). In the present report, we provide evidence for yet another level of control exerted by p53 on E2F/DP activity, through transcriptional repression of the DP1 promoter and to a lesser extent that of the E2F1 promoter. A series of chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) 1The abbreviations used are: CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase; TBP, TATA box binding protein; hATFap, human ATFa promoter; HSV-tkminp, herpes simplex virus-thymidine kinase gene minimal promoter; mDP1p, mouse DP1 promoter; mE2F1p, mouse E2F1 promoter; WT, wild type; GAPDH, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase. reporter plasmids were constructed by inserting various promoter sequences in front of thecat gene of a promoterless vector (pBLCAT6) (31Boshart M. Kluppel M. Schmidt A. Schutz G. Luckow B. Gene (Amst .). 1992; 110: 129-130Crossref PubMed Scopus (230) Google Scholar), generating the following recombinants: mDP1p-CAT contains the wild-type mouse DP1 promoter (mDP1p, between positions −1142 and +170) (Fig. 1 (24Gopalkrishnan R.V. Dolle P. Mattei M.G. Lathangue N.B. Kedinger C. Oncogene. 1996; 13: 2671-2680PubMed Google Scholar)); mDP1pmut1-CAT contains the same mDP1 sequences but with point mutations (CACGTG → CAAATG, at positions −1027 and −1026) that destroy the putative Myc binding site and a deletion of 88 base pairs (between positions −850 to −763) that removes the putative E2F binding site (between −842 to −834) and flanking sequences; mDP1pmut2-CAT contains mDP1p sequences identical to the wild type, except for point mutations that destroy the putative Myc binding site (24Gopalkrishnan R.V. Dolle P. Mattei M.G. Lathangue N.B. Kedinger C. Oncogene. 1996; 13: 2671-2680PubMed Google Scholar); mE2F1p-CAT contains the −176 to +98 region of the mouse E2F1 promoter (32Hsiao K.M. McMahon S.L. Farnham P.J. Genes Dev. 1994; 8: 1526-1537Crossref PubMed Scopus (222) Google Scholar); hATFa-CAT contains the −1917/+83 region of the human ATFa promoter (33Goetz J. Chatton B. Mattei M.G. Kedinger C. J. Biol. Chem. 1996; 271: 29589-29598Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar); HSV-tkmin contains the minimal promoter of the thymidine kinase gene from the herpes simplex virus (31Boshart M. Kluppel M. Schmidt A. Schutz G. Luckow B. Gene (Amst .). 1992; 110: 129-130Crossref PubMed Scopus (230) Google Scholar). Overexpression of wild-type p53 (p53WT) and mutants R273H and R175H were from the eukaryotic expression vectors described in Hinds et al. (34Hinds P.W. Finlay C.A. Quartin R.S. Baker S.J. Fearon E.R. Vogelstein B. Levine A.J. Cell Growth Differ. 1990; 1: 571-580PubMed Google Scholar). These p53 mutants, which were derived from human colorectal carcinomas, are altered at residues Arg-175 and Arg-273, respectively. Each mutation inactivates the DNA binding domain, thus disrupting the p53 ability to recognize and bind DNA site- specifically. The p53 mutant 22,23, which carries a double mutation at residues Leu-22 and Trp-23, was originally described by Lin et al. (35Lin J. Chen J. Elenbaas B. Levine A.J. Genes Dev. 1994; 8: 1235-1246Crossref PubMed Scopus (581) Google Scholar) and shown to be defective for transactivation. The Mdm2, TBP, and TAFII70β2 expression constructs have been described in Dubs-Poterszman et al. (36Dubs-Poterszman M.C. Tocque B. Wasylyk B. Oncogene. 1995; 11: 2445-2449PubMed Google Scholar), May et al. (37May M. Mengus G. Lavigne A.C. Chambon P. Davidson I. EMBO J. 1996; 15: 3093-3104Crossref PubMed Scopus (76) Google Scholar), and Sheer and Tora, 2B. Bell, E. Sheer, and L. Tora, manuscript in preparation. respectively. Transfections and CAT assays were performed in Saos-2 cells using calcium phosphate coprecipitation as described previously (24Gopalkrishnan R.V. Dolle P. Mattei M.G. Lathangue N.B. Kedinger C. Oncogene. 