In abnormal, these functions can be bloomed to elicit carcinogenesis. Presently, HDAC family members are appealing targets for drug exploration, many of which have been deployed to the AML treatment. As the majority of AML events are associated with chromosomal translocation resulting in oncogenic fusion proteins, it is valuable to comprehensively understand the mutual interactions between HDACs and oncogenic proteins. Therefore, we reviewed the process of leukemogenesis and roles of HDAC members acting in this progress, providing an insight for the target anchoring, investigation of hyperacetylated-agents, and how the current knowledge could be applied in AML treatment.Accurate orchestration of gene expression is critical for the process of normal hematopoiesis, and dysregulation is closely associated with leukemogenesis. Epigenetic aberration is one of the major causes contributing to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), where chromosomal rearrangements are frequently found. Increasing evidences have shown the pivotal roles of histone deacetylases (HDACs) in chromatin remodeling, which are involved in stemness maintenance, cell fate determination, proliferation and differentiation,  Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is characterized by genetic mutations and epigenetic alterations, marked by uncontrollable proliferation, blocked differentiation, and anti-apoptosis –3. And tEpigenetic modification has been acknowledged to paly crucial roles in the oncogenic transforming including AML , 12. GenAccumulating evidences have been presented that epigenetic aberration prominently contribute to the leukemogenesis –18. As oAs acetyl group removers, HDACs control the accessibility of chromatin for transcription factors through switching the acetylated status, which finely tunes the transcriptional level of transcription factors and epigenetic modifiers, involving in development, cellular homeostasis, and carcinogenesis –22. And AML is frequently associated with chromatin rearrangement, including translocation and inversion, which generate oncogenic fusion proteins, among of which four most common chimeric proteins should be paid more attention, including AML1-ETO, PML-RARα, CBFβ-MYH11, and MLL-MLLT3 , 32–34. c-Kit, Flt3, and BCR-ABL, provide the hematopoietic progenitors with survival/proliferation advantage. Class II mutations, transcriptional factors such as NPM1, CEBPA, and TP53 as well as oncogenic fusion genes , arrest the differentiation of hematopoietic cells. Mutations emerging in either class I or class II do not result in leukemogenesis until the both happen to mutate. When differentiation of hematopoietic cells is hindered by Class II mutations, Class I mutations would autonomously proliferate, initiating the leukemogenesis. Class III mutations, epigenetic regulatory molecules , silence/activate the tumor suppressor genes/pro-tumor genes. And the class IV mutations involve genes that alter cell adhesion and cell-cell interaction, leading to the flexible motility and migration. Class V mutation includes genes dysregulating DNA-repair (e.g.TP53 and NPM1) and RNA-splicing  classification used earlier, and World Health Organization (WHO) classification, which has replaced the former . AccordiAccording to WHO classification –50, AML via post-translational modification, including acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, and ubiquitination , wrapped by 146 base-pair DNA. Each histone contains a structural domain and an unstructured tail of 25-40 amino acid residuals, which can be altered tination , 52. Andtination , 54.HDAC and HAT play opposite roles in the epigenetic modification of chromatin, especially the histone proteins, where HATs allow the chromatin relaxed for gene transcription, and HDACs condense the chromatin making it inaccessible for transcriptional factors –57. Ther2+ dependent catalytic domain, which are referred to as classical HDACs, and class III members are NAD+-dependent, called sirtuins, which possesses deacetylase activity but is unrelated to HDACs, and will not be involved here. Distinguished by structure, enzymatic function, and localization, they display similar and specific functions during the regulation of gene expression , nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase (NuRD), and transcription regulator family member switch-independent 3 (Sin3) complexes. HDAC3 generally emerges in another type of repressive complexes, such as N-CoR–SMRT complex. HDAC8 has been described to cooperate with SMAD3/4 complex, promoting the cell proliferation and migration  , 59. Theigration –65.2+/calmodulin-dependent kinases (CaMKs), and checkpoint kinase-1 (CHK1). And subsequently the transcriptional repressors will be regulated via binding with myocyte enhancer factor 2 (MEF2) binding domain, conferring signal responsiveness to downstream genes. When bound with Class IIa HDACs, MEF2 makes them a transcriptional repressor, whereas bound with HATs p300, MEF2 then converted them into a transcriptional activator. And the deregulated balance of HDAC and HAT will subsequently lead to diseases , and function of platelet derived growth factor (PDGF)  and Class IIb , which can shuttle between nucleus and cytoplasm , 67. Cladiseases –71. Clasdiseases , 73. Besr (PDGF) , 75. HDAr (PDGF) –79.HDAC11, as the sole member of Class IV HDAC family, structurally similar to class I and II, mainly distributes in nucleus and acts as a repressor of IL-10 . It can Via deacetylation, HDAC1 can affect the stability of tumor suppressor gene p53, arresting the interaction with DNA, inverting the function of p53. HDAC1 can also directly lead to the deacetylation of GATA1, repressing the gene transcription. HDAC6 is associated with the modulation of Akt and Stat3 signaling via regulation of Hsp90 acetylation in multiple myeloma cells. Deletion of HDAC6 will result in reducing phosphorylation of Stat3, which results in related genes inactivation , it can suppress the expression of interleukin2 (IL2) and interferon gamma (IFN-γ) in T regulatory cells. It is multifunctional in the regulation of hematopoiesis, including cell differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis. And the aberration of AML1 will speculatively deregulate the normal cellular development, which is involved in carcinogenesis , 109.via Co-IP, bearing out the repressive role of AML1-ETO through the recruitment of HDACs to AML1 target genes (Eight-twenty-one (ETO) gene on 8q22 is consist of 13 exons, with one BCR in intron1a and three BCRs in intron1b, which generate different variants but create the same fusion gene AML1-ETO, because it supplies only one splice acceptor in exon2, as the exon1b lacks of splice acceptor , 110. ETet genes . Such fuet genes . It alsoet genes , 114. Deet genes .In AML1-ETO fusion protein, the important features of AML1 are lost: 1) the c-terminal activation domain interacting with co-activators; 2) domains in charge of binding with co-repressors such as Sin3 and TLE; NLS domain functioning as nuclear matrix-targeting signal. And such lost will subsequently result in the dysregulation of hematopoiesis. The AML1-ETO fusion protein can affect the expression of both AML1 target genes and other related genes. As a part of AML1-ETO, AML1 recruits HDACs to the promoter, which suppress the expression of relative target genes. In normal, these target genes are required for regulating cell growth and preventing hemopoietic cells from transformation. And abnormally, the target genes are suppressed and lose their control, leading to cell overgrowth .In t  AML, a number of genes critical to normal hematopoiesis are up-regulated by AML1, while AML1-ETO disrupts such trans-activation. AML1–ETO fusion protein recruits various transcriptional factors, epigenetic modifiers such as HDACs, PRMT1, and p300, forming the first aberration vital for the t  AML onset . And thede novo AML cases) compared to solid tumors (more than50% of cases), the function of TP53 in AML could not be ignored, as dysfunctional wild-type (WT) TP53 appears in various AML entities, implying a more attention to be paid (HDAC1 is a binding partner of AML1 that takes part in the forming of corepressor complex with nuclear receptor corepressor (N-CoR) and mammalian Sin3 (mSin3A and B) , 120. An be paid .HDAC2 are nearly identical to HDAC1, and usually work together in repressive complexes, such as nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase (NuRD), switch independent 3 (Sin3), and corepressor of RE1 silencing transcription factor (CoREST) complexes. Inhibition of HDAC1 and HDAC2 leads to down-regulation of RAD51, BRCA1, and CHK1, which are crucial for the DNA damage response (DDR) and subsequent DNA double-strand break and apoptosis in AML cell lines. And AML-1-ETO can bind with HDAC1, 2, and 3 to repress the AML1 target genes in t  AML . And HDA+ T cells. Meanwhile, down-regulation of HDAC11 in APCs promotes the expression of IL-10 and impairs the T cell response. Therefore, HDAC11 may act as a decider in the immune activation and tolerance, implying the substantial role of HDAC11 in the immunotherapy, involving in AML (HDAC11 may display a role in the immune system by regulating