Known MITF target genes reside within defined expression cluster nodes
The transcriptional profiles of immortal melanocyte lines, melan-Ink4a-1, melan-Ink4a-b, melancht-4, melan-cht-5, and NIH3T3, were obtained by co-hybridization of labeled samples in triplicate with Universal RNA to a printed Operon Mv3.0 oligonucleotide probe set representing over 16,000 genes. Expression data from these 15 hybridizations were queried for genes that were: (1) highly expressed in melanocyte lines relative to Universal RNA and NIH3T3 levels; and (2) varied in expression using hierarchical clustering algorithms in a manner similar to previously identified pigmentation genes. A set of 318 microarray probes, representing 258 distinct genes, were identified that exhibited a calibrated ratio >2 for all melanocyte cell lines relative to the corresponding NIH3T3 control calibrated ratios, and had a calibrated ratio of >3 in any of the four melanocyte samples (
Supplemental Figure 1, S1) relative to the Universal RNA control used for the hybridizations. This Universal RNA represented pooled expression from 11 different cell lines. Hierarchical clustering of the expression data for the 258 genes identified a distinct expression cluster node consisting of six genes, three of which,
Si,
Dct, and
Tyrp1, are previously known pigmentation gene loci and MITF target genes ().
Gpnmb expression is similar to known pigmentation genes in vivo Previous work has demonstrated that three of the genes in this cluster node,
Tyrp1,
Dct and
Si, are expressed in melanoblasts and/or the presumptive RPE during mouse embryonic development (
Steel et al., 1992;
Nakayama et al., 1998 ;
Baxter and Pavan, 2003). Also of note within this defined cluster node was the gene
Gpnmb. Although
Gpnmb was known to be expressed in RPE (
Bachner et al., 2002) and melanoma tissue samples (
Weterman et al., 1995), representing cells from differentiated, adult pigment cell lineages, embryonic expression was unknown. Given the clustering of
Gpnmb with these early markers for the developing pigment cell lineages we sought to evaluate if
Gpnmb also exhibited an embryonic expression pattern similar to that of
Tyrp1,
Dct and
Si. Whole-mount
in situ hybridization was performed using wild-type murine embryos at embryonic day 11.5.
Gpnmb was robustly expressed in both developing RPE and also in a punctate pattern throughout the embryo consistent with the expression of the early melanoblast marker
Mitf ().
Gpnmb expression in RPE and melanoblasts is dependent on MITF Given the striking expression pattern of
Gpnmb in both the RPE and putative melanoblasts in wild type embryos, we next determined if the intensity and pattern of
Gpnmb expression is dependent upon levels of
Mitf or
Sox10 transcription factors. For this,
Gpnmb mRNA expression was examined by whole mount
in situ hybridization in mouse embryos mutated for either
Mitf or
Sox10. No change in
Gpnmb signal intensity was observed in the developing RPE of
Sox10tm1Weg/+ or
Sox10tm1Weg/tm1Weg embryos (). This was expected, as
Sox10 is neither expressed in nor needed for optic cup/RPE development and function. However,
Gpnmb signal intensity was substantially reduced in the developing RPE of
MitfMi/+ embryos, and was completely absent in the RPE of
MitfMi/Mi embryos (). This lack of RNA expression in the developing RPE of
MitfMi/Mi embryos has also been observed for the MITF target genes,
Tyrp1,
Tyr and
Si (
Baxter and Pavan, 2002;
Baxter and Pavan, 2003;
Nakayama et al., 1998). These results demonstrate that
Gpnmb expression is dependent on MITF function for expression in the developing RPE. Examination of the punctate pattern of
Gpnmb expression in these embryos showed that
Gpnmb positive cell numbers were reduced in
Sox10tm1Weg/+,
Sox10tm1Weg/tm1Weg and
MitfMi/+embryos, and in
MitfMi/Mi embryos there was a complete lack of
Gpnmb expression over the entire embryo (, ). This is consistent with the punctate, non-RPE,
Gpnmb-positive cells being putative melanoblasts, as SOX10 and MITF are necessary for melanoblast development, and suggests normal
Gpnmb expression is dependent on SOX10 and MITF function in melanoblast cells.