1996; 13: 2671-2680PubMed Google Scholar). Quantitations of CAT chromatograms were performed on a PhosphorImager (Fuji Photo Film Co.). Fold inhibition values were expressed as ratios of the activity of the reporter in the presence of the empty vector to that in the presence of the p53 expression vectors. Each data point represents an average of at least three independent experiments, with standard deviations. The intrinsic transcriptional activity of transfected wild-type and mutant p53 constructs was performed using 1 μg each of pG13CAT (a reporter bearing 13 copies of a p53 binding site) (38Kern S.E. Pietenpol J.A. Thiagalingam S. Seymour A. Kinzler K.W. Vogelstein B. Science. 1992; 256: 827-830Crossref PubMed Scopus (891) Google Scholar) and the expression construct, respectively. Protein extracts (39Kumar V. Chambon P. Cell. 1988; 55: 145-156Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (961) Google Scholar), prepared from Saos-2 cells transfected with p53 expression constructs, were analyzed by SDS-10% polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The resolved proteins were Western blotted and probed with the anti-p53 CM5 antibody or the monoclonal antibodies DO-1 and pAb240 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.) which recognize distinct epitopes on p53. The specific signals were detected using chemiluminescence detection systems (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech and DuPont). NIH 3T3 mouse fibroblasts, clone 6 rat embryo fibroblasts (9Ragimov N. Krauskopf A. Navot N. Rotter V. Oren M. Aloni Y. Oncogene. 1993; 8: 1183-1193PubMed Google Scholar, 40Martinez J. Georgoff I. Levine A.J. Genes Dev. 1991; 5: 151-159Crossref PubMed Scopus (494) Google Scholar), and Saos-2 (p53−/−) cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum, 2 mm glutamine, and 100 units/ml penicillin and streptomycin in a 5% CO2 atmosphere. After removal of the culture medium from subconfluent NIH 3T3 fibroblasts, the cells were exposed to a 50 J/m2 dose of UV radiation delivered by a XL-1500 UV cross-linker (Spectronics Corp.). The original culture medium was then returned to the irradiated cells for further incubation before harvest at time points indicated. The clone 6 rat embryo fibroblasts were maintained at 37 °C. In the temperature shift experiments, subconfluent clone 6 cells were transferred to 32.5 °C. Cells were then harvested at indicated times. Twenty μg of total RNA extracted at times indicated was resolved by formaldehyde-agarose gel electrophoresis, followed by Northern blotting as described (41Lam E.W. Watson R.J. EMBO J. 1993; 12: 2705-2713Crossref PubMed Scopus (318) Google Scholar). DP1 mRNA was detected by hybridization with a full-length32P-labeled cDNA probe. The control GAPDH cDNA probe has been described previously (41Lam E.W. Watson R.J. EMBO J. 1993; 12: 2705-2713Crossref PubMed Scopus (318) Google Scholar). The cloning of the mouse DP1 genomic locus and preliminary characterization of the promoter sequences have been reported earlier (24Gopalkrishnan R.V. Dolle P. Mattei M.G. Lathangue N.B. Kedinger C. Oncogene. 1996; 13: 2671-2680PubMed Google Scholar). We presently report the sequence of major upstream regulatory elements (Fig. 1) which, when linked to a luciferase reporter gene and stably expressed in mouse NIH3T3 fibroblasts, mimics the induction kinetics of the endogenous gene. 3R. V. Gopalkrishnan, E. W.-F. Lam, and C. Kedinger, unpublished observation. To gain further insight into the mechanisms involved in this regulation, experiments were undertaken to determine the nature of modulatory signals for both the endogenous gene and transfected constructs. Exponentially growing NIH 3T3 cells were exposed to UV radiation (50 J/m2), and the steady-state levels of DP1 RNA were monitored by Northern blot analysis, over a period of 16 h. The protein level of p53 was also followed by Western analysis over the same time course. An inverse relationship between p53 protein level and DP1 mRNA level was observed, whereas p53 accumulated following UV treatment (Fig. 2 A), DP1 expression was progressively reduced, compared with the level of GAPDH transcripts that remained unaffected (Fig. 2 B). Because UV radiation is an inducer of p53 expression (1Levine A.J. Cell. 1997; 88: 323-331Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (6759) Google Scholar, 42Kastan M.B. Onyekwere O. Sidransky D. Vogelstein B. Craig R.W. Cancer Res. 1991; 51: 6304-6311PubMed Google Scholar), these results provided strong circumstantial evidence for the involvement of p53 in DP1 regulation. To rule out the possibility that the observed modulation of DP1 expression was due to side effects of UV irradiation, unrelated to p53 induction, we examined the pattern of DP1 transcripts under more defined conditions. Rat embryo fibroblasts (clone 6) harboring a temperature-sensitive allele of p53 (9Ragimov N. Krauskopf A. Navot N. Rotter V. Oren M. Aloni Y. Oncogene. 