We have previously shown that SOX5, a SOXD member of the large family of SOX TFs, binds and represses the transcriptional activity of the E4 enhancer
39. Although somewhat surprising, SOX5 itself is also required for CS tract formation independent of its repression of
Fezf239. Because different SOX TFs are known to compete for a common motif to mediate both activation and repression of regulatory elements
42–44, we hypothesized that other SOX members may activate the E4 enhancer, perhaps acting competitively against SOX5-mediated repression. Consistent with this hypothesis, our sequence analysis using MatInspector (Genomatix) revealed eight putative SOX binding sites in E4. To prioritize which SOX TFs may be good candidates as potential
trans-regulators of the E4 enhancer, we searched for those that are most highly correlated in their spatio-temporal expression pattern with
FEZF2 using the
www.humanbraintranscriptome.org database
45. The highest correlated
SOX genes were three members of the
SOXC group (
SOX4, SOX11, and
SOX12) and
SOX5 (
Supplementary Fig. 4). These TFs play crucial roles in regulating cell fate and differentiation
42–44, 46, and a
de novo deletion of
SOX11 was described in a patient with autism and intellectual disability
47. Moreover,
Sox4 and
Sox11 act as transcriptional activators
45 and their expression patterns overlap with that of
Fezf2 in developing cortex (
Supplementary Fig. 5).
To determine if SOX4 or SOX11 binds E4, we performed chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)-PCR assays in Neuro-2a cells transiently expressing V5-tagged SOX4 or SOX11 (Methods). Anti-V5 antibodies precipitated E4, but not E1-3, DNA, confirming binding of SOX4 and SOX11 to the E4 enhancer (). Moreover, recruitment of RNA polymerase II (Pol II) to E4 occurred in the presence of SOX4 or SOX11, which is consistent with increased transcriptional activity. To test the functional consequence of SoxC expression on E4, we expressed a luciferase reporter under the control of E4 (pGL4-E4) in Neuro-2a cells (). Luciferase activity driven by the E4 enhancer was significantly increased by co-transfected Sox4 or Sox11, but not Sox12.
To dissect which sequences within the E4 drive
Fezf2 expression, we generated four truncated versions of the E4 sequence (E4F1-4) (). The luciferase activity of the E4F2 fragment was increased by SOX4 and SOX11, but not SOX12 (). Using MatInspector, six potential SOX binding sites within the E4F2 sequence were predicted. To better define the precise basepairs with which SOXC proteins interact, we first tested whether the zebrafish E4F2 sequence, which exhibits 74.2% sequence identity with the mouse E4F2, is activated by SOXC proteins. Remarkably, the zebrafish E4F2 sequence was not activated by SOX11 (
Supplementary Fig. 6), indicating that the SOXC-interacting sequences of mouse E4F2 lie within the sequences that are divergent in zebrafish. Of the predicted SOX binding sites in mouse E4F2, three putative SOX binding sites (SB1-3) are absent from the zebrafish E4F2. To test the function and specificity of these sites, we generated mutant versions of E4F2 by substituting SB1, SB2, or SB3 with the zebrafish sequence (). Only mutations of the mouse SB2 site significantly attenuated the ability of SOX4 and SOX11 to activate the luciferase reporter gene, indicating that this site is crucial to species differences in SOXC-mediated transactivation of E4. Next, we assessed the ability of SOX4 and SOX11 to bind the SB2 site
in vitro using an electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA). We synthesized V5-tagged SOX4 and a higher-affinity, but equally specific, truncated form of SOX11 (SOX11(1-276aa)), since the binding affinity of native SOX11 is weak
43. Biotinylated SB2 DNA was shifted in the presence of SOX4 or SOX11(1-276aa) and supershifted by an anti-V5 antibody (), but not when excess unlabeled or mutated SB2 DNA was used. Therefore, SOX4 and SOX11 directly bind to and activate the transcription activity of E4 via SB2.
To test whether SOX4 and SOX11 functionally compete with the repressor SOX5 in the trans-activation of E4, we used the pGL4-E4 luciferase assay. Luciferase activity was significantly increased with increasing amounts of co-transfected Sox11 and to a lesser extent, Sox4, whereas increased amounts of Sox5 significantly decreased luciferase activity (). Taken together, our sequence analysis and assays, both in vitro and in vivo, demonstrate that SOX4 and SOX11 functionally compete with SOX5 repression to activate Fezf2 transcription via direct binding to sites within E4.