the immune cells. Antigen-presenting cells (APCs) plays critical role in T cell activation and tolerance, which is associated with HDAC11 . Up-regug in AML .The inv  translocCBF, as a heterodimer, is composed of CBFα (DNA-binding subunit) and CBFβ (partner of CBFα) . CBFα suin vivo, it can decrease the mouse leukemic burden, showing an effective role of HDAC1 targeting the CBFβ-SMMHC protein  AML , 129.The t   translocation accounts for 10%-15% of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) issues. It is derived from the fusion of promyelocytic leukemia (PML) gene on 15q24 and retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARA) gene on 17q21, which is critical for the cellular transformation , 131.PML gene is composed of nine exons that produces some alternative spliced transcripts variants, which share the N-terminal region, containing the RING-B-Box-Coiled-coil/tripartite motif (RBCC/TRIM) domain . Due to RARA gene is consist of 10 exons producing two isoforms (RARA1 and RARA2) that are belonged to nuclear hormone receptor superfamily, acting as a nuclear transcriptional factor when retinoids are present, which is essential for the promyelocyte differentiation , 134. ThPML–RARA recruits HDACs leading to RARs suppress the transcription of RA target genes, which displays a central role in the oncogenic transformation of APL . The abeThe t  AML presents in 3-5% of AML events, generated by the fusion of mixed lineage leukemia (MLL) gene on 11q23 and mixed lineage leukemia translocated to chromosome 3 (MLLT3) gene on 9p22, producing the fusion protein MLL-MLLT3 , 144.MLL gene is made up of 14 exons, encoding the histone lysine methyltransferase whereby it is also called KMT2A, which harbors powerful transforming potential associated with neoplastic diseases assisted by specific partners, such as AF9 (MLLT3), AF4, and ENL (MLLT1) . It orchOverexpression of HDAC1, 2, and 3 is frequently found in leukemia . They caHDACs serving as the pivotal epigenetic modifier of chromatin determine the chromatin accessibility to transcriptional factors, which is essential for specific gene transcription and oncogenic transformation. And the same to hematopoiesis, function of HDACs is indispensable, which determines the fate of hematopoietic cells, going through self-renewal, proliferation, differentiation, or apoptosis, terminating in various cell lineages , 14, 20.The vital function of HDACs has long been acknowledged in the process of normal hematopoietic cell development and leukemogenesis, and numerous HDAC inhibitors have been applied in the treatment of various tumors but the mechanism of HDAC inhibitors serving in AML is elusive , 21. As AML, with disrupted hematopoietic system, is usually hallmarked by oncogenic fusion proteins, majorly centralizing on AML1-ETO, CBFB-MYH11, PML-RARA, and MLL-AF9 , 33. HDA+ T cell-mediated immunity , and antigen-presenting cell (APC) –156. Forimmunity , 159. ThAttentions paid on HDACs usually focus on the HDAC inhibitors in the process of carcinogenesis, whereas the roles of HDACs have not got enough attention. It is necessary to harness the interaction between HDACs and leukemogenesis, which would precisely direct the investigation of novel HDAC inhibitors. Here, we summarized the current knowledge of HDACs functioning in leukemogenesis with oncogenic fusion proteins. They are closely associated with the suppression of oncogenic fusion genes, and can be blocked by HDAC inhibitors. However, pan-inhibitors presented various side effects and it can be improved by the specific HDAC inhibitors. And the searching of special targets is based on harnessing the traits of each HDAC member functioning in the epigenetic modification. The review summarized the functional properties of HDAC members, which may be useful for the exploration of specific HDAC inhibitors. Furthermore, HDACs is involved in the regulation of immune system, which may benefit to the investigation of novel agents or combinational drugs.JZ drafted the manuscript. XG modified the manuscript. LY provided valuable advices, supervised, and approved the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.This work was supported by grants National Natural Science Foundation of China , China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2018M640824), Chinese National Major Project for New Drug Innovation (2019ZX09201002003), Shenzhen Science and Technology Foundation . Shenzhen Key Laboratory Foundation (ZDSYS20200811143757022). Sanming Project of Shenzhen (SZSM202111004).The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


CYP19 spans a region of chromosome 15 of approximately 130 kb and encodes aromatase, an enzyme required for estrogen synthesis. In the human granulosa cell-line KGN, there are seven open chromatin regions within the CYP19 locus. In this study, we demonstrate that two of these regions ~40 kb upstream and ~15 kb downstream of the CYP19 promoter are cohesin-loading sites, physically interacting with the promoter to negatively and positively regulate transcription, respectively. These observations suggest that CYP19 expression is controlled by a balance between the upstream silencer and downstream enhancer. When cohesin is depleted, CYP19 expression is elevated since the silencer is 2.5-fold further from the promoter than the enhancer and most likely depends on cohesin-mediated tethering to influence expression.Human  •CYP19 were identified in the human granulosa cell-line KGN.Silencer and enhancer elements of •CYP19 promoter through cohesin-mediated chromosome tethering.The silencer and enhancer elements both interacted with the •CYP19 expression.A balance between the activity of the silencer and enhancer element controls  Two days after transfection, the cells were lysed in Glo lysis buffer  and divided into two aliquots. Using the Nano-Glo Luciferase assay system , luminescence resulting from Nanoluc and firefly luciferase were measured separately in an ARVO X multilabel reader (PerkinElmer). Nanoluc activity is expressed as a proportion of firefly luminescence. A series of reporter constructs were created using pNL1.1[Nluc], into which fragments of the CYP19 gene were inserted at the position shown in KGN cells were seeded at 1 × 1033.1CYP19 gene in human ovarian granulosa KGN cells , an epigenetic marker for open chromatin [TUBB promoter (core of EUS-4) and cE7 (core of EUS-7) elements, respectively, were hypothesized to function as regulatory elements for CYP19 transcription in KGN cells.Large protein complexes of TFs and co-factors are recruited to transcription regulatory elements, in consort with the removal of nucleosomes . To clarhromatin , at bothpromoter . This su3.3CYP19, luc assays were performed in KGN cells. We first examined the transcription activity of a 453 bp fragment that covers the 1c promoter . The 1c promoter largely enhanced luc transcription compared with a control construct, and this enhancement was comparable to the activity of the SV40 promoter  and tested in luc assays. cE7a and cE7b elements had luc activity indistinguishable from the entire cE7, while the activity of cE7c was significantly reduced C. A conspromoter E. TBP ispromoter E. These 3.5CYP19 increased 1.7-fold upon disruption of SMC1 , Japan (#16K11118 and #20K09632 to N.K.).This study was supported by the KAKENHI grants from


LPIN1 gene in milk fat synthesis of buffalo are still unknown. In this study, overexpression of buffalo LPIN1 gene transfected with recombinant fusion expression vector significantly increased the expression of AGPAT6, DGAT1, DGAT2, GPAM and BTN1A1 genes involved in triglyceride (TAG) synthesis and secretion, as well as PPARG and SREBF1 genes regulating fatty acid metabolism in the buffalo mammary epithelial cells (BMECs), while the lentivirus-mediated knockdown of buffalo LPIN1 dramatically decreased the relative mRNA abundance of these genes. Correspondingly, total cellular TAG content in the BMECs increased significantly after LPIN1 overexpression, but decreased significantly after LPIN1 knockdown. In addition, the overexpression or knockdown of PPARG also enhanced or reduced the expression of LPIN1 and the transcriptional activity of its promoter. The core region of buffalo LPIN1 promoter spans from − 666 bp to + 42 bp, and two PPAR response elements (PPREs: PPRE1 and PPRE2) were identified in this region. Site mutagenesis analysis showed that PPARG directly regulated the transcription of buffalo LPIN1 by binding to the PPRE1 and PPRE2 on its core promoter. The results here reveal that the LPIN1 gene is involved in the milk fat synthesis of BMECs, and one of the important pathways is to participate in this process through direct transcriptional regulation of PPARG, which in turn significantly affects the content of TAG in BMECs.Studies on 3T3-L1 cells and HepG2 hepatocytes have shown that phosphatidic acid phosphohydrolase1 (LPIN1) plays a key role in adipogenesis, acting as a co-activator of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1a (PGC-1a) to regulate fatty acid metabolism. However, the functional role and regulatory mechanism of  In mammals, there are three subtypes of LPIN: LPIN1, LPIN2 and LPIN3. They have the same structural