1993; 8: 1183-1193PubMed Google Scholar, 40Martinez J. Georgoff I. Levine A.J. Genes Dev. 1991; 5: 151-159Crossref PubMed Scopus (494) Google Scholar) were shifted to the permissive temperature, where the p53 protein is expressed in the wild-type active conformation. As shown in Fig. 3 A, this induced a rapid down-regulation of DP1 RNA levels, within an hour after shift to the permissive temperature. Normalization of DP1 mRNA levels as a ratio to GAPDH (Fig. 3 B) showed that there was an average 4–5-fold decrease in DP1 mRNA levels, after wild-type p53 induction had occurred. Furthermore, we verified that a similar temperature shift had no effect on DP1 expression in wild-type rat embryo fibroblasts (not shown). It therefore appeared that accumulation of active wild-type p53 was capable of down-regulating the steady-state levels of endogenous DP1 mRNA in vivo. To examine the effect of p53 on DP1 promoter activity in a more direct way, transient transfection experiments were performed in p53-negative Saos-2 cells, using a DP1 reporter construct (mDP1p-CAT) and assaying its activity in the absence or presence of a p53 expression vector (Table I). In accordance with the observations above, expression of p53 resulted in a marked inhibition of the DP1 promoter, as revealed by the decrease in reporter activity. A maximal level of about 10-fold inhibition was observed with 0.5 μg of reporter construct. Reduction in levels of inhibition was observed with increasing amounts of DP1 reporter DNA and constant amount of p53 expression construct, suggesting that the assay system was responsive to the amount of p53 in the cell; excess of DP1 promoter sequences partially overcame inhibition, probably when p53 levels became limiting.Table Ip53 inhibits the mDP1 promoter activitymDP1p-CAT reporterRelative CAT activityFold inhibition by p53−p53+p53μg-fold0.51929.51.03984.92.056163.54.088224.0 Open table in a new tab To determine whether inhibition of the mDP1 promoter was specifically achieved by the wild-type but not mutant p53 protein, as suggested in the temperature-sensitive mutant experiments (Fig. 3), transient transfection experiments were performed in Saos-2 cells with identical amounts of expression construct encoding either the wild-type or distinct mutant forms of p53 (see “Materials and Methods”). Only wild-type p53 had a significant ability to inhibit the activity of the mDP1 promoter (Fig. 4 A). The extent of inhibition was, on an average, 7-fold compared with the activity of the mDP1 promoter cotransfected with an equivalent amount of unloaded vector or mutant constructs, under identical assay conditions. To examine whether the different p53 expression constructs used in transfection assays expressed equivalent levels of proteins, extracts were made from appropriately transfected cells and analyzed by Western blotting, using two monoclonal antibodies recognizing distinct epitopes on the p53 molecule (Fig. 4 B, top). Except for the negative control (Saos-2 cells transfected with empty vector), all four p53 constructs expressed the corresponding proteins to approximately equivalent levels under the conditions used. Furthermore, the different transfected p53 proteins displayed their expected capacity for transcriptional activation; as previously reported (Ref. 1Levine A.J. Cell. 1997; 88: 323-331Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (6759) Google Scholar and references therein), only the wild type and to a much lesser extent the 22,23 mutant (35Lin J. Chen J. Elenbaas B. Levine A.J. Genes Dev. 1994; 8: 