Snail mediates E-cadherin repression by the recruitment of the Sin3A/histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1)/HDAC2 complex.
Journal: 2004/January - Molecular and Cellular Biology
ISSN: 0270-7306
PUBMED: 14673164
Abstract:
The transcription factor Snail has been described as a direct repressor of E-cadherin expression during development and carcinogenesis; however, the specific mechanisms involved in this process remain largely unknown. Here we show that mammalian Snail requires histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity to repress E-cadherin promoter and that treatment with trichostatin A (TSA) is sufficient to block the repressor effect of Snail. Moreover, overexpression of Snail is correlated with deacetylation of histones H3 and H4 at the E-cadherin promoter, and TSA treatment in Snail-expressing cells reverses the acetylation status of histones. Additionally, we demonstrate that Snail interacts in vivo with the E-cadherin promoter and recruits HDAC activity. Most importantly, we demonstrate an interaction between Snail, histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) and HDAC2, and the corepressor mSin3A. This interaction is dependent on the SNAG domain of Snail, indicating that the Snail transcription factor mediates the repression by recruitment of chromatin-modifying activities, forming a multimolecular complex to repress E-cadherin expression. Our results establish a direct causal relationship between Snail-dependent repression of E-cadherin and the modification of chromatin at its promoter.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(265)
References
(58)
Clinical trials
(1)
Chemicals
(6)
Genes
(6)
Organisms
(3)
Processes
(2)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
Mol Cell Biol 24(1): 306-319

Snail Mediates E-Cadherin Repression by the Recruitment of the Sin3A/Histone Deacetylase 1 (HDAC1)/HDAC2 Complex

Departamento de Bioquimica, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols,” Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cancer Epigenetics Laboratory, Molecular Pathology Programme, Spanish National Cancer Centre, Madrid, Spain2
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” (CSIC-UAM), Arturo Duperier 4, 28029 Madrid, Spain. Phone. 34-91-585-4411. Fax: 34-91-585-4401. E-mail: se.mau.bii@onaca.
Received 2003 May 30; Revised 2003 Jul 30; Accepted 2003 Sep 30.

Abstract

The transcription factor Snail has been described as a direct repressor of E-cadherin expression during development and carcinogenesis; however, the specific mechanisms involved in this process remain largely unknown. Here we show that mammalian Snail requires histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity to repress E-cadherin promoter and that treatment with trichostatin A (TSA) is sufficient to block the repressor effect of Snail. Moreover, overexpression of Snail is correlated with deacetylation of histones H3 and H4 at the E-cadherin promoter, and TSA treatment in Snail-expressing cells reverses the acetylation status of histones. Additionally, we demonstrate that Snail interacts in vivo with the E-cadherin promoter and recruits HDAC activity. Most importantly, we demonstrate an interaction between Snail, histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) and HDAC2, and the corepressor mSin3A. This interaction is dependent on the SNAG domain of Snail, indicating that the Snail transcription factor mediates the repression by recruitment of chromatin-modifying activities, forming a multimolecular complex to repress E-cadherin expression. Our results establish a direct causal relationship between Snail-dependent repression of E-cadherin and the modification of chromatin at its promoter.

Abstract

The regulation of E-cadherin expression is a controlled process that requires strict spatiotemporal tuning during natural processes such as development, organogenesis, and tissue formation. However, the regulation of E-cadherin also plays an essential role in pathological processes such as tumor progression. The loss of expression or function of the E-cadherin cell-to-cell adhesion molecule has emerged as an important event for the local invasion of epithelial tumor cells, leading to the consideration of E-cadherin as an invasion suppressor gene (7, 8, 14, 49).