characteristics, including at least one nuclear localization signal domain (NLS), one amino-terminal domain (N-LIP) and one carboxyl-terminal domain (C-LIP)2. The N-LIP and C-LIP are highly conserved in different mammals. All the members of LPIN not only play the role of phosphatidic acid phosphorylase (PAP), which are necessary for TAG synthesis, but also act as transcriptional co-activators to regulate the expression of genes related to the lipid synthesis3. Among the three LPINs, the PAP specific activity of LPIN1 was significantly higher than that of LPIN2 and LPIN3. In humans and mice, LPIN1 is highly expressed in adipose tissue, skeletal muscle, myocardium and testis, but low in liver, kidney, brain and other tissues4. In mouse liver and 3T3-L1 cells, LPIN1 deficiency can prevent normal lipid accumulation and induce expression of key adipogenic genes, including peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) and CCAAT enhancer-binding protein (C/EBP)5. In addition, studies have shown that LPIN1 gene can be induced to express in the late stage of 3T3-L1 preadipocyte differentiation6. After LPIN1 is interfered by siRNA, the 3T3-L1 cells cannot differentiate into mature adipocytes. On the contrary, the overexpression of LPIN1 gene can promote their differentiation and maturation6. These results reveal that LPIN1 plays an important role in adipocyte maturation and adipogenesis. Previous studies also showed that LPIN1 is the most highly expressed subtype of the LPIN family, and its expression level on the 60th day of lactation is 15 times higher than that on the 15th day before lactation, suggesting that LPIN1 may be involved in milk fat synthesis7. The LPIN1 is also a downstream gene of the PPARG signaling pathway in the mammary gland of dairy cows8. In yak, the expression level of LPIN1 during the peak lactation is higher than that during other lactation and dry period, further suggesting that this gene may be an important gene related to lactation process9.Phosphatidic acid phosphohydrolase1 (LPIN1), as a member of the lipid protein family, was identified during positional cloning of the mutant gene underlying lipodystrophy in the fatty liver dystrophy (fld) mousePPARG) is a critical gene that regulates lipid metabolism, body immunity, insulin resistance and adipocyte differentiation10. In 3T3-L1 cells, overexpression of LPIN1 increases the expression of PPARG and the accumulation of lipid droplets, while knockdown of LPIN1 gene could inhibit the adipogenesis induced by PPARG agonists and also reduce phosphorylation levels of PPARG and mitogen-activated protein kinase (ERK1/2)11. The study by Kim et al12 also demonstrated that in the absence of ligand rosiglitazone, LPIN1 activated PPARG by releasing nuclear receptor corepressor 1 (NCOR1), retinoic acid and thyroid hormone receptor silencing mediator (SMRT). The physical interaction between LPIN1 and PPARG occurs in the LPIN1 C-terminal region12. These results suggest that LPIN1 has dual functions of transcriptional co-factor and phosphatidic acid phosphorylase. In fatty acid metabolism, PPARG can bind to retinoid-X-receptor (RXR) to regulate the expression of downstream genes13. PPAR/RXR is activated by ligands, and then binds to specific DNA sequences  in the promoter region of specific target genes, regulates gene transcription, and induces lipid metabolism and cell differentiation13. In the goat mammary epithelial cells, the PPARG gene can regulate the transcription of adipose differentiation-related protein (ADRP) and stearoyl-CoA desaturase 1 (SCD) genes by binding to PPRE of their promoter to promote milk fat synthesis15.Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma , and that PPARG can regulate its transcription by binding to the potential PPREs in the promoter region of the buffalo LPIN1 gene. In order to confirm this hypothesis, LPIN1 knockdown by lentivirus-mediated interference and overexpression by transfecting recombinant fusion expression vector were performed in BMECs. Furthermore, we cloned the promoter of buffalo LPIN1 gene, and studied the transcriptional regulation mechanism of buffalo LPIN1 gene through the search of PPREs and the site-directed mutagenesis of this element, as well as the overexpression and interference of the PPARG gene. This study will provide strong evidence to clarify the role of LPIN1 in the synthesis of buffalo milk fat.Although some functional roles of The BMECs were isolated by tissue block culture, which grew into a mixed population of cobblestone epithelial cells surrounded by spindle-shaped fibroblasts around them Fig. A. After LPIN1 gene was first ligated to pEASY-T1 Simple Cloning vector, and then ligated to the pEGFP-C1 vector. The pEGFP-C1-LPIN1 and pEGFP-C1 were directly transfected into the BMECs, respectively. After 48 h, green fluorescence was observed under fluorescence inverted microscope , which suggested that the pEGFP-C1-LPIN1 was successfully transfected into the BMECs  , DGAT1 (~ 2.0 fold), DGAT2 (~ 4.4 fold), GPAM (~ 8.5 fold) and BTN1A1 (~ 2.9 fold) genes that involved in TAG synthesis  and SREBF1 (~ 13.5 fold) genes related to the regulation of fatty acid metabolism, but had no significant effect on the expression of SREBF2  for interfering with LPIN1 in the Lv-LPIN1-sh2 group was significantly lower than that in control (50%)  and further transfected into BMECs. The results showed that the mRNA abundance of ECs Fig. C, and thP < 0.01)  Fig. D.LPIN1 gene by PCR, which contains 1878 bp upstream of the transcription start site (TSS) (+ 1)  Fig. A. Bioinf 1) Fig. B. The an 1) Fig. C.Figure LPIN1 gene promoter (− 1878 bp to + 42 bp) was constructed, then transfected into the BMECs to determine the luciferase activity. Compared with the control (pGL4.11), the luciferase activity in the BMECs in the pGL4-LPIN1 group was significantly increased (~ 62 fold), indicating that the − 1878 to + 42 region of LPIN1 gene contains the promoter region of this gene .The pGL4-LPIN1 luciferase recombinant vector containing LPIN1 promoter were constructed . After transfecting these recombinant vectors into BMECs, luciferase activity was detected ; when the deletion reached the − 1264 bp, the luciferase activity was significantly increased (P < 0.01); When the deletion reached − 953 bp, the luciferase activity was significantly reduced (P < 0.01), indicating that there are negative regulatory elements in the region from − 1264 bp to − 953 bp. In addition, the deletion from − 953 bp to − 666 bp has the highest luciferase activity (P < 0.01), and the deletion from − 666 bp to − 416 bp reduced the luciferase activity by about 56% (P < 0.01). Subsequently, with the deletion of the 5’ flanking region, the activity continued to decline  , the activity of the 5’ deletion mutagenesis constructs was significantly increased except for the deletion fragment − 88/ + 42  Fig. A. In addPPARG was conducted in BMECs, the mRNA expression of LPIN1 and PPARG and the luciferase activity of each promoter fragment were measured. The results showed that after interference with the PPARG gene (Lv-PPARG-sh3), the mRNA level of this gene was significantly reduced  were constructed, respectively, including the recombinants for site-directed mutagenesis of PPRE1 and PPRE2, and vector for simultaneous mutagenesis of both. Luciferase detection showed that both PPRE1 and PPRE2 site-directed mutagenesis could significantly decrease the promoter activity of LPIN1 gene. The decrease of LPIN1 promoter activity after site-directed mutation of PPRE1 (62%) was greater than that after site-directed mutation of PPRE2 (44%)   of the 4%) Fig. . In addion alone 2%  first converts glycerol-3-phosphate (G-3-P) and fatty acyl-CoA into a lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) in the endoplasmic reticulum. Then, LPA is converted into a phosphatidic acid (PA) by the AGPAT enzyme. PA is subsequently dephosphorylated by the enzyme LPIN1 to form a diacylglycerol (DAG). Then, DGAT makes DAG plus fatty acid acyl-CoA to form a TAG, which is the rate-limiting enzyme for TAG synthesis19. As a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily, butyrophilin A1 (BTN1A1) is essential for regulating the secretion of milk fat droplets20. In this study, the functional role of LPIN1 in buffalo milk fat synthesis was investigated by lentivirus-mediated interference and overexpression experiments in vitro. The overexpression of LPIN1 gene led to a significant increase in mRNA expression of GPAM, DGAT1, DGAT2 and BTN1A1 genes involved in TAG synthesis and secretion in the BMECs, as well as a significant increase in TAG content  on the LPIN1 promoter to promote the transcription of this gene25. In humans and mice, LPIN1 is regulated by a variety of transcription factors, including SREBF126, estrogen-related receptor γ (ERRγ)27, hepatic nuclear factor 4a (HNF4a)28 and C/EBPα6. They directly bind to the corresponding sites in the LPIN1 promoter to promote LPIN1 transcription and lipid synthesis. In this study, not only the binding sites of SREBF1 and C/EBPα were found in the promoter of the buffalo LPIN1, but also the PPREs sites. In the fatty acid synthesis pathway, PPARG binds to RXR to form a heterodimer, which then binds to the ligand and enters the nucleus, and then recognizes the PPREs on the target gene promoter, thus activating the transcription of downstream genes29. We found two PPREs  in the promoter of buffalo LPIN1, which were highly consistent with the recognized PPRE13. So far, PPRE has been found in the promoter of many genes related to lipid synthesis, such as thrombospondin receptor (CD36)30, adipose differentiation-related protein (ADRP) and stearoyl-CoA desaturase 1 (SCD)15. In this study, after the overexpression of PPARG, the luciferase activity of all recombinants with 5’ deletion fragments of the LPIN1 promoter increased significantly except for fragment − 88/ + 42 . Every effort has been made to minimize suffering. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations and the study is reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines.21. The female buffalo used for sampling  was healthy, five years old and at the 3rd parity (about 60 d postpartum). In short, the fresh buffalo mammary tissue was collected and washed with the phosphate buffer saline  for three times. Part of the acini was washed by highly resistant PBS (containing 400 IU mL-1 penicillin and 400 IU mL-1 streptomycin). The tissue blocks were then cut into 1 to 2 mm3 pieces and spread at the petri dishes, then cultured in an incubator with the condition of 37 °C, 5% CO2 and 95% air humidity. The culture medium is DMEM/F12  supplemented with fetal bovine serum , penicillin/streptomycin , bovine insulin , hydrocortisone , epidermal growth factor  and 5 μg/mL holotransferrin . The cells began to grow about 12 days. The cells were digested with 0.25% trypsin-ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid  for 2–3 min, and the exfoliated fibroblasts were then washed with the PBS. The remaining cells adhered to the bottom of the petri dish were further digested for 5–10 min and centrifuged at 1250 rpm for 3 min. The purified cells were collected for subculture. After 3 times of purification, the purified BMECs could be obtained. The identification protocol of BMECs is as follows: When the purified BMECs were confluent with 70–80%, the cells were washed with 1 × PBS, fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde for 20 min, then incubated 30 min with 1 × BSTX   for blocking. The cells were then incubated with 1:100 diluted cytokeratin 18 antibody  for 1 h, then were washed for three times and incubated with FITC-labeled monoclonal anti-mouse IgG secondary antibody  at 1:100 dilutions for 1 h. In the end, the purified cells were taken images with a microscope .BMECs were isolated, purified and cultured from buffalo mammary gland tissue at the peak of lactation using the previously described methodLPIN1 (XM_006073743), a pair of primers were designed using Primer Premier 5.0 software31: LPIN1-sense, 5’-AAGCTTATGAACTACGTCGGGCAG-3’ (Hind III restriction endonuclease site was underlined); LPIN1-antisense, 5’-GGTACCCTAGGCTGATGCAGAATGAAC-3’ (KpnI restriction endonuclease site was underlined). The PCR product was purified by a Gel Extraction Kit , and then cloned into pEASY-T1 Simple Cloning vector . Subsequently, the target fragment was ligated into the pEGFP-C1  vector to construct an overexpression recombinant vector, referred as pEGFP-C1-LPIN1. Then, the positive recombinants were purified using the EndoFree Maxi Plasmid Kit  for subsequent cell transfection experiment. The sequencing verification was completed by Shanghai Biological Engineering Technology Services Co., Ltd. .Based on the mRNA sequence of buffalo LPIN1 gene (XM_006073743), three pairs of short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs) targeting the LPIN1 gene were designed using the online software BLOCK-iT RNAi Designer (http://rnaidesigner.invitrogen.com/rnaiexpress/). After the shRNA sequences were annealed, it was ligated into the pLKO.1 vector to generate final recombinant plasmids (pLKO.1-shRNAs). All the recombinant vectors were sequenced for verification and then purified using EndoFree Maxi Plasmid Kit . The sequences of shRNAs are presented in Table According to the mRNA sequence of buffalo When the confluence of BMECs in a 6-well plate is 70–80%, pEGFP-C1-LPIN1 was transfected into the BMECs using Lipo6000™ transfection reagent  in accordance with the manufacturer’s protocol, and pEGFP-C1 was transfected as negative control. Forty-eight hours after transfection, the green fluorescent protein (GFP) was monitored using a Leica fluorescent microscope . Then, the BMECs were harvested for total RNA extraction or triacylglycerol (TAG) content analysis.LPIN1 gene. The pEGFP-C1-LPIN1 vector was transfected alone as a control. Forty-eight hours after transfection, the expression of GFP was monitored using a Leica fluorescent microscope . The HEK-293 T cells were then collected for RT-qPCR analysis. The PLKO.1 system used for the RNAi was a gift from David Root Lab32. When HEK-293 T cells were cultured to 70–80% confluence in a 10 cm plate, Lipo6000  was used to co-transfection pLKO.1-shRNA, pMD2G (enveloped plasmid) and pPAX2 (packaged plasmid) into HEK-293 T cells at a ratio of 5:3:2 to produce lentivirus (Lv-LPIN1-shRNA). In addition, pLKO.1, pMD2G and psPAX2 were co-transfected into HEK-293 T cells as a negative control group (Lv-NC). The culture medium contained the lentivirus was centrifuged by 400 g for 5 min at 4 °C by a high-speed freezing centrifuge  and then filtered with a 0.45 μm filter. The lentivirus particle was stored at − 80 °C for long-term storage.HEK-293 T cells  were cultured in DMEM/F12 medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin/streptomycin . HEK-293 T cells with a confluence rate of 70–80% were co-transfected with pLKO.1-shRNA and pEGFP-C1-LPIN1 at a ratio of 3:1 to screen for the most effective shRNA targeting the When the BMECs were cultured in a 60 mm plate to 70–80% confluence, the lentivirus (Lv-LPIN1-shRNA or Lv-NC) was added to culture medium. Meanwhile, 2 mL of polybrene  was added to the culture medium to improve the efficiency of virus infection. The medium was replaced with fresh medium after 24 h. The BMECs were harvested after 48 h for RNA extraction or TAG content analysis. Since PLKO.1 vector does not express fluorescent protein, multiplicity of infection (MOI) was not estimated in this study, and only RT-qPCR was used to ensure sufficient interference efficiency.https://www.medischebiologie.nl/files/?main=files&fileName=LinRegPCR.zip&description=LinRegPCR:%20qPCR%20data%20analysis&sub=LinRegPCR). The ubiquitously expressed genes of ACTB (actin beta), GAPDH  and YWHAZ (tyrosine 3-monooxygenase tryptophan 5-monooxygenase activation protein zeta) were used as internal reference genes to normalize the target gene expression21. The genes for expression detection here included the PPARG, glycerol-3-phosphate acyltransferase (GPAM), diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1 (DGAT1), diacylglycerol acyltransferase 2 (DGAT2), 1-acylglycerol-3-phosphate O-acyltransferases6 (AGPAT6), lipid phosphate phosphohydrolase1 (LPIN1), butyrophilin A1 (BTN1A1), sterol regulatory element-binding transcription factor 1 (SREBF1) and sterol regulatory element-binding transcription factor 2 (SREBF2). They are associated with the synthesis and regulation of milk fat33. The mRNA abundance of these genes was quantified using the 2-ΔΔCt method. The ΔCt = Ct (target genes)-Ct (reference genes). ΔΔCt = ΔCt-ΔCt (control). The control in the formula was group Lv-NC in the knockdown experiment, and pEGFP-C1 in gene overexpression experiment. Finally, the ACTB, GAPDH and YWHAZ were used as internal reference genes to calculate the 2-ΔΔCt of each gene, and then the geometric mean of the three 2-ΔΔCt values for each gene was calculated as the gene expression.Total RNA was extracted and purified from the BMECs, and the cDNA was synthesized using a PrimeScript RT kit . RT-qPCR primer pairs spanning exon-exon were designed with Primer Premier 5.0 to avoid amplification of genomic DNA. Detailed information about the primer pairs is present in Table LPIN1 for 48 h, the BMECs were rinsed twice with PBS. The TAG content in the BMECs was determined using the TAG kit  following the manufacturer’s instructions. Meanwhile, the intracellular total protein content was measured using the BCA protein assay kit . The TAG content was normalized by per milligram of protein.After the overexpression or knockdown of LPIN1 (Table http://jaspar.genereg.net/) and Peroxisome Proliferator Response Elements Search (http://www.classicrus.com/PPRE/).Genomic DNA was extracted from the blood samples of Binglangjiang buffalo  using the method of phenol/chloroform purification-based protocol. A pair of primers named LPIN1_F/R were designed to conduct the PCR for isolating the promoter of the N1 Table . AmplifiLPIN1 promoter fragment was excised from the pMD18-T vector with Xho I and Hind III restriction enzymes , and then ligated into the pGL4.11 vector to generate the final promoter recombinant plasmid (pGL4-LPIN1). In addition, a series of upstream primers were designed using the complete promoter region sequence of LPIN1 gene as a template, the following 5’ flanking deletion fragments of the promoter were further obtained by PCR: − 1523/ + 42, − 1264/ + 42, − 953/ + 42, − 666/ + 42, − 416/ + 42, − 336/ + 42, − 172/ + 42 and − 88/ + 42 . The relative luciferase activity of each sample was normalized with pRL-TK.When the confluence of BMECs in 12-well plates was 70–80%, the pGL4-LPIN1 vector or all recombinant vectors with 5’ deletion mutagenesis were co-transfected with pRL-TK vector in a ratio of 10:1 using Lipo6000™ transfection reagent (Beyotime Biotechnology). The pGL4.11 vector was co-transfected with pRL-TK as negative control. After 48 h of culture, the BMECs were collected for the determination of luciferase activity. The lentivirus (Lv-PPARG-sh3) used for Three repetitions were set for all treatments, and the results were expressed as mean ± standard error of means (means ± SEM). Statistical comparisons (t-test) between the treatment and the control group were performed using software SPSS 19.0  with a significance level of 0.05 and an extremely significant level of 0.01.vitro overexpression and interference experiments showed that the interference with LPIN1 significantly reduced the expression of lipid synthesis related genes and TAG content in the BMECs, while the overexpression of LPIN1 significantly increased the expression of lipid synthesis related genes and TAG content in the BMECs. Further transcriptional regulation experiments showed that the overexpression or interference of PPARG could enhance or decrease the expression and promoter activity of buffalo LPIN1, and the site-directed mutagenesis of PPRE1 and PPRE2 significantly reduced the promoter activity of buffalo LPIN1. The results here suggest that buffalo LPIN1 is involved in the synthesis of milk fat, and the PPARG can directly regulate the transcription of buffalo LPIN1 by binding to the PPRE1 and PPRE2 in its core promoter.In this study, in


Drosophila. First, we performed a genome‐wide bioinformatic analysis, providing an improved picture of the sequence motifs architecture. We then measured synthetic promoters’ activities of ~3,000 mutational variants with and without an external stimulus , at large scale and with high accuracy using robotics and a dual luciferase reporter assay. We observed a strong impact on activity of the different types of mutations, including knockout of individual sequence motifs and motif combinations, variations of motif strength, nucleosome positioning, and flanking sequences. A linear combination of the individual motif features largely accounts for the combinatorial effects on core promoter activity. These findings shed new light on the quantitative assessment of gene expression in metazoans.The core promoter plays a central role in setting metazoan gene expression levels, but how exactly it “computes” expression remains poorly understood. To dissect its function, we carried out a comprehensive structure–function analysis in  Drosophila core promoters.A large‐scale structure‐function analysis of ~3,000 synthetic promoters reveals the sequence determinants of  The control of gene expression occurs primarily at the process of transcription  core promoter is the minimal DNA sequence that is recognized by the basal transcription machinery   have been developed to test how the DNA sequence affects gene expression (transcripts) at single molecule resolution and at large scale , GAGA, GAGArev, INR2 , DRE, Ohler7, E‐Box1, Ohler6, TATA‐Box, TCT, and E‐Box2 ; second, CPEs that are only conserved in the melanogaster subgroup—the four leftmost plotted species that are the closest related . Thus, the new motifs we discovered are well conserved among multiple Drosophila species.To select the genes to be tested, we first determined the tion Fig . All ideBox2 Fig ; we nameBox2 Fig , we onlyig et al . E‐box2 l et al, . We valicies Fig . Since sated Fig —; (2) genomic −1 and +1 nucleosome positioning sequences to mimic the endogenous ±1 nucleosomal context , and (3) a stimulus‐response element for binding of the ecdysone receptors to recruit the steroid hormone ecdysone for transcriptional activation (block 2).The synthetic promoter sequences were designed to test three different features separately: core promoter sequence features , influence of genomic ±1 nucleosomal flanking sequences, and transcriptional response to external stimulus. The synthetic promoter sequences were inserted into constructs made of combined building sequence blocks, which comprise different functional regions Fig : (1) a mBlock 2 contains three EcR/USP heterodimer binding sites with 17 bp spacers in between . We found that this configuration responds the strongest to activation. All block 1s and block 7s are native D. melanogaster nucleosomal sequences selected to provide a variety of nucleosome occupancies , we devised various mutations of wild‐type promoters , point mutations of motifs, shift of motif positions, and substitution with functionally or positionally equivalent motifs from other architectures   Fig . The explow) Fig . The lowin vivo context, we measured their activity in developing D. melanogaster embryos using a fluorescent protein reporter for gene expression we recently developed  gave the highest average expression for the five genes  selected from the different architectures such that their activities covered the entire dynamic range of our measurements. Probing with our assay the pairwise enes Fig . Using Mblocks 1.X and 7.Y . We computed the GC content of each block 1s and 7s . Hence, the presence of block 7 has a relatively limited influence on expression level.We however first explored the effect on expression of the free combination of the different block 7s . By contrast, both the constitutive and developmental promoters showed similar and milder expression fluctuations upon block 1 variation . The sequence downstream the TSS (B7.X) forming a prominent +1 nucleosome may set a transcriptional obstacle. It may also influence post‐transcriptional events as it constitutes the main component of the 5′ UTR region. Previous genome‐wide studies showed constitutive promoters tend to have a preferred canonical nucleosome pattern with a strongly positioned +1 nucleosome  Fig . Indeed,XXmotif (Appendix Table While checking the features of core promoter motifs discovered by P = 0.17 between the native expression and the INR2‐substituted expression). Conversely, INR was not able to compensate for the loss of INR2 . We recovered nearly all of the variants for the motifs INR, TATA‐Box, INR2, DRE, and Ohler7. In most cases, the consensus sequences gave the highest expression levels . Similarly to the analysis of the intra‐mutations, a linear regression model was learned directly from the expression measurements obtained from these block‐wise combinatorial mutations , supporting the additivity for sequence features even among various promoter architectures. The learned coefficients revealed the significance of the block features , our results indicate that binding to these motifs is retained, even by exchanging block 5. Ignoring block 5, the block variants with the strongest contributions to expression correlated with the influence on expressions of specific motifs inside these blocks. For instance, block 4 in CG8157, block 4 in RpL36AN, and block 6 in Cas were the most significant features (P < 3×10−7) found in the model, in which TATA‐Box, DRE and MTEDPE motifs locate, respectively. They all increased the expression levels when replacing other blocks (average coefficient > 1.85). Block 3 in RpL36AN, which contains DRE, gave a negative contribution . This indicates a possible positional preference for DRE to be located in block 4. The background sequences of block 3 in CG8157 and Cpr47Eg  provided significantly negative effects (average coefficient < −2.4). Block 6 in CG8157 with a TTGTTrev played a slightly negative role as well, which is again consistent with the repressive function of this motif . To summarize, our results show that the motifs do not contain all the information. The context sequences surrounding the motifs in core promoters also play an important role in defining the activity. These effects are however generally less prominent. The block sections, which contain motifs together with their surrounding context sequences, largely function linearly for setting expression levels.Given the effects observed for motif contexts and the strong predictability of core promoter activity based on individual motifs, we wondered which role the context sequences surrounding the motifs play in defining core promoter function  tested in our experiments Fig . The ecdr = 0.51; P = 0.012). The higher the expression level, the lower the inducibility, which is consistent with the low activation measured for promoters with high basal expression level. The negative correlation was more significant for constitutive core promoters than developmental ones . Similarly, the motif consensus sequences did not dramatically affect the ecdysone responsiveness , reflecting different modes of transcriptional regulation at the core promoter and different physical properties of the DNA. The co‐occurrence of CPEs within the classes indicates that each motif class recruits a specific transcription initiation complex utilizing several binding sites. One such example