Literature DB >> 11900456

Functional comparison of the Hoxa 4, Hoxa 10, and Hoxa 11 homeoboxes.

Yuanxiang Zhao1, S Steven Potter.   

Abstract

A number of models attempt to explain the functional relationships of Hox genes. The functional equivalence model states that mammalian Hox-encoded proteins are largely functionally equivalent, and that Hox quantity is more important than Hox quality. In this report, we describe the results of two homeobox swaps. In one case, the homeobox of Hoxa 11 was replaced with that of the very closely related Hoxa 10. Developmental function was assayed by analyzing the phenotypes of all possible allele combinations, including the swapped allele, and null alleles for Hoxa 11 and Hoxd 11. This chimeric gene provided wild-type function in the development of the axial skeleton and male reproductive tract, but served as a hypomorph allele in the development of the appendicular skeleton, kidneys, and female reproductive tract. In the other case, the Hoxa 11 homeobox was replaced with that of the divergent Hoxa 4 gene. This chimeric gene provided near recessive null function in all tissues except the axial skeleton, which developed normally. These results demonstrate that even the most conserved regions of Hox genes, the homeoboxes, are not functionally interchangeable in the development of most tissues. In some cases, developmental function tracked with the homeobox, as previously seen in simpler organisms. Homeoboxes with more 5' cluster positions were generally dominant over more 3' homeoboxes, consistent with phenotypic suppression seen in Drosophila. Surprisingly, however, all Hox homeoboxes tested did appear functionally equivalent in the formation of the axial skeleton. The determination of segment identity is one of the most evolutionarily ancient functions of Hox genes. It is interesting that Hox homeoboxes are interchangeable in this process, but are functionally distinct in other aspects of development. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science (USA).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11900456     DOI: 10.1006/dbio.2002.0595

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dev Biol        ISSN: 0012-1606            Impact factor:   3.582


  23 in total

1.  Functional specificity of a Hox protein mediated by the recognition of minor groove structure.

Authors:  Rohit Joshi; Jonathan M Passner; Remo Rohs; Rinku Jain; Alona Sosinsky; Michael A Crickmore; Vinitha Jacob; Aneel K Aggarwal; Barry Honig; Richard S Mann
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2007-11-02       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  Generation of a Slc39a8 hypomorph mouse: markedly decreased ZIP8 Zn²⁺/(HCO₃⁻)₂ transporter expression.

Authors:  Bin Wang; Lei He; Hongbin Dong; Timothy P Dalton; Daniel W Nebert
Journal:  Biochem Biophys Res Commun       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 3.575

3.  Reduced Abd-B Hox function during kidney development results in lineage infidelity.

Authors:  Bliss Magella; Robert Mahoney; Mike Adam; S Steven Potter
Journal:  Dev Biol       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 3.582

4.  Hox transcription factors influence motoneuron identity through the integrated actions of both homeodomain and non-homeodomain regions.

Authors:  Mala Misra; Emily Sours; Cynthia Lance-Jones
Journal:  Dev Dyn       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.780

5.  Non-homeodomain regions of Hox proteins mediate activation versus repression of Six2 via a single enhancer site in vivo.

Authors:  Alisha R Yallowitz; Ke-Qin Gong; Ilea T Swinehart; Lisa T Nelson; Deneen M Wellik
Journal:  Dev Biol       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 3.582

Review 6.  Endocrine disruptors in female reproductive tract development and carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Liang Ma
Journal:  Trends Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 12.015

7.  Genome-wide analysis of the homeobox C6 transcriptional network in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Colleen D McCabe; Demetri D Spyropoulos; David Martin; Carlos S Moreno
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2008-03-15       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 8.  Hox specificity unique roles for cofactors and collaborators.

Authors:  Richard S Mann; Katherine M Lelli; Rohit Joshi
Journal:  Curr Top Dev Biol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Recombineering-based dissection of flanking and paralogous Hox gene functions in mouse reproductive tracts.

Authors:  Anna M Raines; Mike Adam; Bliss Magella; Sara E Meyer; H Leighton Grimes; Sudhansu K Dey; S Steven Potter
Journal:  Development       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 6.868

10.  Hoxc6 is overexpressed in gastrointestinal carcinoids and interacts with JunD to regulate tumor growth.

Authors:  Kotoyo Fujiki; Eva-Maria Duerr; Hirotoshi Kikuchi; Aylwin Ng; Ramnik J Xavier; Yusuke Mizukami; Takaaki Imamura; Matthew H Kulke; Daniel C Chung
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-07-23       Impact factor: 22.682

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.