The molecular mechanisms involved in E-cadherin downregulation during physiological and pathological processes have started to be uncovered in recent years. Several mechanisms have been implicated in the regulation of E-cadherin expression during tumor progression, including genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptional changes. While genetic alterations of the E-cadherin loci have been found only infrequently in tumors, particularly, in lobular breast carcinomas and diffuse gastric carcinomas (6, 7, 21, 44), the majority of carcinomas with downregulated E-cadherin maintain an intact E-cadherin locus. Epigenetic processes involving hypermethylation of the E-cadherin promoter and/or transcriptional alterations have emerged as the main mechanisms responsible for E-cadherin downregulation in most carcinomas (13, 14, 23, 42). Several transcriptional repressors of E-cadherin have been recently identified, including the zinc finger factors Snail (5, 11) and Slug (10, 22), the two-handed zinc factors ZEB1(δEF1) and ZEB2 (SIP-1) (15, 20), and the bHLH factor E12/E47 (40). Factors belonging to the Snail family are in fact involved in E-cadherin repression and in epithelial to mesenchymal transitions (EMTs) when they are overexpressed in epithelial cell lines (5, 10, 11) as well as in embryonic development (reviewed in reference 37), and it has been proposed that these factors act as inducers of the invasion process (9, 11). The generation of mice lacking Snail has firmly established the role of this factor in EMT and as an E-cadherin gene repressor, as the null Snail embryos die at gastrulation and fail to undergo a complete EMT process, forming an altered mesodermal layer which maintains the expression of E-cadherin (12). Despite all the above information, the molecular mechanisms involved in the repression by factors of the Snail family are still poorly understood (37, 50). A previous work established that human Slug, a Snail family member, is a transcriptional repressor with an N-terminal 32-amino-acid repression domain and postulated the possible involvement of histone deacetylation in the repression mechanism (26).

Chromatin remodeling and histone modifications have emerged as the main mechanisms of the control of gene expression. Hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4 is generally associated with transcriptionally active chromatin (47), while the chromatin of inactive regions is enriched in deacetylated histones H3 and H4. The acetylation status of histones at specific DNA regulatory sequences depends on the recruitment of histone acetyltransferases or histone deacetylase (HDAC) activities, usually as part of large multiprotein complexes of coactivators or corepressors, respectively. Several corepressor complexes have been identified to date (such as the SIN3, Mi-2/NuRD, and CoREST complexes) with the ability to interact with several transcriptional repressors (1, 27). Interestingly, during the past 5 years, the connection between DNA methylation and histone deacetylation in the silencing of genes has been established, and the mechanisms involve the participation of proteins belonging to the family of methyl-CpG binding domain proteins and HDACs (4). Moreover, other histone modifications, such as histone methylation, appear to be associated with gene regulation (32), thus suggesting the participation of different histone and DNA modifying activities in multiprotein complex regulators.

To gain further understanding of the mechanisms implicated in E-cadherin repression by Snail, we have investigated the involvement of HDACs and other potential corepressors. We report here that the endogenous E-cadherin promoter of Snail-expressing cells is enriched in deacetylated histones H3 and H4 and dimethylated H3 at K9 and that Snail-mediated repression is abolished by treatment with trichostatin A (TSA). Snail interacts directly with the endogenous E-cadherin promoter, as demonstrated by chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays, and recruits HDAC activity. Moreover, in vivo and in vitro interactions of Snail with histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) and HDAC2 and the corepressor mSin3A have been detected. These interactions depend on the SNAG N-terminal domain of Snail and are required for an efficient repression of the E-cadherin promoter, which supports the idea that Snail mediates the repression of E-cadherin by the recruitment of a corepressor complex containing HDAC1 and HDAC2 (HDAC1/2) and Sin3A.

Acknowledgments

We thank E. Seto and R. N. Eisenman for providing reagents and A. Montes for her excellent technical assistance. Special thanks go to D. Megias and M. Cortés-Canteli for helping us with the confocal immunofluorescence analysis and to P. de la Peña-Ingelmo and J. Manzano for their suggestions in PCR experiments.