is the TFIID complex that assembles at the DNA due to interactions to the Class 1 elements INR bound by the subunits TAF1 and TAF2 , DRE, and Ohler7 are necessary for gene expression. Their roles are unique and they cannot be replaced by positionally or functionally similar motifs from other architectures. Pairwise knockouts mostly elicit more significantly negative effects on transcription, and these effects show in some cases superadditivity. Conversely, most of the motif consensus sequences tend to increase core promoter activity. All these findings are consistent between different core promoters and emphasize again the importance of the sequence motifs for core promoter function.et al  driven by these different potential nucleosomal backgrounds. Note that although we checked nucleosomal presence on plasmid for one construct, it is not known if our promoters have native nucleosome occupancy. We however find greater expression variation for housekeeping and ribosomal core promoters than developmental core promoters when changing the TSS nucleosomal sequence downstream the TSS (block 7); this suggests the significance of the genomic +1 nucleosomal sequences for the function of constitutive core promoters.Our method based on the luciferase assay for assessing promoter activity has however limitations: Different translation efficiency due to the varying 5′UTR between transcripts is not captured, and the assay is blind toward the TSS that is actually being used in the endogenous promoters. These phenomena could lead to promoter activity measurements that do not perfectly reflect the endogenous expression. Additional shortcomings of our technique are that the measurements were performed using episomal plasmids in transiently transfected cells. Although we inserted the genomic ± 1 nucleosome positioning sequences from different genes surrounding the tested core promoter region, they still lack the ability to represent the endogenous chromosomal context and the higher order genomic structure, which might change the basal expression levels as well as the ecdysone inducibilities. Furthermore, our method has a moderate throughput that is lower than most sequencing‐based approaches, and the cloning and colony picking procedures also limit our sequence recovery from the designed oligonucleotides .XXmotif , a P‐value‐based regulatory motif discovery tool using position weight matrices (PWMs) :n is the number of tags within the cluster, ix represents the position of the ith tag, and median(X) is the median tag position within the cluster. In contrast to the SI score—which has a clear bias toward lower scores if the TSS cluster has many tags—the MAD score is independent of the cluster size.We used TSS tag data to separate genes with a positionally defined transcription start from genes utilizing several TSSs distributed over a broader genomic region. In a first step, we assigned TSS tags to promoters, by smoothing the TSS tag counts with a rectangular kernel (of width 41) and defining regions above the genomic background frequency as clusters if they were close enough to an annotated promoter. Clusters were defined as continuous regions with a tag distribution higher than the genomic average. For each cluster, the TSS was declared at the position with the most assigned tags. For further analysis, we only used clusters with at least five annotated tags and no other TSS within a range of 150 bps. Furthermore, we only considered clusters with either an annotated gene start within 250 bps upstream of the TSS, have the TSS within an annotated 5′UTR, or contain an annotated et al (We selected overlapping gene sets depending on TSS cluster width (described above), inducibility of gene expression (MAD expression), minimum gene expression, maximum gene expression, gene expression in embryo, larva, or female, and gene expression in adult Fig . If posset al .de novo motif search for each set separately by applying the XXmotif  algorithm  The match score (how well the PWM matches a binding site) has to exceed a score threshold specific for the motif. To determine this minimal threshold, we optimized the mutual information between the motif and each gene set, which corresponds to an optimization of the TF concentration. The gene set with the highest mutual information (and positive correlation) to the motif is given in column “Gene set” of Fig To assign binding sites for every motif PWM in every gene set we used two criteria: (i) If To determine the minimal log‐odd score of a PWM indicating the presence of a motif, we calculated the mutual information between the motif and all gene sets to which the PWM has a positive correlation given all minimal score thresholds ranging from −15 to 30 with step size 0.1. For each motif, we chose the minimal score threshold leading to the highest mutual information in any gene set.D. melanogaster core promoter sequences. Alignments were generated using the UCSC 14‐way multiple sequence alignments (dm3). The conservation score Scons(X) for each of the 11 Drosophila species X was calculated as follows:D. melanogaster and species X from the alignment, and Bi(X) is the expected average log‐odds score difference from a null distribution based on the ith of N sets of sampled binding sites. Each binding site is sampled from a position‐specific substitution matrix learned on the alignment to species X at the respective position +/− 10 bps. We used N = 50 for the analysis.For each motif, conservation scores were calculated on the assigned binding sites for all 12,061 Z‐scores for the enrichment of every CPE within bins of 50 genes. Groups of CPEs show transitions between correlation and anticorrelation at specific scores. Smaller CPE groups are enriched in stalled genes: INR, DPE, GAGA (B), genes with high expression in all developmental stages: Ohler6, Ohler7, INR3, RDPE (C), genes with high expression in one or more developmental stage: TATA‐box, ATGAA, INR3, RDPE (D), and the most regulated genes: TATA‐box, ATGAA (E). Correlating each CPE with each gene set provides an overview of core promoter architectures in D. melanogaster (F).To analyze the influence of TSS cluster width, expression in developmental stages, and stalling index on the enrichment of CPEs, we ordered all genes depending on each property Fig  and calcblock 3‐6 (131 bp in length) was the motif‐rich core promoter region (−80 to +50 bp around the TSS) with native and mutated sequences from different core promoter architectures to investigate the effects of sequence motifs; block 2 (73 bp) represented the EcREs, which contained the binding sites for the ecdysone receptors to recruit the steroid hormone ecdysone for transcriptional activation; block 1 (239 bp) and block 7 (240 bp) were used for testing the influence of nucleosomal sequence context. The entire lengths for the designed synthetic promoters inserted into the vector backbones were 703 bp with block 7 and 459 bp without block 7.We designed synthetic promoter constructs by dividing the promoter region into 7 building blocks Fig : block 3block 1 and block 7 sequences representing different potential ± 1 nucleosome patterns were selected (sequences in Appendix Table Drosophila Stock Center) or by oligo synthesis from Life Technologies (for HindIII recognition sites mutated and ATGs mutated sequences). All synthesized sequences of block 1s and block 7s contained BsaI sites and assembly overhangs, and they were stored in TOPO vectors . In the experiments, we tested block 1 and block 7 in pairs with all 19 native core promoter blocks 3‐6, five out of which were then selected to combine with all free combinations of block 1 and block 7 (one from each architecture with activities covering the entire dynamic range: CG15674 (motif‐less), Mec2 (Ar.1), Mtk (Ar.2), CG17712 (Ar.3), RpL23 (Ar.4). We also constructed synthetic promoters containing only block 1 (without block 7) for these five wild‐type blocks 3‐6. One pair of block 1.11 and block 7.11 was selected based on its high expression level and used as the fixed nucleosomal sequence context for highly mutated blocks 3‐6.After MNase digestion of chromatin, genome‐wide nucleosome maps were generated. 