|
|
|
Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 586-590, March 1, 2003
1 Department of Development & Genetics, Evolution Biology Centre, Uppsala University, S-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden; 2 Laboratory of Immunopathology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-0760, USA; 3 Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Biomedical Center, S-751 24 Uppsala, Sweden
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The repression of the maternally inherited Igf2 allele has been proposed to depend on a methylation-sensitive chromatin insulator organized by the 11 zinc finger protein CTCF at the H19 imprinting control region (ICR). Here we document that point mutations of the nucleotides in physical contact with CTCF within the endogenous H19 ICR lead to loss of CTCF binding and Igf2 imprinting only when passaged through the female germline. This effect is accompanied by a significant loss of methylation protection of the maternally derived H19 ICR. Because CTCF interacts with other imprinting control regions, it emerges as a central factor responsible for interpreting and propagating gamete-derived epigenetic marks and for organizing epigenetically controlled expression domains.
| |
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The manifestation of genomic imprinting involves the translation
of gametic marks into parent of origin-dependent gene
expression patterns (Bartolomei and Tilghman 1997
; Horsthemke et al.
1999
). The neighboring IGF2 and H19 genes emerge as
paradigms of genomic imprinting, because their expression is
monoallelic from opposite parental alleles and governed by shared
enhancers (Bartolomei and Tilghman 1997
; Horsthemke et al. 1999
). The
repression of the maternal IGF2 and paternal H19
alleles depends on a differentially methylated imprinting control
region (ICR) in the 5' region of the H19 gene (Olek and Walter
1997
; Kaffer et al. 2000
). The proposal that the complex between the
H19 ICR and the 11 zinc finger protein CTCF organizes a CpG
methylation-sensitive insulation of the maternal Igf2 allele
(Bell and Felsenfeld 2000
; Hark et al. 2000
; Kanduri et al. 2000a
,b
;
Bell et al. 2001
; Ohlsson et al. 2001
) is supported by the observations
that CTCF interacts with only the maternal H19 ICR allele
(Kanduri et al. 2000b
) and that the chromatin insulator function is
regulated by CpG methylation (Holmgren et al. 2001
).
To directly prove this proposal, we mutated sequences within the H19 ICR, which we have previously shown to be in direct physical contact with CTCF. Our results document that the CTCF-H19 ICR complex is vital in the manifestation and propagation of gametic marks.
| |
Results and Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To directly demonstrate the function of the CTCF target sites
within the H19 ICR in association with the establishment and manifestation of the imprinting phenomenon, we changed the sequence GTGG to ATAT in three of the four CTCF target sites within the CGCG(T/G)GGTGGCAG-core motif. This sequence change deletes essential contact points for the CTCF while preserving the CpGs responsible for
the methylation-sensitive portion of the CTCF target sites (Kanduri et
al. 2000b
). The remaining second CTCF target site was ignored, because
it does not, in contrast to the other target sites, display any marked
in vivo footprint or nuclease hypersensitivity (Kanduri et al. 2000a
;
Szabó et al. 2000
). Following electroporation of the targeting
construct into ES cells and exploiting the fact that the mutations
introduced an EcoRV site in each of the three mutated target
sites (Kanduri et al. 2000b
), we were able to identify one cell clone,
#142, which had the endogenous H19 ICR replaced with all three
mutated CTCF sites (Fig. 1A). The retained
neomycin gene, which was flanked with loxP sites, was deleted
by mating homozygous 142 mice with mice carrying a Cre
transgene under the control of the
-actin promoter (Lewandoski and
Martin 1997
). Southern blot analysis confirmed the deletion of the
neomycin gene in the offspring of these crosses to generate the 142*
substrain (Fig. 1B).
|
To verify that the mutations affected the association between CTCF and
the maternal allele of the H19 ICR in vivo, we performed chromatin immunopurification (ChIP) analyses of formaldehyde
cross-linked DNA-protein complexes from E14.5 embryos, followed by PCR
amplification. As accounted for above, EcoRV restriction of
the amplified fragments encompassing CTCF target site #3 allowed the
discrimination between the wild-type and mutated H19 ICR
alleles. Figure 2 shows that the wild-type
maternal H19 ICR allele was pulled down by the CTCF antibody
in agreement with a previous report (Kanduri et al. 2000b
). However,
the mutated H19 ICR allele could not be similarly detected upon either paternal or maternal inheritance. This difference did not
depend on variation in quality between the formaldehyde-fixed protein-DNA complexes, because sequences included in the
Snrpn imprinting box (Shemer et al. 2000
), interacted with
CTCF in both reciprocal crosses (Fig. 2). We conclude that point
mutations of the H19 ICR CTCF target sites #1, #3, and #4 lead
to complete failure of CTCF binding in vivo, confirming our initial
anticipation that site #2 does not interact with CTCF in vivo.