Gpnmb marks a novel Sox10-independent cell population In
Sox10tm1Weg/tm1Weg embryos, while there was a complete absence of
Gpnmb expressing melanoblasts along the head and trunk, we observed a small, discrete population of
Gpnmb-positive cells present at the tail-hindlimb region along the dorsal neural tube (). This is in contrast to the complete loss of
Gpnmb expression in
MitfMi/Mi embryos () and also distinct from expression of the
Mitf target gene
Si, where there is a complete loss of melanoblast expression in
MitfMi/Mi embryos (
Baxter and Pavan, 2003), and in
Sox10tm1Weg/tm1Weg (data not shown). Given these results we then evaluated
Mitf RNA expression by whole mount
in situ hybridization in both
Sox10tm1Weg/tm1Weg and
MitfMi/Mi embryos to assess if these caudal cells were also
Mitf positive. This analysis revealed that in both
Sox10tm1Weg/tm1Weg and
MitfMi/Mi embryos, head and trunk melanoblasts were absent, yet an
Mitf-positive population of punctate cells remained at the tail-hindlimb, dorsal neural tube region (). Taken together these results indicate that in
Sox10tm1Weg/tm1Weg embryos a cell population that is positive for
Mitf and for
Gpnmb is present, while in
MitfMi/Mi embryos this cell population is positive for
MitfMi RNA but negative for
Gpnmb expression. This demonstrates that
Gpnmb expression in this discrete population of caudal melanoblasts at E11.5 requires expression of functional MITF protein but not SOX10.
GPNMB harbors highly conserved non-coding sequences To identify candidate genomic sequences that regulate GPNMB transcription, we identified highly conserved non-coding sequences surrounding the human GPNMB gene using MultiPipMaker program and PhastCons scores. Both analyses revealed four multiple-species conserved sequences (MCSs): GPNMB-MCS1, GPNMB-MCS2, GPNMB-MCS3, and GPNMB-MCS4 ().
The human genomic version of each
GPNMB-MCS was cloned upstream of a minimal promoter driving luciferase expression. The resulting constructs were then transfected into cultured melanocytes (melan-a cells) and NIH3T3 cells. Subsequently, luciferase expression was assessed in cells carrying each vector, and compared to cells transfected with a construct bearing only the minimal promoter driving luciferase expression. These analyses revealed that while
GPNMB-MCS1,
GPNMB-MCS2 and
GPNMB-MCS4 were associated with modest increases in luciferase expression (3.5, 1.1 and 0.9-fold respectively),
GPNMB-MCS3 was associated with an 88.3-fold increase in expression (). Similar results were seen in both melan-a and NIH3T3 cells (
Supplemental Figure 1,
S2) indicating that factors necessary to activate
GPNMB-MCS3 are present in both cell types.
In order to determine if MITF consensus binding sites were contained within the GPNMB-MCS sequences, we took a genome scale approach to map and annotate E-box motifs throughout the genome in multiple species. The E-box motif (CACGTG) and the two reciprocal complementary sequences CATGTG and CACATG, were each annotated with respect to flanking nucleotides 5’ T/A or 3’ A/T. Results from this genome wide analysis are available at
http://research.nhgri.nih.gov/manuscripts/Loftus/June2008. This dataset was then queried to determine if any MITF motifs reside within the regions
GPNMB-MCS1-4. This analysis revealed that two of the MCS regions harbor a total of three MITF consensus sequences. Human
GPNMB-MCS1 harbors one CACATGT, however when evaluated for each of the other organisms only the human sequence contains the intact CACATGT element (data not shown).
Two MITF consensus motifs are contained within human GPNMB-MCS3 (). The first element MITF(A), (CACATGA) is fully conserved among 14 species, but 3 separate sequence variations are observed within 6 additional species. The second MITF consensus motif, MITF(B), (TCACATGA), is also located within the same MCS3 element, is fully conserved among all 20 species evaluated, and resides within the predicted 5’UTR of the human GPNMB transcript. Further analysis of 5 kb of DNA upstream of the transcription start site revealed no other conserved MITF consensus motifs other than those in MCS3.
