In this study we offer genetic proof that the nuclear localization of Arm is important for the activation of the pathway. The dissenting view (
Chan and Struhl 2002) relied on C-terminal truncations that we have shown retain their ability to signal if their levels are increased. These alleles also appear to bypass the normal nuclear regulation by Cby. We show that full-length loss-of-function forms of Arm provide a novel way of assessing the activity of the pathway. Finally, we show that in an approximate signaling-null condition, Arm
ΔArm cannot activate transcription on its own. Based on these findings, we propose that membrane-tethered Arm, whether wild-type or activated, cannot activate transcription on its own. It does, however, have a profound effect on the endogenous form, forcing both “weak” and “medium” alleles to translocate to the nucleus and activate transcription. Our findings extend and build upon the original nuclear localization of Arm model (
Miller and Moon 1997;
Cox et al. 1999b). Further support for the nuclear localization of Arm model has recently been provided by the publication of a study that uses tissue culture experiments to show that nuclear localization of Arm is required (
Cong et al. 2003).
Our results also point to an unexpected feature of Arm, namely that the C-terminus, although it has been shown to supply transcriptional activation (
Hsu et al. 1998), does not appear to be required for Wnt activation.
Cox et al. (1999a) studied this aspect of Arm function and found that a C-terminally truncated form of Arm can significantly rescue the signaling defects of
arm mutants, but is not as good as the wild-type form at transcriptional activation. Further, given that
arm mutant flies expressing the transgene that lacks the C-terminus do not survive to adulthood, the C-terminus may not be entirely expendable. This may point to the requirement for Cby-based repression or Teashirt-mediated activation at a later stage of development, as both these proteins function by binding the C-terminus of Arm (
Gallet et al. 1999;
Takemaru et al. 2003). However, taken together with the finding that an N-terminally truncated Arm sent to the nucleus fails to activate transcription (
Chan and Struhl 2002), it appears that it is the N-terminus that is most important for the nuclear transactivation and chromatin remodeling functions ascribed to β-catenin (
Hsu et al. 1998;
Hecht and Kemler 2000;
Takemaru and Moon 2000;
Barker et al. 2001;
Tutter et al. 2001;
Bienz and Clevers 2003).
We have previously shown that the “medium”
arm mutant (
armO43A01, which creates a stop codon eliminating repeats 10 through 12 and the entire C-terminus) does not signal in the presence of uniform Arm
ΔArm (
Tolwinski and Wieschaus 2001).
Chan and Struhl (2002) found that
armO43A01 embryos expressing high levels of Arm
ΔArm from the paired GAL4 driver were able to activate Wnt targets. But since neither Arm
ΔArm nor
armO43A01 can provide junctional Arm activity, the abnormalities of these embryos make these experiments difficult to interpret. As an alternative, we used a membrane-tethered but otherwise wild-type form of Arm (Arm
S18), which we expressed in
armO43A01 mutant embryos (see G). The Arm
S18 allele rescues the junctional defects, but does not allow signaling. Similar results have been obtained with another “medium” allele,
armXP33 (
Cox et al. 1999b). However, when combined with Arm
ΔArm and Arm
S18,
armO43A01 can now be clearly seen to activate naked cell fates. It thus appears that even the “medium” alleles of
arm actually do retain some ability to function when Arm
ΔArm is present. This is not observed in the larger truncations (“strong” alleles), consistent with the “medium” alleles retaining the TCF-binding region (
Graham et al. 2000).
The question now becomes what is Arm
ΔArm doing at the membrane that causes such drastic change in the signaling kinetics of the pathway. We have previously argued that Arm
ΔArm may function by titrating the cytoplasmic anchoring activity of Axin and by therefore allowing rapid enrichment of Arm in the nucleus. We have in fact observed such an enrichment and have shown that it is counteracted by increasing the level of Axin (
Tolwinski and Wieschaus 2001). Further work has pointed to the importance of controlling Axin stability in pathway activation (
Salic et al. 2000;
Mao et al. 2001;
Lee et al. 2003;
Tolwinski et al. 2003). Expression of large quantities of a stabilized, membrane-tethered form of Arm might also remove additional cytoplasmic inhibitory factors, preventing them from interacting with nontethered Arm. In turn, even lower-level or lower-activity alleles will now be able to activate transcription, simply owing to the complete lack of inhibiting factors.
The missense mutations described here provide a glimpse of the in vivo activity of Arm protein. Structural studies of β-catenin found that although the central repeat region forms a uniformly repeating super helix, one α-helix was missing from repeat seven. The missing helix might allow a local flexibility in the structure and led the authors to define this region as a potential hinge (
Huber et al. 1997). Further crystallographic analysis concluded that this region was important for TCF binding (
Graham et al. 2000). Both our point mutations cluster around this repeat and would probably lead to structural consequences for this hinge. The apparent specificity of these alleles for the transcriptional response to Wnt signaling provides in vivo evidence that the postulated hinge may be very important for that aspect of Arm protein function.