|
We next examined whether or not the mutations affected the imprinted
state of the Igf2 gene by crossing 142* mice with SD7 mice,
which were derived from a congenic strain carrying the distal end of
chromosome 7 of Mus musculus spretus on a Mus musculus domesticus background (Dean et al. 1998
). A polymorphic
BsaAI site in the exon 4 of the Igf2 locus allowed
the discrimination of allelic expression patterns in the offspring of
these two strains (Dean et al. 1998
). Figure
3 shows reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) analyses of a large variety of tissue types documenting that neonatal offspring from 142*×SD7 crosses (in the order female to male) robustly
expressed Igf2 from both parental alleles. This loss of
Igf2 imprinting was accompanied by an 11% gain of weight in neonates when compared to neonates derived from the reciprocal SD7×142* crosses (in the order female to male), which display a normal
Igf2 imprinting status (Fig. 3; data not shown). We conclude that the contact points within CTCF sites #1, #3, and #4 in the H19 ICR are essential for maintaining the repressed status of the maternal Igf2 allele in most cell types of both mesodermal and endodermal lineages of the developing conceptus. In each of these
instances, H19 imprinting appeared normal, although we noted a
slight activation of the paternal H19 allele in offspring
inheriting the mutated ICR allele paternally (Fig. 3).
|
Our strategy to keep the crucial CpGs intact in the mutated CTCF target
sites allowed us to directly assess if the methylation privilege status
was lost as a consequence of the inability to interact with CTCF. CpG
methylation analyses of the parental alleles, which were discriminated
by using a polymorphic BstX1 site that restricts 142*
H19 ICR, but not the SD7 allele (Fig.
4A), was initially performed by restricting
the DNA with the methylation-sensitive enzyme Hha I followed
by Southern blot analysis. Although it is well-established that the
maternal H19 ICR allele is normally unmethylated (Olek and
Walter 1997
), Figure 4A shows that the mutation of the contact
sequences for the CTCF sites resulted in significant de novo
methylation, when maternally inherited. This observation was confirmed
by bisulphite methylation analyses of the CTCF target site #3 of the
mutated H19 ICR allele in heart and liver. Figure 4B shows
that the normally maintained unmethylated status at this CTCF target
site when maternally inherited (Olek and Walter 1997
; Liang et al.
2000
) is practically lost when passaged through the female germline.
Interestingly, paternal transmission of the mutated H19 ICR
also led to partial methylation of the maternally inherited wild-type
H19 ICR allele in some tissues, such as heart and liver (Fig.
4A). Although this pattern of de novo methylation must be limited due
to absence of expression of the maternal Igf2 allele in the
very same tissue specimens (Fig. 3) and shows variation among different
conceptuses (data not shown), it suggests the existence of a
trans-sensing mechanism. This deduction converges with earlier
proposals of trans-sensing within the Igf2/H19
imprinting domain (LaSalle and Lalande 1996
; Forne et al. 1997
).
|
Our results document the dual feature of the CTCF-methylation link. In
addition to the ability of CTCF to interpret the methylation status of
its target sites within the H19 ICR, CTCF also maintains a
methylation-free domain at and around its target sites. Although it is
likely that this latter feature involves protection by the CTCF-H19 ICR complex towards the de novo methylation
machinery, it is probable that many other neighboring protein-DNA
complexes play a similar role. This deduction is supported by our
observation that the mutated, maternal H19 ICR allele remains
methylation-free in the unfloxed 142 strain containing the
transcriptionally active neomycin gene just 3' of the H19 ICR
(data not shown). Given that the de novo methylation of the mutated
H19 ICR in the floxed 142* strain is not complete,
it is likely that additional factors interact with other linker regions
between the positioned nucleosomes (Kanduri et al. 2002
) to jointly
maintain the methylation-free domain of the maternally inherited
H19 ICR allele with CTCF. One such candidate factor is Oct-1,
which has been reported to interact with the H19 ICR
between CTCF target sites #2 and #3 to provide partial protection
against de novo methylation (Hori et al. 2002
).
