HMG Domain Superfamily of DNA‐bending Proteins: HMG, UBF, TCF, LEF, SOX, SRY and Related Proteins

Abstract

SRY, the Y‐chromosome‐encoded male sex‐determining factor, is the signature member of a larger family of related transcription factors, the SOX proteins. SOX proteins are related by a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)‐binding domain known as the HMG (high mobility group) domain, which in turn unites a larger superfamily of proteins. SRY and SOX proteins are thought to regulate gene transcription through binding to specific DNA sequence motifs and causing the DNA to bend – a property of so‐called architectural transcription factors. Similarly, a related family of proteins, including TCF‐1 (T‐cell factor 1), LEF‐1 (lymphoid enhancer factor 1) and their relatives, regulates transcription by virtue of sequence‐specific DNA binding. A third family, the true or canonical HMG proteins, differs by containing multiple HMG domains, not binding to specific target DNA sequences, and having poorly defined roles. Here, we examine the diversity, origins, molecular functions and biological roles of the HMG domain superfamily.

Key Concepts:

  • The 80 amino acid HMG domain characterizes a superfamily of proteins found in plants and animals.

  • HMG domain proteins associate with DNA and usually bend it, thereby influencing transcription of genes.

  • The most ancient family of these proteins, represented by the canonical HMG proteins HMG‐1 and HMG‐2, have multiple HMG domains, and do not bind to any specific DNA sequences.

  • Genes encoding canonical HMG proteins may have evolved into two further families of genes encoding proteins that have single HMG domains and bind to specific DNA sequence motifs.

  • These families include SRY (the mammalian Y‐linked sex‐determining factor) and the SOX, TCF‐1 and LEF‐1 transcription factors.

  • Unlike canonical HMG proteins, these other HMG domain proteins have specific, important and well‐defined biological roles, particularly in embryonic development.

Keywords: HMG domain; DNA binding; DNA bending; transcription factors; SOX factors

Figure 1.

Phylogeny and nomenclature of the HMG domain superfamily and high mobility group proteins. (a) The HMG domain superfamily is structurally and evolutionarily related by the HMG domain. (b) On the other hand, the high mobility group proteins, defined by fast migration during electrophoresis, contain several types of protein, only one of which (the HMG‐1, HMG‐2 class) contains the 80 amino acid motif known as the HMG domain.

Figure 2.

Role of architectural transcription factors. (a) The region upstream of a hypothetical gene, with the start of the transcribed region shown as a solid bar. A, B and C represent sites for binding of regulatory proteins. In this example, B represents a binding site for an architectural transcription factor. (b) Binding of factor B (shaded oval), resulting in bending of the chromatin. As a result, binding sites for A and C are brought into proximity. (c) Binding of factors A and C then allows a complex of transcription factors to be built up (ovals and circles), such that transcription of the hypothetical gene is initiated (arrow).

close

References

Behrens J, von Kries JP, Kühl M et al. (1996) Functional interaction of β‐catenin with the transcription factor LEF‐1. Nature 382: 638–642.

Bell DM, Leung KKH, Wheatley SC et al. (1997) SOX9 directly regulates the type‐II collagen gene. Nature Genetics 16: 174–178.

Bowles J, Berkman J, Cooper L and Koopman P (1999) Sry requires a CAG repeat domain for male sex determination in Mus musculus. Nature Genetics 22: 405–408.

Bowles J, Schepers G and Koopman P (2000) Phylogeny of the SOX family of developmental transcription factors based on sequence and structural indicators. Developmental Biology 227: 239–255.

Brunner E, Peter O, Schweizer L and Basler K (1997) Pangolin encodes a Lef‐1 homologue that acts downstream of Armadillo to transduce the Wingless signal in Drosophila. Nature 385: 829–833.

Canning CA and Lovell‐Badge R (2002) Sry and sex determination: how lazy can it be? Trends in Genetics 18: 111–113.

Connor F, Cary PD, Read CM et al. (1994) DNA binding and bending properties of the post‐meiotically expressed Sry‐related protein Sox‐5. Nucleic Acids Research 22: 3339–3346.

Dubin RA and Ostrer H (1994) Sry is a transcriptional activator. Molecular Endocrinology 8: 1182–1192.

Giese K and Grosschedl R (1993) LEF‐1 contains an activation domain that stimulates transcription only in a specific context of factor‐binding sites. EMBO Journal 12: 4667–4676.

Giese K, Amsterdam A and Grosschedl R (1991) DNA‐binding properties of the HMG domain of the lymphoid‐specific transcriptional regulator LEF‐1. Genes & Development 5: 2567–2578.

Giese K, Cox J and Grosschedl R (1992) The HMG domain of lymphoid enhancer factor 1 bends DNA and facilitates assembly of functional nucleoprotein structures. Cell 69: 185–195.

Giese K, Kingsley C, Kirshner JR and Grosschedl R (1995) Assembly and function of a TCR alpha enhancer complex is dependent on LEF‐1‐induced DNA bending and multiple protein‐protein interactions. Genes & Development 9: 995–1008.

Grosschedl R, Giese J and Pagel J (1994) HMG domain proteins: architectural elements in the assembly of nucleoprotein structures. Trends in Genetics 10: 94–100.

Gubbay J, Collignon J, Koopman P et al. (1990) A gene mapping to the sex‐determining region of the mouse Y chromosome is a member of a novel family of embryonically expressed genes. Nature 346: 245–250.