We next assessed the degree to which the two MITF motifs contribute to the observed enhancer activity of MCS3
in vitro. Site-directed mutagenesis was performed to delete both elements, independently and together, and luciferase expression assays were repeated in melan-a () and NIH3T3 cells, (
Supplemental Figure 2, S2). Deletion of MITF(A) motif results in a dramatic ~30-fold reduction in activity in melan-a cells, while deletion of MITF(B) exhibits expression comparable to that of the wild type MCS3 element. Deletion of both MITF(A) and MITF(B) motifs does not change the activity from that observed for deletion of MITF(A) alone. This analysis revealed that of the two MITF motifs, MITF(A) is the major contributor for expression in both melan-a and in NIH3T3 cells.
Given the striking expression pattern of
Gpnmb in developing pigment cells and the significant enhancement of expression we observed from MCS3 in melan-a cells, we assayed whether MCS3 was sufficient to provide
in vivo lineage restricted expression utilizing a zebrafish developmental transgenic assay (
Fisher et al., 2006a;
Fisher et al., 2006b) and if the corresponding MITF motif deletion constructs abrogated this pattern. We found that the 89 basepair MCS3 element was sufficient to drive GFP expression in a restricted population of cells emerging from the dorsal neural tube at 24 hpf, consistent with the pattern, morphology, and location of pre-migratory neural crest cells, melanoblast precursors (). At 48 hpf, GFP positive cells were found to colocalize with pigment melanocytes, demonstrating that the sequences within this 89 basepair MCS3 element are capable of directing expression to the melanocyte lineage in zebrafish (). Interestingly, this same GFP expression pattern was also observed for constructs in which either MITF(A), MITF(B), or both MITF(A) and MITF(B) were deleted (data not shown). This indicates that additional sequences contained with the MCS3 element are sufficient for expression in melanocytes
in vivo.
Taken together, this study demonstrates that GPNMB is expressed in early pigment cell lineages, RPE and melanoblast, and its expression in these structures is dependent on MITF. We have identified an 89 basepair conserved sequence element MCS3 contained with the GPNMB promoter that is capable of directing expression to the melanocyte lineage in vivo. Contained within MCS3 are located two MITF binding sequence consensus elements, of which only one, annotated MITF(A), is needed for robust expression in melan-a and NIH3T3 cells, however neither of these sites is required for melanocyte expression in vivo.
DISCUSSION
In this study we have queried the expression network of melanocytes using cell lines derived from mice where mutant alleles of the pigmentation genes
Tyrp1 and
Rab38 were crossed onto a C57BL/6 background. Using criteria based on consistently higher gene expression in multiple melanocyte lines relative to other tissue sources, we identified a set of 258 genes. Contained within this 258 gene set are nine genes that have been shown to either directly affect MITF expression or are downstream MITF target genes. These nine genes include the transcription factor
Sox10, mutated in WSIV, Peripheral Demyelinating Neuropathy, Central Dysmyelinating Leukodystrophy, and Hirschsprung Disease (PCWH) (
Southard-Smith et al., 1998;
Pingault et al., 1998;
Inoue et al., 1999) and known to directly regulate
Mitf expression (
Verastegui et al., 2000; (
Potterf et al., 2000; (
Lee et al., 2000), and the gene
Mitf itself (mutated in WSI and III). The remaining seven genes represent additional MITF targets including:
Cdk2 (
Du et al., 2004),
Met (
McGill et al., 2006),
Tyr (
Bentley et al., 1994;
Yasumoto et al., 1997) (
Murisier et al., 2007),
Mlana (
Du et al., 2003),
Si (
Du et al., 2003),
Dct (
Bertolotto et al., 1998;
Jiao et al., 2004;
Ludwig et al., 2004), and
Tyrp1 (
Fang et al., 2002;
Yasumoto et al., 1997;
Bertolotto et al., 1998). A tenth gene,
Slc45a2, demonstrates reduced gene expression in
Mitf mutant mice (
Baxter and Pavan, 2002). However, promoter analysis by
Du et al. could not find supporting evidence for direct regulation of the proximal promoter sequence by MITF suggesting that
Slc45a2 is either regulated by MITF indirectly or through yet unidentified distal regulatory elements (
Du and Fisher, 2002)
As three of these genes,
Tyrp1,
Si and
Dct were contained within a defined expression cluster node, and each are dependent on MITF function for appropriate expression, we sought to assess whether the gene
Gpnmb, also present within the cluster defined by
Tyrp1,
Dct and
Si, had the capacity to mark the early melanoblast and RPE lineage. Our expression data in wild type embryos demonstrate that during early embryonic development,