This report documents that the CTCF target sites manifest not only the
repressed status of the maternally inherited Igf2 allele, but
also the methylation-free domain of the maternal H19 ICR
allele in somatic cells. This latter issue is of particular interest with respect to the acquisition of the methylation mark during male
germline development, because it implies that CTCF must be down-regulated and removed from the maternal H19 ICR allele in adult testis prior to de novo methylation. Although CTCF is indeed down-regulated during differentiation of spermatogonia into
spermatocytes (J. Whitehead, L. Liu, C. Kanduri, V. Pant, M. Lezcano,
W.-Q. Yu, A. Kerjean, M. Parvinen, A. Paldi, E. Klenova, V. Lobanenkov, and R. Ohlsson, unpubl.), this would seemingly be at odds with the
vital role for CTCF in cell survival and development (G.N. Filippova,
J. Whitehead, S. Fagerlie, S. Vatolin, K. Foley, D. Loukinov, E.M.
Pugacheva, J.E. Ulmer, J.M. Moore, Y.J. Hu, E.M. Klenova, C. Kemp, S.J.
Collins, P.E. Neiman, R. Ohlsson, and V.V. Lobanenkov, unpubl.). We
have earlier shown that a paralog of CTCF, termed BORIS for "Brother
of Regulator of Imprinted Sites," is expressed exclusively in
CTCF-negative spermatocytes in adult mouse testis (Loukinov et al.
2002
). Because our preliminary observation shows that BORIS replaces
CTCF on H19 ICR target sites prior to imprint acquisition of
the maternally derived H19 ICR allele (J. Whitehead, L. Liu,
C. Kanduri, V. Pant, M. Lezcano, W.-Q. Yu, A. Kerjean, M. Parvinen,
A. Paldi, E. Klenova, V. Lobanenkov, and R. Ohlsson, unpubl.), we
speculate that the CTCF
BORIS switch is essential for the
elimination of the methylation-protective properties of the
CTCF-H19 ICR complex in pachytene spermatocytes.
| |
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Knock-in strategy
Three of the four CTCF target sites (Fig. 1) were mutated to
change the core sequence from GTGG to ATAT, as has been described (Kanduri et al. 2000b
). The targeting vector was assembled in the pGEMT
vector, as indicated in Figure 1. The herpes simplex virus thymidine
kinase expression cassette is followed by 4.3 kb of genomic 5'-sequence
(long genomic arm), the PGK-neobpA expression cassette flanked by
loxP sites ("floxed"), ~2.6 kb of genomic 3'-sequence
(including the H19 transcriptional start site) and the pGEMT
vector backbone. The vector was linearised at the singular Nde1 site, electroporated into R1 embryonic stem cells (Nagy
et al. 1993
) and colonies were selected with G418 and Gancyclovir. Homologous integration events were screened by Southern blotting (see
below). The neomycin gene was deleted by mating homozygous mutant mice
with a transgenic mouse strain carrying the Cre-recombinase gene under the control of the
-actin promoter (Lewandoski and Martin
1997
).
Southern analysis for confirming recombination
Genomic DNA was isolated using Wizard genomic DNA isolation kit
(Promega). DNA was digested with respective enzymes, analyzed by
electrophoresis on a 1% agarose gel blotted onto a Hybond-N+ membrane
(Amersham Pharmacia). A 1.3-kb PCR-generated fragment (
6750 to
5406
bp with respect to the transcription start site of the mouse
H19 gene) outside the targeting vector sequence was used to
test for correct genomic integration of the targeting construct. To
assess the presence of all three mutated CTCF target sites, DNA was
digested with Dra1, BamH1, and EcoRV and
probed with an internal probe spanning the sequence
4296 to
1759 bp upstream of the H19 transcription start site, covering all
four CTCF sites in the H19 ICR region. For screening of the
recombinant clones, genomic DNA was digested with Dra1
and BamH1 and probed with a 5' external probe. The presence of
the neomycin gene allowed the discrimination of the mutated and
wild-type alleles.