Harley VR, Jackson DI, Hextall PJ et al. (1992) DNA binding activity of recombinant SRY from normal males and XY females. Science 255: 453–456.

Harley VR, Lovell‐Badge R and Goodfellow PN (1994) Definition of a concensus DNA binding site for SRY. Nucleic Acids Research 22: 1500–1501.

Jantzen H‐M, Admon A, Bell SP and Tjian R (1990) Nucleolar transcription factor hUBF contains a DNA‐binding motif with homology to HMG proteins. Nature 344: 830–836.

King N, Westbrook MJ, Young SL et al. (2008) The genome of the choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis and the origin of metazoans. Nature 451: 781–788.

Mertin S, McDowall SG and Harley VR (1999) The DNA‐binding specificity of SOX9 and other SOX proteins. Nucleic Acids Research 27: 1359–1364.

Molenaar M, van de Wetering M, Oosterwegel M et al. (1996) XTcf‐3 transcription factor mediates the beta‐catenin‐induced axis formation in Xenopus embryos. Cell 86: 391–399.

Ner SS (1992) HMGs everywhere. Current Biology 2: 208–210.

Oosterwegel M, van de Wetering M, Dooijes D et al. (1991) Cloning of murine TCF‐1, a T cell‐specific transcription factor interacting with functional motifs in the CD3‐epsilon and T cell receptor alpha enhancers. Journal of Experimental Medicine 173: 1133–1142.

Peirano RI and Wegner M (2000) The glial transcription factor Sox10 binds to DNA both as monomer and dimer with different functional consequences. Nucleic Acids Research 28: 3047–3055.

Pontiggia A, Rimini R, Harley VR et al. (1994) Sex‐reversing mutations affect the architecture of SRY‐DNA complexes. EMBO Journal 13: 6115–6124.

Pontiggia A, Whitfield S, Goodfellow PN et al. (1995) Evolutionary conservation in the DNA‐binding and ‐bending properties of HMG‐boxes from SRY proteins of primates. Gene 154: 277–280.

Poulat F, Girard F, Chevron M‐P et al. (1995) Nuclear localization of the testis determining gene product SRY. Journal of Cell Biology 128: 737–748.

Scaffidi P and Bianchi ME (2001) Spatially precise DNA bending is an essential activity of the Sox2 transcription factor. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276: 47296–47302.

Schepers G, Teasdale R and Koopman P (2002) Twenty pairs of Sox: extent, homology and nomenclature of the mouse and human Sox transcription factor gene families. Developmental Cell 3: 167–170.

Sekido R and Lovell‐Badge R (2008) Sex determination involves synergistic action of SRY and SF1 on a specific Sox9 enhancer. Nature 453: 930–934.

Staal FJ, Meeldijk J, Moerer P et al. (2001) Wnt signaling is required for thymocyte development and activates Tcf‐1 mediated transcription. European Journal of Immunology 31: 285–293.

Südbeck P and Scherer G (1997) Two independent nuclear localization signals are present in the DNA‐binding high mobility group domains of SRY and SOX9. Journal of Biological Chemistry 272: 27848–27852.

Tang L, Li J, Katz DS and Feng JA (2000) Determining the DNA bending angle induced by non‐specific high mobility group‐1 (HMG‐1) proteins: a novel method. Biochemistry 39: 3052–3060.

Travis A, Amsterdam A, Belanger C and Grosschedl R (1991) LEF‐1, a gene encoding a lymphoid‐specific protein with an HMG domain, regulates T‐cell receptor an enhancer function. Genes & Development 5: 880–894.

Uchikawa M, Kamachi Y and Kondoh H (1999) Two distinct subgroups of Group B Sox genes for transcriptional activators and repressors: their expression during embryonic organogenesis of the chicken. Mechanisms of Development 84: 103–120.

Van Beest M, Dooijes D, van de Wetering M et al. (2000) Sequence‐specific high mobility group box factors recognize 10‐12‐base pair minor groove motifs. Journal of Biological Chemistry 275: 27266–27273.

Van Genderen C, Okamura RM, Fariñas I et al. (1994) Development of several organs that require inductive epithelial‐mesenchymal interactions is impaired in LEF‐1‐deficient mice. Genes & Development 8: 2691–2703.

Wegner M (1999) From head to toes: the multiple facets of Sox proteins. Nucleic Acids Research 27: 1409–1420.

Weiss MA (2001) Floppy SOX: mutual induced fit in HMG (high‐mobility group) box‐DNA recognition. Molecular Endocrinology 15: 353–362.

Wolffe AP (1994) Architectural transcription factors. Science 264: 1100–1101.

Further Reading

Baxevanis AD and Landsman D (1995) The HMG‐1 box protein family: classification and functional relationships. Nucleic Acids Research 23: 1604–1613.

Bianchi ME and Beltrame M (2000) Upwardly mobile proteins. Workshop: the role of HMG proteins in chromatin structure, gene expression and neoplasia. EMBO Reports 1: 109–114.

Polanco JC and Koopman P (2007) Sry and the hesitant beginnings of male development. Developmental Biology 302: 13–24.

Soullier S, Jay P, Poulat F et al. (1999) Diversification pattern of the HMG and SOX family members during evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 48: 517–527.

Thomas JO and Travers AA (2001) HMG1 and 2, and related ‘architectural’ DNA‐binding proteins. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 26: 167–174.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Koopman, Peter(Mar 2010) HMG Domain Superfamily of DNA‐bending Proteins: HMG, UBF, TCF, LEF, SOX, SRY and Related Proteins. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0002325.pub2]