A. Cano's laboratory is supported by Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology grant SAF2001-2819 and by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (01/1074 and 031C03/10). M. Esteller's laboratory is supported by Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology grant SAF2001-0059 and the International Rett Syndrome Association. H. Peinado is a predoctoral fellow of the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports. E. Ballestar is funded by the Ramón y Cajal Programme of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology.

Acknowledgments

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

References

  • 1. Ahringer, J. 2000. NuRD and SIN3 histone deacetylase complexes in development. Trends Genet.16:351-356. [[PubMed]
  • 2. Akhurst, R. J., and R. Derynck. 2001. TGF-beta signaling in cancer—a double-edged sword. Trends Cell Biol.11:S44-S51. [[PubMed]
  • 3. Alland, L., R. Muhle, H. Hou, Jr., J. Potes, L. Chin, N. Schreiber-Agus, and R. A. DePinho. 1997. Role for N-CoR and histone deacetylase in Sin3-mediated transcriptional repression. Nature387:49-55. [[PubMed]
  • 4. Ballestar, E., and MEsteller. 2002. The impact of chromatin in human cancer: linking DNA methylation to gene silencing. Carcinogenesis23:1103-1109. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 5. Batlle, E., E. Sancho, C. Franci, D. Dominguez, M. Monfar, J. Baulida, and A. Garcia De Herreros. 2000. The transcription factor Snail is a repressor of E-cadherin gene expression in epithelial tumour cells. Nat. Cell. Biol.2:84-89. [[PubMed]
  • 6. Becker, K. F., M. J. Atkinson, U. Reich, I. Becker, H. Nekarda, J. R. Siewert, and H. Hofler. 1994. E-cadherin gene mutations provide clues to diffuse type gastric carcinomas. Cancer Res.54:3845-3852. [[PubMed]
  • 7. Berx, G., A. M. Cleton-Jansen, F. Nollet, W. J. de Leeuw, M. van de Vijver, C. Cornelisse, and F. van Roy. 1995. E-cadherin is a tumour/invasion suppressor gene mutated in human lobular breast cancers. EMBO J.14:6107-6115.
  • 8. Birchmeier, W., and JBehrens. 1994. Cadherin expression in carcinomas: role in the formation of cell junctions and the prevention of invasiveness. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1198:11-26. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 9. Blanco, M. J., G. Moreno-Bueno, D. Sarrio, A. Locascio, A. Cano, J. Palacios, and M. A. Nieto. 2002. Correlation of Snail expression with histological grade and lymph node status in breast carcinomas. Oncogene21:3241-3246. [[PubMed]
  • 10. Bolos, V., H. Peinado, M. A. Perez-Moreno, M. F. Fraga, M. Esteller, and A. Cano. 2003. The transcription factor Slug represses E-cadherin expression and induces epithelial to mesenchymal transitions: a comparison with Snail and E47 repressors. J. Cell Sci.116:499-511. [[PubMed]
  • 11. Cano, A., M. A. Perez-Moreno, I. Rodrigo, A. Locascio, M. J. Blanco, M. G. del Barrio, F. Portillo, and M. A. Nieto. 2000. The transcription factor Snail controls epithelial-mesenchymal transitions by repressing E-cadherin expression. Nat. Cell. Biol.2:76-83. [[PubMed]
  • 12. Carver, E. A., R. Jiang, Y. Lan, K. F. Oram, and T. Gridley. 2001. The mouse Snail gene encodes a key regulator of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Mol. Cell. Biol.21:8184-8188.