Chromatin immunopurification analyses
Dispersed embryonic cells were formaldehyde cross-linked (in 1%
formaldehyde for 10 min at 37°C), and the DNA-protein complexes were
immunopurified using anti-CTCF antibody and protein A 4 Fast Flow
Sepharose beads (Pharmacia-Upjohn), as has been described (Kuo and
Allis 1999
; Kanduri et al. 2000b
). To examine an association between
H19 ICR and CTCF, the immunopurified DNA was PCR amplified with primers spanning the mutated CTCF target site #3: sense primer 5'-CTCAGTGGTCGATATATGGTTT-3'; antisense primer
5'-TGAGT CAAGTTCTCTTGGTTC-3'. PCR conditions were 95°C for 3 min,
28× (94°C for 40 sec, 54°C for 40 sec, 72°C for 40 sec). To
compare the quality of the formaldehyde cross-linked samples, sequences
included in the Snrpn imprinting box were amplified from the
same samples, as follows: sense primer 5'-ATCCTGGATGCAAGAGCTGT-3';
antisense primer 5'-GCCGCACGTACAGTTACA-3'. PCR conditions were: 95°C
for 3 min, 28× (94°C for 40 sec, 58°C for 45 sec, 72°C for 50 sec). The amplified sequence is positioned in the first exon of
Snrpn (nucleotides 3901-4162 in GenBank file AF130843). In
both instances, the sense primers were endlabeled with
32P-
-ATP and polynucleotide kinase, as has been described
(Kanduri et al. 2000b
).
Allelic RT-PCR analyses
To determine the imprinting status of the Igf2 and
H19 genes, homozygous 142* mice were mated with SD7 mice (a
congenic strain carrying the distal end of chromosome 7 of Mus
musculus spretus on a Mus musculus domesticus background).
RNA was isolated from individual organs of 2-day-old neonatals or
foetuses at E14.5 using TriPure DNA/RNA isolation reagent (Boehringer
Mannheim). RNA was treated with RQ1 DNase I (Promega) to remove any
contaminating genomic DNA. RT-PCR analyses were done using Qiagen
one-step RT-PCR kit as per guidelines. Primers and PCR conditions were
the same as previously published protocols for Igf2 (Dean et
al. 1998
) and H19 (Sasaki et al. 1995
). The PCR product was
purified and digested with BsaA1 to determine the allelic
origin of the Igf2 transcripts and with Bgl1 for the
H19 transcripts. Fragments were separated on 2% agarose gel
and stained with ethidium bromide for visualization.
Methylation analyses
For Southern blot analysis, genomic DNA was isolated from tissues
of 2-day-old neonatal mice. Fifteen micrograms of DNA were digested
with Dra1, BamH1, and BstX1 and with/without
the methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme Hha1.
Bstx1 has a unique site present only in the Dom
allele but not in the SD7 allele at
3537 bp of the H19
transcription start site. Bisulfite treatment of DNA was carried out
using an established protocol (Olek et al. 1996
), with the following
adaptations: DNA was restricted with an excess amount of Dra1
and BamH1 to generate suitably small fragments containing the
target sequence. One microgram of digested DNA was denatured with 0.3 M
NaOH at 37°C for 15 min, then mixed with 2 volumes of 2% low-melting
agarose dissolved in water. The mixture was pipetted into prechilled
mineral oil to form the DNA-agarose beads. The prepared beads were
then incubated with 1.2 mL 5.0 M NaHSO3/20 mM Hydroquinone
solution covered by mineral oil and incubated at 51°C for 6 h.
Treated DNA beads were equilibrated with TE (1 mM EDTA, 10 mM Tris-HCl
at pH 8.0), 6 × 15 min. Following desulphonation with 0.2 M NaOH,
2 × 15 min and equilibration with MilliQ water, 2 × 15 min at RT,
the DNA beads were subjected to PCR amplification reactions, using the
following published primers and conditions (Tremblay et al. 1997
):
Bhha5t2, BHha5t, and BHha5t3 (the final PCR product covers bases
2836
to
2479 relative to the H19 transcriptional start site).
Amplified fragments were cloned into the pGEMT-Easy vector (Promega),
and subsequently sequenced with the BigDye Terminator Cycle Sequencing
Kit (Applied Biosystems).