Gpnmb is robustly expressed in RPE and also in melanoblasts, displaying a pattern similar to
Mitf,
Dct and
Si. This is consistent with
Gpnmbexpression in the developing RPE and iris (
Bachner et al., 2002) and also with the glaucoma phenotype observed in DBA/2J mice, which harbor mutations in both
Gpnmb (GPNMB R150X) and
Tyrp1 (
Tyrp1b/b genotype) (
Anderson et al., 2002;
Howell et al., 2007). The robust expression of
Gpnmb in melanoblasts extends the list of markers for melanocyte development in mouse embryogenesis and will be useful to further analyze mouse mutations that disrupt melanoblast development. For example, extension of the expression analysis of
Gpnmb to embryos containing mutations in
Mitf and
Sox10 allowed us to detect differences in
Gpnmb expression from that of
Si and
Dct, specifically in a population of melanoblasts in the caudal region of mouse embryos. In
Sox10 null embryos a population of putative melanoblasts exists that express both
Mitf and
Gpnmb, even within the context of a
Sox10 null background. Previous studies have determined that
Mitf expression is dependent on SOX10 (
Potterf et al., 2000; (
Verastegui et al., 2000;
Lee et al., 2000). However our results show that
Mitf and
Gpnmb, but not
Si or
Dct, can be expressed in melanoblasts at this time and site even in the absence of SOX10 protein. These results suggest that at this time point and location,
Mitf gene expression is not solely dependent on
Sox10 expression, and that melanocyte-expressed genes have differing requirements for
Sox10 and
Mitf. Understanding how the transcriptional regulation of these two classes of genes is controlled in these caudal melanoblasts will provide interesting insights into the transcription networks coordinating melanocyte development and how they are altered in disease states.
From the results of gene expression profiling and in situ hybridization analyses on mutant embryos, we hypothesized that GPNMB expression is dependent on MITF function in melanoblasts and RPE. To test if this regulation was direct, we directly examined the GPNMB locus for regulatory elements that might be candidates for regulation by MITF. We computationally identified four MCS non-coding regions at the GPNMB locus that may act as transcriptional regulatory elements, and found that two of these sequences harbor consensus MITF binding motifs by cross referencing with our whole genome annotation of E-box, MITF binding consensus sequences. One of these elements, GPNMB-MCS3, was able to enhance luciferase reporter expression in melan-a cells, and robust expression was dependent on one of the MITF binding consensus sequences, MITF(A), but not the other, MITF(B). Consistent with MCS3 enhancing pigment cell expression in vivo, transgenic zebrafish exhibit GFP expression in putative melanoblasts in response to sequences contained within MCS3. Although it is clear that Gpnmb expression is dependent on MITF function in vivo as its expression is absent in MITFMi mutant melanoblasts, it is unclear if MCS3 is directly regulated by MITF. MCS3 is a strong enhancer in both melan-a and a non-melanocyte derivative NIH3T3, and importantly deletion of MITF(A) sequence abrogates enhancement in both lines. However, zebrafish transgenics still express GFP even when MITF(A), MITF(B), or both are deleted. These results suggest that MCS3 is a melanoblast enhancer and that the MITF(A) site is needed for enhancement of expression in cell line based assays, but additional regulatory factors interact with this element to facilitate the lineage restricted expression observed in vivo.
Given the striking inability of deletion of MITF(B) to reduce luciferase expression enhancement in melan-a cells, it is of interest to note that the MITF(B) site is fully conserved in all 20 species analyzed, while the MITF(A) site is fully conserved in only a subset (14 of 20) species evaluated. The MITF(A) site exhibits classes of alterations: tenrec contains an A to C substitution at base pair 4, rabbit an A to G substitution at basepair 7, and rat, mouse, shrew and opossum a two basepair deletion corresponding to base pairs five and six of the E-box consensus. This two basepair deletion changes CACATGA to CACGAGT, and the resulting T to A nucleotide change at position 5 of the deletion element would theoretically no longer be recognized by MITF. It is interesting that the same two basepair deletion has arisen within these four species (rat, mouse, shrew and opossum) representing three different evolutionary branches. This sequence difference also suggests an intriguing possible evolutionary divergence in the regulation of Gpnmb among different species.