  • 13. Cheng, C. W., P. E. Wu, J. C. Yu, C. S. Huang, C. T. Yue, C. W. Wu, and C. Y. Shen. 2001. Mechanisms of inactivation of E-cadherin in breast carcinoma: modification of the two-hit hypothesis of tumor suppressor gene. Oncogene20:3814-3823. [[PubMed]
  • 14. Christofori, G., and HSemb. 1999. The role of the cell-adhesion molecule E-cadherin as a tumour-suppressor gene. Trends Biochem. Sci.24:73-76. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 15. Comijn, J., G. Berx, P. Vermassen, K. Verschueren, L. van Grunsven, E. Bruyneel, M. Mareel, D. Huylebroeck, and F. van Roy. 2001. The two-handed E box binding zinc finger protein SIP1 downregulates E-cadherin and induces invasion. Mol. Cell7:1267-1278. [[PubMed]
  • 16. Faraldo, M. L., I. Rodrigo, J. Behrens, W. Birchmeier, and A. Cano. 1997. Analysis of the E-cadherin and P-cadherin promoters in murine keratinocyte cell lines from different stages of mouse skin carcinogenesis. Mol. Carcinog.20:33-47. [[PubMed]
  • 17. Fournier, C., Y. Goto, E. Ballestar, K. Delaval, A. M. Hever, M. Esteller, and R. Feil. 2002. Allele-specific histone lysine methylation marks regulatory regions at imprinted mouse genes. EMBO J.21:6560-6570.
  • 18. Fujita, N., D. L. Jaye, M. Kajita, C. Geigerman, C. S. Moreno, and P. A. Wade. 2003. MTA3, a Mi-2/NuRD complex subunit, regulates an invasive growth pathway in breast cancer. Cell113:207-219. [[PubMed]
  • 19. Grimes, H. L., T. O. Chan, P. A. Zweidler-McKay, B. Tong, and P. N. Tsichlis. 1996. The Gfi-1 proto-oncoprotein contains a novel transcriptional repressor domain, SNAG, and inhibits G1 arrest induced by interleukin-2 withdrawal. Mol. Cell. Biol.16:6263-6272.
  • 20. Grooteclaes, M. L., and S. M. Frisch. 2000. Evidence for a function of CtBP in epithelial gene regulation and anoikis. Oncogene19:3823-3828. [[PubMed]
  • 21. Guilford, P., J. Hopkins, J. Harraway, M. McLeod, N. McLeod, P. Harawira, H. Taite, R. Scoular, A. Miller, and A. E. Reeve. 1998. E-cadherin germline mutations in familial gastric cancer. Nature392:402-405. [[PubMed]
  • 22. Hajra, K. M., D. Y. Chen, and E. R. Fearon. 2002. The SLUG zinc-finger protein represses E-cadherin in breast cancer. Cancer Res.62:1613-1618. [[PubMed]
  • 23. Hajra, K. M., and E. R. Fearon. 2002. Cadherin and catenin alterations in human cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer34:255-268. [[PubMed]
  • 24. Heinzel, T., R. M. Lavinsky, T. M. Mullen, M. Soderstrom, C. D. Laherty, J. Torchia, W. M. Yang, G. Brard, S. D. Ngo, J. R. Davie, E. Seto, R. N. Eisenman, D. W. Rose, C. K. Glass, and M. G. Rosenfeld. 1997. A complex containing N-CoR, mSin3 and histone deacetylase mediates transcriptional repression. Nature387:43-48. [[PubMed]
  • 25. Hemavathy, K., S. I. Ashraf, and Y. T. Ip. 2000. Snail/Slug family of repressors: slowly going into the fast lane of development and cancer. Gene257:1-12. [[PubMed]
  • 26. Hemavathy, K., S. C. Guru, J. Harris, J. D. Chen, and Y. T. Ip. 2000. Human Slug is a repressor that localizes to sites of active transcription. Mol. Cell. Biol.20:5087-5095.
  • 27. Jepsen, K., and M. G. Rosenfeld. 2002. Biological roles and mechanistic actions of co-repressor complexes. J. Cell Sci.115:689-698. [[PubMed]