12 gene promoters were selected according to their pattern of nucleosome positioning and occupancy relative to their TSS  and pairs of block 2, which contained three EcR/USP heterodimer binding sites with 17 bp spacers in between, was synthesized by oligo annealing . In total, we thus selected 19 wild‐type core promoters, some of which have mixed architectures due to different motifs co‐occurrence , two versions of sequences were used as substitutions: random sequences and background sequences. Random sequences were generated by sampling sequences having the same length with the target motifs and checking with the XXmotif. Additionally, these consensus sequences were also inserted into the three motif‐less core promoters with their start positions at the peaks of the native motif distribution ‐INR2 (15 nt)‐Ohler7 (13 nt)‐TCT (11 nt); TATA‐Box (10 nt)‐Ohler6 (10 nt)‐DRE (10 nt); MTEDPE (17 nt)‐RDPE (17 nt). For INR‐like motifs with various lengths, the supposed position for TSS . For strictly positioned motifs like INR, MTEDPE, and TATA‐Box, shifts of 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 bp either downstream or upstream were applied; for less well‐positioned housekeeping core promoter motifs like DRE and Ohler7, larger distances were chosen .Further combinatorial mutations were designed to the motif‐rich core region, including free combinations of mutations both within defined core promoter architectures and between them . In addition, context sequences surrounding the motifs were also tested by exchanging them between different core promoters.XXmotif. In addition to the five core promoter sequences tested systematically in all three types of combinatorial mutations, several other native sequences were also included .For testing these combinatorial mutations, one representative core promoter sequence from each architecture with motifs located within distinct block regions was selected: Cas (Ar.1), CG8157 (Ar.2), Thoc6 (Ar.3.1), RpL36AN (Ar.3.2), and RpL5 (Ar.4). The synthetic promoter RpL36AN was derived from the native RpL36A (Ar.3.2) shifting the TSS position 16 nt upstream in order to shift all motifs into the blocks where they occur most frequently, based on the distributions generated by Multiple motif‐wise mutations for altering both motif strength and motif position within a core promoter sequence were performed here. The MED4 (Ar.3.1) was selected because of its strong native activity level, which ensures a relatively strong luminescence signal even after severe combinatorial mutations. Single mutations  for individual motifs in each core promoter were re‐designed in the same way as described before but kept the same in all intra‐architectural combinatorial mutations. Shifts of motifs were made within shorter ranges (±1 bp or ±5 bp).block 3‐6 regions: four block 3s from CG8157 (background sequence of Ar.2), RpL36AN , RpL5 (Ohler6 existed), Cpr47Eg ; five block 4s from Cas, CG8157, Thoc6, RpL36AN, RpL5; four block 5s from CG8157, Thoc6, RpL36AN, RpL5; six block 6s from Cas, CG8157, Thoc6, RpL36AN, RpL5, Mtk (background sequences of Ar.2).We applied block‐wise swaps between different core promoter sequences here. Two additional sequences Mtk and Cpr47Eg were included to provide extra block patterns. In detail, block pieces from 7 native core promoters were selected and freely combined to construct the synthetic et al,All motifs in a given core promoter were knocked out using the same sequences designed for single knockouts in intra‐architectural combinatorial mutations. All motifs from other core promoter sequences were inserted into this context at their native positions Fig . Two motet al,block 7  of both vector and inserted DNAs, ligation  was performed to obtain the two final vector backbones , named as BB0 for the constructs without block 7 and BB1 for the constructs containing a block 7.A two‐vector system was used in the experiments. Firefly reporter vector backbone was derived from a commercial vector pGL4.13 with luc2 firefly gene (Promega). HindIII and BglII restriction enzymes .Renilla control plasmid  was derived from another commercial vector pGL4.70 with the hRluc renilla gene (Promega) by insertion of a moderate‐strength P transposase (pTran) promoter between NheI and XhoI sites. The pTran promoter was cloned from a vector created in the lab pKF1  + Block 3‐6 with INR and DPE motifs (sequence: GGCTCCGAATTCGCCCTTTTCCCAGGGCGGCAGAGGCAAAAATTTGCCGA TCCCAGAGCCAGCCGACTCATTCAAAGCTCCGACTTCGTTGCGTGCACACAGAGTCTCAAGGGCGACCCAGCTTT).Several inter‐plate controls were used in the experiments. The negative control was one commercial vector pUC19  according to mutation families), Golden Gate cloning (BsaI cloning) was applied to join them with the vector backbones sequentially. Then, the newly synthesized reporter plasmids were transformed into electrocompetent E. coli, followed by plating bacteria on one‐well plates, this way facilitating automated colonies picking using the robotic workstation. After bacterial growth in 48‐well plates, we rearranged them into 96‐well LB plates and prepared the library for next‐generation sequencing with two‐step PCR using nested barcode primers. Based on the sequencing results, replicates and bad clones were screened out and DNAs from confirmed positive clones were isolated. These firefly reporter plasmids containing all the distinct promoters were then used for transient co‐transfection into D. melanogaster S2 cells together with the renilla control plasmid in 96‐well plates. After overnight incubation, cells were treated with ecdysone for another 2 h. Four cell culture 96‐well plates were pulled into 384‐well plates for the final dual luciferase assay readout in order to use less substrate for the luciferase assays.For carrying out our large‐scale systematic analysis, we developed a high‐throughput experimental pipeline using automated robotic systems Fig . After pDrosophila cell assays: transient co‐transfection, ecdysone treatment, and luciferase assay readout. In addition, an electronic multichannel pipette on an assistant robot  was used for automated cell plating into 96‐well plates.We used two independent robot platforms with a similar basic configuration of pipettor systems . Additional instruments were integrated with the original workstations including incubators , thermocyclers , barcode printer , barcode reader , plate reader , and plate sealer . They were designed for maximum flexibility to perform many different experiments. Specifically, one system is dedicated to bacterial experiments, mainly the cloning‐related work: colony picking, colony PCR, hitpicking for positive clones, DNA isolation, and concentration measurement. The colony picking is a customized feature of this robotic configuration. The other system is dedicated to Block 3‐6s for the motif‐rich core regions of our synthetic promoter constructs were amplified from a library synthesized by Agilent Technologies , block 2 (99 bp), block 3‐6 (200 bp), block 7 in TOPO vector  and backbone  together with 2 μl BsaI, 2 μl T4 DNA ligase and 2 μl 10× ligase buffer. The cloning protocol included 3 steps: (1) 20 cycles of 37°C for 2 min, 16°C for 3 min; followed by 50°C for 5 min and 80°C for 5 min; (2) After adding 1 μl BsaI, 1 μl T4 DNA ligase, 1 μl 10 mM ATP: 16°C for 20 min; 15 cycles of 37°C for 2 min, 16°C for 3 min; followed by 50°C for 5 min and 80°C for 5 min; (3) After adding again 1 μl BsaI: 37°C for 10 min, 50°C for 20 min, 80°C for 10 min and ramp down to 25°C by 0.1°C/s. After BsaI cloning, 2 µl of the reaction mix was transformed into 40 µl of electrocompetent TOP10 E. coli cells (homemade). After electroporation  and 1 ml SOC medium (homemade) addition, cells were incubated for 1 h at 37°C (shaking at 450 rpm) and plated 100 µl onto prewarmed 1‐well LB‐agar plates supplemented with 100 µg/ml ampicillin.BsaI restriction enzyme  and T4 DNA ligase  were applied to assemble all of the synthetic promoter blocks sequentially and simultaneously into the firefly reporter vector backbone in a one‐pot reaction. For each 20 μl reaction, DNA master mix contained equimolar amount (80 fmol) of each part: After overnight incubation at 37°C, the 1‐well plates were ready for colony picking. Span‐8 pipetting system on the robot was used to automatically pick individual colonies (customized protocol) into two 48‐well plates  with 2.4 ml LB‐ampicillin medium (ampicillin concentration: 120 µg/ml). The plates were incubated for 16 h at 37°C  and rearranged into one 96‐well plate . 110 µl/well of bacteria was used to create glycerol stock plate  and 30 µl/well for PCR plate  ready for sequencing library preparation. Since in the previous cloning step, the sequences from the same mutation family were all mixed together, it is necessary to recover the individual sequences, but is unfortunately technically impossible to recover all of them. Sequence separation occurs at the colony picking step and the number of different recovered sequences will increase exponentially with the number of picked colonies required. In addition, we observed that about 40% of the recovered sequences presented defects, arising from the synthesis procedure, which thus increase the number of picked colonies necessary accordingly. Thus, it would become pricely and timely prohibitive to fully recover all the designed sequences. However, as our analysis method can accommodate missing mutational sequences, we decided that picking and preparing glycerol stocks for 4–5 times more colonies than the number of designed sequences leading to 80% of recovered sequence constitutes a satisfying compromise without scarifying data quality. This way, we were able to recover in total more than 3000 of the designed sequences.block 2 and vector backbone respectively with specific barcodes . 2 µl/well of bacteria were used to set up a 25 µl PCR containing 1 µl homemade Taq/Pfu polymerase mix, 2.5 µl primer mix (forward and reverse each 500 nM), 1 µl 25 mM MgCl2, 2.5 µl 10× buffer, 1 µl 2.5 mM dNTP. 96‐well plate PCRs were performed in the thermocyclers integrated on the robot . 5 µl/well of the product from each 1st PCR plate was pooled into one specific well of the collection plate . 