Gpnmb has previously been referred to under the name
Osteoactivin, and as such has been implicated in osteoblast development as a mediator of BMP-2 signaling (
Abdelmagid et al., 2007). However, Ripoll
et al. have recently shown that previous expression analysis for
Gpnmb utilizing osteoblast cultures most likely measured GPNMB expression found in macrophages co-purified in the cultures, rather than in osteoblasts (Ripoll 2008). Ripoll
et al. then evaluated the ability of MITF to regulate the proximal promoter sequence of mouse
Gpnmb in the osteoclast lineage. They focused on a 323 basepair fragment encompassing the corresponding mouse region of
GPNMB-MCS3 (and additional sequence). This fragment exhibited enhancer activity, as 6-fold activation was observed in the macrophage/osteoclast cell line RAW/C4 when co-transfected with MITF. Their analysis of this enhancer (based on the mouse genome) only identified one conserved MITF consensus binding site located within the proximal promoter of mouse
Gpnmb (UCSC Mouse Genome Browser, Feb. 2006 build), which corresponds to MITF(B) in our study. When Ripoll and colleagues mutated MITF(B) from the corresponding mouse sequence, the enhancer lost the ability to be activated upon co-transfection with MITF in RAW/C4 cells.
Both our analysis and the Ripoll study implicate MITF to be important for regulation of GPNMB expression. However, each study identified different MITF consensus sequence elements as being the major sequence element responsible for the observed enhancer activity assayed, and when each respective MITF motif sequence was deleted, both studies observed significant loss of enhancer activity. There are several notable differences between the studies. In our analysis of enhancer sequence activity our construct was shorter, only 89 basepair in length, and we utilized the human GPNMB sequence, not mouse. This difference in species used for the analysis is relevant as the mouse lineage has a two basepair deletion, relative to the human MITF(A) consensus binding site, although MITF(A) is fully conserved between 14 other different species. Therefore, while the mouse enhancer in the Ripoll study has assayed the corresponding genomic sequence to our human MCS3 element, the Ripoll wild-type mouse construct would more appropriately correspond to our MCS3-A construct. Also distinct were the cell lineages in which the proximal GPNMB/Gpnmb promoter activities were evaluated. Our analysis was performed in the melan-a melanocyte line with endogenous MITF while Ripoll and colleagues utilized the corresponding mouse sequence in RAW/C4 cells with co-transfection of Mitf. The differences in functional activity observed in our and Ripoll's study may be attributed to other sequence differences in the constructs themselves, species-specific differences, or cell lineage (macrophage/osteoclast vs. melanocyte) specific factors.
While
Gpnmb exhibits 33% amino acid identity to the melanosomal protein
Si (
Weterman et al., 1995) and proteomic analysis has revealed that GPNMB is present in all stages (I–IV) of melanosomes (
Chi et al., 2006), a functional role for
Gpnmb has yet to be determined. GPNMB may be a useful disease marker, as higher
GPNMB expression has been correlated with lower metastasis in melanoma (
Weterman et al., 1995) and the GPNMB locus has been associated with translocation breakpoints in a small number of melanomas (
Okamoto et al., 2005). In addition to MITF binding sites, the
GPNMB proximal promoter sequence also contains a highly conserved AP-1 binding site sequence directly upstream of the MITF(A) site. Given that a physical interaction between MITF and AP-1 has been previously demonstrated (
Ogihara et al., 2001), the proximity of the AP-1 site to MITF(A) suggests a possible direct interaction between MITF and AP-1 in regulation of
GPNMB expression. Both AP-1 and MITF have been implicated in melanoma progression. AP-1 activation through the MAP kinase signaling cascade has been correlated with malignant transformation of melanocytes to melanoma (
Govindarajan et al., 2003), while amplifications of the MITF locus have been correlated with poor melanoma prognosis (
Garraway et al., 2005). This taken together with our results highlight that further analysis of GPNMB with respect to melanoma is warranted.
The observation of a hierarchical cluster node, enriched with known melanocyte-expressed genes, allowed for the identification of
Gpnmb as a new
Mitf-dependent melanoblast marker and the identification of a novel, caudal, Sox10-deficient population of melanoblasts. Expression data generated from melanocyte derived cell lines can be useful in providing information to both identify and validate transcription factor target genes (
Hoek et al., 2008). Further analysis of
Gpnmb and the additional genes identified in this study will be a valuable resource for understanding the genetic components involved in melanocyte development and diseases.