  • 28. Jones, P. L., G. J. Veenstra, P. A. Wade, D. Vermaak, S. U. Kass, N. Landsberger, J. Strouboulis, and A. P. Wolffe. 1998. Methylated DNA and MeCP2 recruit histone deacetylase to repress transcription. Nat. Genet.19:187-191. [[PubMed]
  • 29. Knoepfler, P. S., and R. N. Eisenman. 1999. Sin meets NuRD and other tails of repression. Cell99:447-450. [[PubMed]
  • 30. Koipally, J., A. Renold, J. Kim, and K. Georgopoulos. 1999. Repression by Ikaros and Aiolos is mediated through histone deacetylase complexes. EMBO J.18:3090-3100.
  • 31. Kurdistani, S. K., D. Robyr, S. Tavazoie, and M. Grunstein. 2002. Genome-wide binding map of the histone deacetylase Rpd3 in yeast. Nat. Genet.31:248-254. [[PubMed]
  • 32. Lachner, M., and TJenuwein. 2002. The many faces of histone lysine methylation. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.14:286-298. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 33. Li, J., Q. Lin, W. Wang, P. Wade, and J. Wong. 2002. Specific targeting and constitutive association of histone deacetylase complexes during transcriptional repression. Genes Dev.16:687-692.
  • 34. Nakayama, H., I. C. Scott, and J. C. Cross. 1998. The transition to endoreduplication in trophoblast giant cells is regulated by the mSNA zinc finger transcription factor. Dev. Biol.199:150-163. [[PubMed]
  • 35. Navarro, P., M. Gómez, A. Pizarro, C. Gamallo, M. Quintanilla, and A. Cano. 1991. A role for the E-cadherin cell-cell adhesion molecule in tumor progression of mouse epidermal carcinogenesis. J. Cell Biol.115:517-533.
  • 36. Nibu, Y., H. Zhang, E. Bajor, S. Barolo, S. Small, and M. Levine. 1998. dCtBP mediates transcriptional repression by Knirps, Kruppel and Snail in the Drosophila embryo. EMBO J.17:7009-7020.
  • 37. Nieto, MA. 2002. The snail superfamily of zinc-finger transcription factors. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol.3:155-166. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 38. Oda, H., S. Tsukita, and M. Takeichi. 1998. Dynamic behavior of the cadherin-based cell-cell adhesion system during Drosophila gastrulation. Dev. Biol.203:435-450. [[PubMed]
  • 39. Peinado, H., M. Quintanilla, and A. Cano. 2003. Transforming growth factor beta 1 induces snail transcription factor in epithelial cell lines: mechanisms for epithelial-mesenchymal transitions. J. Biol. Chem.278:21113-21123. [[PubMed]
  • 40. Perez-Moreno, M. A., A. Locascio, I. Rodrigo, G. Dhondt, F. Portillo, M. A. Nieto, and A. Cano. 2001. A new role for E12/E47 in the repression of E-cadherin expression and epithelial-mesenchymal transitions. J. Biol. Chem.276:27424-27431. [[PubMed]
  • 41. Poser, I., D. Dominguez, A. G. de Herreros, A. Varnai, R. Buettner, and A. K. Bosserhoff. 2001. Loss of E-cadherin expression in melanoma cells involves up-regulation of the transcriptional repressor Snail. J. Biol. Chem.276:24661-24666. [[PubMed]
  • 42. Rodrigo, I., A. C. Cato, and A. Cano. 1999. Regulation of E-cadherin gene expression during tumor progression: the role of a new Ets-binding site and the E-pal element. Exp. Cell Res.248:358-371. [[PubMed]
  • 43. Rundlett, S. E., A. A. Carmen, N. Suka, B. M. Turner, and M. Grunstein. 1998. Transcriptional repression by UME6 involves deacetylation of lysine 5 of histone H4 by RPD3. Nature392:831-835. [[PubMed]