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We are grateful to Dr. Wolf Reik for generously providing both SD7 mice and sequence information of the Mus musculus spretus H19 ICR, to Dr. Gail Martin for providing the Cre-transgenic mouse line, and to Dr. Ragnar Mattsson at the Lund University transgenic core facility for help with blastocyst injections. This work was supported by the Swedish Science Research Council (VR), the Swedish Cancer Research Foundation (CF), the Swedish Pediatric Cancer Foundation (BCF), and the Lundberg Foundation.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 USC section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
[Keywords: Genomic imprinting; Igf2; chromatin insulator; CTCF; DNA methylation]
Received November 15, 2002; revised version accepted January 8, 2003.
4 Corresponding author.
E-MAIL Rolf.Ohlsson{at}ebc.uu.se; FAX 46-18-4712683.
Article and publication are at http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gad.254903.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
L. Han, D.-H. Lee, and P. E. Szabo CTCF Is the Master Organizer of Domain-Wide Allele-Specific Chromatin at the H19/Igf2 Imprinted Region Mol. Cell. Biol., February 1, 2008; 28(3): 1124 - 1135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. V. Fitzpatrick, E. M. Pugacheva, J.-Y. Shin, Z. Abdullaev, Y. Yang, K. Khatod, V. V. Lobanenkov, and M. J. Higgins Allele-Specific Binding of CTCF to the Multipartite Imprinting Control Region KvDMR1 Mol. Cell. Biol., April 1, 2007; 27(7): 2636 - 2647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Chernukhin, S. Shamsuddin, S. Y. Kang, R. Bergstrom, Y.-W. Kwon, W. Yu, J. Whitehead, R. Mukhopadhyay, F. Docquier, D. Farrar, et al. CTCF Interacts with and Recruits the Largest Subunit of RNA Polymerase II to CTCF Target Sites Genome-Wide Mol. Cell. Biol., March 1, 2007; 27(5): 1631 - 1648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Sparago, S. Russo, F. Cerrato, S. Ferraiuolo, P. Castorina, A. Selicorni, C. Schwienbacher, M. Negrini, G. B. Ferrero, M. C. Silengo, et al. Mechanisms causing imprinting defects in familial Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome with Wilms' tumour Hum. Mol. Genet., February 1, 2007; 16(3): 254 - 264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Engel, J. L. Thorvaldsen, and M. S. Bartolomei CTCF binding sites promote transcription initiation and prevent DNA methylation on the maternal allele at the imprinted H19/Igf2 locus Hum. Mol. Genet., October 1, 2006; 15(19): 2945 - 2954. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Watanabe, S. Watanabe, N. Sakamoto, M. Sato, and K. Akasaka Functional analysis of the sea urchin-derived arylsulfatase (Ars)-element in mammalian cells. Genes Cells, September 1, 2006; 11(9): 1009 - 1021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Kurukuti, V. K. Tiwari, G. Tavoosidana, E. Pugacheva, A. Murrell, Z. Zhao, V. Lobanenkov, W. Reik, and R. Ohlsson CTCF binding at the H19 imprinting control region mediates maternally inherited higher-order chromatin conformation to restrict enhancer access to Igf2 PNAS, July 11, 2006; 103(28): 10684 - 10689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Armstrong, M. Lako, W. Dean, and M. Stojkovic Epigenetic Modification Is Central to Genome Reprogramming in Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer Stem Cells, April 1, 2006; 24(4): 805 - 814. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Thorvaldsen, A. M. Fedoriw, S. Nguyen, and M. S. Bartolomei Developmental Profile of H19 Differentially Methylated Domain (DMD) Deletion Alleles Reveals Multiple Roles of the DMD in Regulating Allelic Expression and DNA Methylation at the Imprinted H19/Igf2 Locus Mol. Cell. Biol., February 15, 2006; 26(4): 1245 - 1258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Yoon, H. Herman, B. Hu, Y. J. Park, A. Lindroth, A. Bell, A. G. West, Y. Chang, A. Stablewski, J. C. Piel, et al. Rasgrf1 Imprinting Is Regulated by a CTCF-Dependent Methylation-Sensitive Enhancer Blocker Mol. Cell. Biol., December 15, 2005; 