1235-1246Crossref PubMed Scopus (581) Google Scholar) showed biological activity based on the ability to drive expression of a cat reporter gene placed downstream of a synthetic reporter containing multiple p53 binding sites (Fig. 4 B, bottom). Under our experimental conditions, no significant levels of cell death were observed between cells that expressed wild-type p53 and those expressing mutant constructs (data not shown). Also, cells expressing wild-type p53 protein were not compromised in general transcriptional functions, since other promoters transfected in parallel exhibited comparable activity either in the presence or absence of p53 (see below). Altogether, these observations strongly supported the conclusion that inhibition of the DP1 promoter was specifically exhibited only by the wild-type, functional p53 protein and not by the mutant forms. These results were also indicative of the fact that nonspecific inhibition or “squelching” of transcription by titration effects due to excess, exogenously introduced DNA or p53 protein expression was not the likely cause of this repression. The p53 protein has been previously reported to inhibit a number of promoters (7Perrem K. Rayner J. Voss T. Sturzbecher H. Jackson P. Braithwaite A. Oncogene. 1995; 11: 1299-1307PubMed Google Scholar, 8O'Connor D.J. Lam E.W. Griffin S. Zhong S. Leighton L.C. Burbidge S.A. Lu X. EMBO J. 1995; 14: 6184-6192Crossref PubMed Scopus (90) Google Scholar, 9Ragimov N. Krauskopf A. Navot N. Rotter V. Oren M. Aloni Y. Oncogene. 1993; 8: 1183-1193PubMed Google Scholar, 10Leveillard T. Andera L. Bissonnette N. Schaeffer L. Bracco L. Egly J.M. Wasylyk B. EMBO J. 1996; 15: 1615-1624Crossref PubMed Scopus (138) Google Scholar, 11Farmer G. Friedlander P. Colgan J. Manley J.L. Prives C. Nucleic Acids Res. 1996; 24: 4281-4288Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar) that do not contain specific p53 binding sites. To determine the specificity of inhibition, a series of transfection assays were performed using mE2F1p-, hATFap-, and the HSV-tkminp-CAT constructs (see “Materials and Methods”), in parallel with the mDP1p-CAT reporter. All four promoter constructs had identical pBLCAT6 reporter backbones. Although the basal activities of these constructs were intrinsically different, their relative levels of inhibition by p53 (Fig. 5 A) were quite distinct; it appeared that the mDP1 promoter was most susceptible to inhibition by p53, followed by the mE2F1 promoter; the other two promoters were repressed to a much lesser extent. It is probably more than coincidental that the DP1 and E2F1 promoters were most sensitive to inhibition by p53, since both promoters exhibit temporally overlapping activities during the cell cycle and because both DP1 and E2F products participate in cell cycle regulation. Additionally, both genes most likely share regulatory elements (32Hsiao K.M. McMahon S.L. Farnham P.J. Genes Dev. 1994; 8: 1526-1537Crossref PubMed Scopus (222) Google Scholar)3 that are not in common to the other two promoters. To determine the mechanism by which p53 exerted its inhibitory effects on the mDP1 promoter, transfection experiments were performed using the wild-type mDP1p-CAT and two mutated mDP1 constructs as follows: mDP1mut1-CAT, mutated in the putative Myc binding site and lacking a putative enhancer element, centered around an E2F binding site and mDP1mut2-CAT point-mutated in only the putative Myc binding site (see “Materials and Methods”). Although mDP1mut2 had activity comparable to that of the wild-type promoter, the mDP1mut1 construct had approximately 3–5-fold reduced basal activity (data not shown). Despite this difference in basal activities, both mutated promoters exhibited similar fold inhibition by p53 (Fig. 5 B). This indicated that, although the mDP1mut1 construct was lacking in a putative enhancer region (24Gopalkrishnan R.V. Dolle P. Mattei M.G. Lathangue N.B. Kedinger C. Oncogene. 