  • 44. Sarrio, D., G. Moreno-Bueno, D. Hardisson, C. Sanchez-Estevez, M. Guo, J. G. Herman, C. Gamallo, M. Esteller, and J. Palacios. 2003. Epigenetic and genetic alterations in APC and CDH1 genes in lobular breast cancer: relationships with abnormal E-cadherin and catenin expression and microsatellite instability. Int. J. Cancer106:208-215. [[PubMed]
  • 45. Shi, Y., J. Sawada, G. Sui, B. Affarel, J. R. Whetstine, F. Lan, H. Ogawa, M. P. Luke, and Y. Nakatani. 2003. Coordinated histone modifications mediated by a CtBP co-repressor complex. Nature422:735-738. [[PubMed]
  • 46. Strahl, B. D., R. Ohba, R. G. Cook, and C. D. Allis. 1999. Methylation of histone H3 at lysine 4 is highly conserved and correlates with transcriptionally active nuclei in tetrahymena. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA96:14967-14972.
  • 47. Strahl, B. D., and C. D. Allis. 2000. The language of covalent histone modifications. Nature403:41-45. [[PubMed]
  • 48. Sugimachi, K., S. Tanaka, T. Kameyama, K. Taguchi, S. Aishima, M. Shimada, K. Sugimachi, and M. Tsuneyoshi. 2003. Transcriptional repressor Snail and progression of human hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res.9:2657-2664. [[PubMed]
  • 49. Takeichi, M. 1993. Cadherins in cancer: implications for invasion and metastasis. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.5:806-811. [[PubMed]
  • 50. Thiery, JP. 2002. Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions in tumour progression. Nat. Rev. Cancer2:442-454. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 51. Vietor, I., S. K. Vadivelu, N. Wick, R. Hoffman, M. Cotten, C. Seiser, I. Fialka, W. Wunderlich, A. Haase, G. Korinkova, G. Brosch, and L. A. Huber. 2002. TIS7 interacts with the mammalian SIN3 histone deacetylase complex in epithelial cells. EMBO J.21:4621-4631.
  • 52. Wade, P. A., A. Gegonne, P. L. Jones, E. Ballestar, F. Aubry, and A. P. Wolffe. 1999. Mi-2 complex couples DNA methylation to chromatin remodelling and histone deacetylation. Nat. Genet.23:62-66. [[PubMed]
  • 53. Wysocka, J., M. P. Myers, C. D. Laherty, R. N. Eisenman, and W. Herr. 2003. Human Sin3 deacetylase and trithorax-related Set1/Ash2 histone H3-K4 methyltransferase are tethered together selectively by the cell-proliferation factor HCF-1. Genes Dev.17:896-911.
  • 54. Yang, S. H., E. Vickers, A. Brehm, T. Kouzarides, and A. D. Sharrocks. 2001. Temporal recruitment of the mSin3A-histone deacetylase corepressor complex to the ETS domain transcription factor Elk-1. Mol. Cell. Biol.21:2802-2814.
  • 55. Yokoyama, K., N. Kamata, E. Hayashi, T. Hoteiya, N. Ueda, R. Fujimoto, and M. Nagayama. 2001. Reverse correlation of E-cadherin and snail expression in oral squamous cell carcinoma cells in vitro. Oral Oncol.37:65-71. [[PubMed]
  • 56. Yoshida, M., S. Horinouchi, and T. Beppu. 1995. Trichostatin A and trapoxin: novel chemical probes for the role of histone acetylation in chromatin structure and function. Bioessays17:423-430. [[PubMed]
  • 57. Zhang, Y., and M. L. Dufau. 2002. Silencing of transcription of the human luteinizing hormone receptor gene by histone deacetylase-mSin3A complex. J. Biol. Chem.277:33431-33438. [[PubMed]
  • 58. Zhu, W., M. Foehr, J. B. Jaynes, and S. D. Hanes. 2001. Drosophila SAP18, a member of the Sin3/Rpd3 histone deacetylase complex, interacts with Bicoid and inhibits its activity. Dev. Genes Evol.211:109-117. [[PubMed]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.