25(24): 11184 - 11190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Sha and A. Fire Imprinting Capacity of Gamete Lineages in Caenorhabditis elegans Genetics, August 1, 2005; 170(4): 1633 - 1652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Tanimoto, M. Shimotsuma, H. Matsuzaki, A. Omori, J. Bungert, J. D. Engel, and A. Fukamizu Genomic imprinting recapitulated in the human {beta}-globin locus PNAS, July 19, 2005; 102(29): 10250 - 10255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Sakatani, A. Kaneda, C. A. Iacobuzio-Donahue, M. G. Carter, S. de Boom Witzel, H. Okano, M. S. H. Ko, R. Ohlsson, D. L. Longo, and A. P. Feinberg Loss of Imprinting of Igf2 Alters Intestinal Maturation and Tumorigenesis in Mice Science, March 25, 2005; 307(5717): 1976 - 1978. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. X. Fu, S. R. Schwarze, M. L. Kenowski, S. LeBlanc, J. Svaren, and D. F. Jarrard A Loss of Insulin-like Growth Factor-2 Imprinting Is Modulated by CCCTC-binding Factor Down-regulation at Senescence in Human Epithelial Cells J. Biol. Chem., December 10, 2004; 279(50): 52218 - 52226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N Berteaux, S Lottin, E Adriaenssens, F Van Coppenolle, X Leroy, J Coll, T Dugimont, and J-J Curgy Hormonal regulation of H19 gene expression in prostate epithelial cells J. Endocrinol., October 1, 2004; 183(1): 69 - 78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Mukhopadhyay, W. Yu, J. Whitehead, J. Xu, M. Lezcano, S. Pack, C. Kanduri, M. Kanduri, V. Ginjala, A. Vostrov, et al. The Binding Sites for the Chromatin Insulator Protein CTCF Map to DNA Methylation-Free Domains Genome-Wide Genome Res., August 1, 2004; 14(8): 1594 - 1602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Lewis, K. Mitsuya, M. Constancia, and W. Reik Tandem Repeat Hypothesis in Imprinting: Deletion of a Conserved Direct Repeat Element Upstream of H19 Has No Effect on Imprinting in the Igf2-H19 Region Mol. Cell. Biol., July 1, 2004; 24(13): 5650 - 5656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. E. Szabo, S.-H. E. Tang, F. J. Silva, W. M. K. Tsark, and J. R. Mann Role of CTCF Binding Sites in the Igf2/H19 Imprinting Control Region Mol. Cell. Biol., June 1, 2004; 24(11): 4791 - 4800. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. E. Szabo, G. P. Pfeifer, and J. R. Mann Parent-of-Origin-Specific Binding of Nuclear Hormone Receptor Complexes in the H19-Igf2 Imprinting Control Region Mol. Cell. Biol., June 1, 2004; 24(11): 4858 - 4868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Pant, S. Kurukuti, E. Pugacheva, S. Shamsuddin, P. Mariano, R. Renkawitz, E. Klenova, V. Lobanenkov, and R. Ohlsson Mutation of a Single CTCF Target Site within the H19 Imprinting Control Region Leads to Loss of Igf2 Imprinting and Complex Patterns of De Novo Methylation upon Maternal Inheritance Mol. Cell. Biol., April 15, 2004; 24(8): 3497 - 3504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. M. Fedoriw, P. Stein, P. Svoboda, R. M. Schultz, and M. S. Bartolomei Transgenic RNAi Reveals Essential Function for CTCF in H19 Gene Imprinting Science, January 9, 2004; 303(5655): 238 - 240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. B. Bowman, J. M. Levorse, R. S. Ingram, and S. M. Tilghman Functional Characterization of a Testis-Specific DNA Binding Activity at the H19/Igf2 Imprinting Control Region Mol. Cell. Biol., November 15, 2003; 23(22): 8345 - 8351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. A. Ulaner, Y. Yang, J.-F. Hu, T. Li, T. H. Vu, and A. R. Hoffman CTCF Binding at the Insulin-Like Growth Factor-II (IGF2)/H19 Imprinting Control Region Is Insufficient to Regulate IGF2/H19 Expression in Human Tissues Endocrinology, October 1, 2003; 144(10): 4420 - 4426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Du, L. G. Beatty, W. Zhou, J. Lew, C. Schoenherr, R. Weksberg, and P. D. Sadowski Insulator and silencer sequences in the imprinted region of human chromosome 11p15.5 Hum. Mol. Genet., August 1, 2003; 12(15): 1927 - 1939. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||