1996; 13: 2671-2680PubMed Google Scholar)3 that encompassed sequences important for mDP1 promoter activity, it was still inhibited by p53. Thus p53 does not apparently mediate its major inhibitory effects at the level of this putative enhancer element, since deletion of those sequences, while reducing overall promoter activity, actually resulted in a greater inhibitory response to p53 (Fig. 5 B). To approach this question from another angle, E2F1, DP1, and Sp1 proteins, all of which possess putative binding sites in the mDP1 promoter (24Gopalkrishnan R.V. Dolle P. Mattei M.G. Lathangue N.B. Kedinger C. Oncogene. 1996; 13: 2671-2680PubMed Google Scholar) and have the reported capacity to interact with p53 (7Perrem K. Rayner J. Voss T. Sturzbecher H. Jackson P. Braithwaite A. Oncogene. 1995; 11: 1299-1307PubMed Google Scholar,8O'Connor D.J. Lam E.W. Griffin S. Zhong S. Leighton L.C. Burbidge S.A. Lu X. EMBO J. 1995; 14: 6184-6192Crossref PubMed Scopus (90) Google Scholar, 43Hiebert S.W. Packham G. Strom D.K. Haffner R. Oren M. Zambetti G. Cleveland J.L. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1995; 15: 6864-6874Crossref PubMed Scopus (146) Google Scholar, 44Martin K. Trouche D. Hagemeier C. Sorensen T.S. Lathangue N.B. Kouzarides T. Nature. 1995; 375: 691-694Crossref PubMed Scopus (452) Google Scholar), were unable to reverse inhibition (data not shown). Such experiments were technically difficult to perform, in terms of obtaining an optimal balance of several different overexpressed factors under the regulation of different promoters. In general, however, in every case where activation of the reporter was obtained by overexpression of an exogenous factor, the extent of p53 inhibition was still in the range of 5–7-fold, similar to when these factors were not exogenously expressed. It seems likely, therefore, that p53-mediated inhibition of the DP1 promoter does not occur at the level of enhancer sequences nor mediated through interactions with enhancer-binding proteins. A possible mechanism of p53-mediated inhibition, reported for several TATA box containing promoters, has been attributed to its ability to interact with diverse components of the basal transcription machinery. A majority of such studies has demonstrated the ability of components of the basal machinery such as TBP (9Ragimov N. Krauskopf A. Navot N. Rotter V. Oren M. Aloni Y. Oncogene. 1993; 8: 1183-1193PubMed Google Scholar, 45Horikoshi N. Usheva A. Chen J. Levine A.J. Weinmann R. Shenk T. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1995; 15: 227-234Crossref PubMed Scopus (162) Google Scholar, 46Martin D.W. Munoz R.M. Subler M.A. Deb S. J. Biol. Chem. 1993; 268: 13062-13067Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 47Liu X. Miller C.W. Koeffler P.H. Berk A.J. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1993; 13: 3291-3300Crossref PubMed Scopus (235) Google Scholar, 48Seto E. Usheva A. Zambetti G.P. Momand J. Horikoshi N. Weinmann R. Levine A.J. Shenk T. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1992; 89: 12028-12032Crossref PubMed Scopus (464) Google Scholar), TFIIH (10Leveillard T. Andera L. Bissonnette N. Schaeffer L. Bracco L. Egly J.M. Wasylyk B. EMBO J. 1996; 15: 1615-1624Crossref PubMed Scopus (138) Google Scholar, 49Lu H. Fisher R.P. Bailey P. Levine A.J. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1997; 17: 5923-5934Crossref PubMed Scopus (137) Google Scholar), and the TAFs (50Lu H. Levine A.J. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1995; 92: 5154-5158Crossref PubMed Scopus (282) Google Scholar, 51Lu H. Lin J. Chen J. Levine A.J. Harvey Lect. 1994; 90: 81-93PubMed Google Scholar, 52Thut C.J. Chen J.L. Klemm R. Tjian R. Science. 1995; 267: 100-104Crossref PubMed Scopus (407) Google Scholar) to at least partially counteract the inhibitory activity of p53 through overexpression of that component. Similar studies have been performed by overexpressing transcription factors such as Sp1 (7Perrem K. Rayner J. Voss T. Sturzbecher H. Jackson P. Braithwaite A. Oncogene. 1995; 11: 1299-1307PubMed Google Scholar) or Mdm2 (53Momand J. Zambetti G.P. J. Cell Biochem. 1997; 64: 343-352Crossref PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar) to relieve inhibition. We therefore attempted to reverse p53-mediated inhibi