3.5 µl/well was then used as template for 2nd PCR in a 50 µl reaction together with 0.5 µl Herculase II fusion DNA polymerase (Agilent Technologies), 10 µl 5× Herculase II reaction buffer, 1.25 μl 10 mM dNTP mix and 5 μl each of Illumina index primers  Adapters and Index 2 (i5) Adapters, Illumina). So each well of 2nd PCR plate (each 1st PCR plate samples) got a unique pair of index adapters. PCR was performed as the same protocol for 1st PCR. The final products were pooled and purified using Agencourt AMPure XP magnetic beads (Beckman Coulter) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Next‐generation sequencing (Illumina HiSeq1500) was performed by the LAFUGA sequencing facility at the Gene Center LMU Munich.Two‐step PCR with nested barcode primers was implemented for library preparation. The forward and reverse primers for 1st PCR targeted the sequences in g for 15 min, the supernatant was discarded and cell pellets were stored at −20°C ready for DNA isolation. Minipreps in 96‐well plate format was performed with Wizard MagneSil TfxTM System (Promega) on the robotic workstation according to the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA concentrations were measured using the SpectraMax Microplate Reader integrated on the robot .Automated hitpicking of positive clones from glycerol stock plates was carried out using our robotic system. 75 μl of the samples in the original plates were reformatted into the final 96‐well glycerol stock plates  and 20 μl were used for reinoculation in 48‐well plates  with 2.4 ml LB‐ampicillin medium (ampicillin concentration: 120 µg/ml). The plates were incubated for 17 h at 37°C  and rearranged into one 96‐well plate . After centrifugation at 5,000 Drosophila melanogaster S2 cells were firstly thawed at passage 12 with Schneider's Drosophila Medium ) and later cultivated in Express Five SFM medium . One bottle of the Express Five medium (1 l) was supplemented with 90 ml of L‐Glutamine . During cultivation, cells were grown at 25°C without CO2 in tissue culture flasks  and were split into fresh flasks when 90% confluent. The cells in passage 18 were seeded into 96‐well plates  with 40,000 cells per well in 100 µl using an electronic multichannel pipette VIAFLO  on a pipetting robot ASSIST (INTEGRA). The cells 24 h growth rate and viability were monitored in the culture dishes  with 12 × 106 cells in 14 ml medium. Cell counting and assessment of cell viability were performed using the Cell Counter and Analyzer System .24 h after cell plating, transient co‐transfection on the robot system was performed using FuGENE® HD Transfection Reagent (Promega) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. To avoid multiple freeze–thaw processes, the renilla control plasmid and three inter‐plate control plasmids  were aliquoted in PCR strips sufficient for one transfection experiment. The isolated reporter plasmids and inter‐plate control plasmids were transferred into 96‐well master mix plates according to the transfection plate layout together with renilla control plasmids (except for untreated cells (UTCs), reporter plasmid or inter‐plate control plasmid renilla control plasmid ratio = 8:1, total DNA amount 0.945 µg per well). Wells indicated with green shadows were filled with various reporter plasmids containing synthetic promoter constructs to be tested. 2.3 µl/well FuGENE® HD Transfection Reagent was added and the FuGENE® HD‐DNA mixture was incubated for 5 min at RT (FuGENE® HD : DNA ratio ~2.4:1). 10 µl FuGENE® HD‐DNA mixture was then added per well into 96‐well cell culture plates. The transient co‐transfections were performed in duplicates for cells with and without ecdysone treatment.l‐glutamine) and incubated for 2 h.Cells were incubated for 22 h after transfection, followed by 2 h of ecdysone treatment . The other replicate transfected cell plate was treated with the same volume (10 µl/well) of cell culture medium  identified in the first measurement and removed before the second measurement  that quenches the luminescence signal was added instead). This experimental procedure was designed to solve the crosstalk issue between adjacent wells that we observed for strong promoters . ONE‐GloTM Luciferase Assay System (Promega) and Renilla‐Glo® Luciferase Assay System (Promega) were used, respectively (reagent amount: 20 µl/well). There was a common crosstalk issue between two adjacent wells caused by the bleed‐through of the stronger luminescence signal to the other. In the optimized protocol, firefly luminescence signal was measured twice with strong signals  to segment the images and quantify the fluorescence intensity in the cortical region of the embryo, where the nuclei are located, as described in . The trimmed reads were mapped to our designed library using the pairwise alignment method.Sequencing reads were demultiplexed based on the Illumina indexes and the designed barcodes in our customized primers. The most enriched sequence (at least 3‐fold enrichment against the second most frequent sequence) for each sample was used and trimmed to match the target region of our synthetic promoter construct (part of FF) of each tested samples were normalized to their renilla luciferase values (REN) as well as FF values of the inter‐plate controls. The 1st firefly measurements (FF1) were used as the readout values for samples with strong promoters (FF1 > 2 × 105 RLU) and the 2nd firefly measurements  were used for other weaker samples.For each plate, firefly luciferase expression values (BG) was calculated as the arithmetic mean of negative control signals (pUC19 and UTCs) got from 2nd firefly measurements . Normalized value of positive control pUG9 (pUG9Norm) was defined as the arithmetic mean of its FF1 signals with BG subtracted divided by its REN signals (Equation 2).Background value (ix) was calculated as Equation 3: its iFF signal (FF1 for strong promoters and FF2 for others) with BG subtracted was firstly normalized to its iREN signal and then to the normalized control pUG9Norm; the value was then log2‐transformed. This value was used as the estimate of the corresponding synthetic promoter activity.The final normalized luciferase expression value for each tested sample  and then calculated the median and standard deviation (SD) for normalized luciferase signals of each promoter construct x (> 88% with at least three replicates for both with and without ecdysone stimulation). The score used for defining outliers was calculated as:We firstly filtered out samples with outlier renilla signals that we found out to be too high or too low to provide an accurate data normalization  denoted all SDs for entire synthetic promoter construct library X. The scores with an absolute value of no < 3 were labeled as outliers and were excluded from further analysis.Here, Christophe Jung: Data curation; Formal analysis; Visualization; Methodology; Writing—original draft; Project administration; Writing—review & editing. Peter Bandilla: Investigation; Methodology. Claudia Ludwig: Investigation. Mark Heron: Data curation; Formal analysis. Anja, Sophie Kiesel: Formal analysis; Visualization. Julia Philippou‐Massier: Investigation; Methodology. Miroslav Nikolov: Investigation. Alessio Renna: Investigation. Max Schnepf: Investigation. Ulrich Unnerstall: Conceptualization. Johannes Söding: Conceptualization; Project administration; Writing—review & editing. Ulrike Gaul: Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Project administration. Mariam Museridze: Investigation. Stefano Ceolin: Investigation. Bettina Mühling: Investigation. Nicolas Gompel: Project administration; Writing—review & editing.Zhan Qi: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Visualization; Methodology; Writing—original draft. CRediT author contributions listed above, the contributions in detail are:In addition to the D. melanogaster embryos. UG, CG, UU, NG, and JS supervised the work; ZQ and CJ wrote the paper with contributions from the other authors.ZQ carried out most of the experimental work and analyzed the data with the help of PB, CL, MN, AR, JP‐M, and MS; MH and ASK carried out the computational analysis and designed the promoter sequences; CJ designed the experiments and analyzed the data; UG, UU, and JS designed the study; MM, SC, BM performed the experimental work for with the AppendixClick here for additional data file.Expanded View Figures PDFClick here for additional data file.Dataset EV1Click here for additional data file.


For decades, more and more long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been confirmed to play important functions in key biological processes of different organisms. At present, most identified lncRNAs and those with known functional roles are from mammalian systems. However, lncRNAs have also been found in primitive eukaryotic fungi, and they have different functions in fungal development, metabolism, and pathogenicity. In this review, we highlight some recent researches on lncRNAs in the primitive eukaryotic fungi, particularly focusing on the identification of lncRNAs and their regulatory roles in diverse biological processes. Recent researches on non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) have expanded our knowledge of gene transcriptional regulation. These ncRNAs have been classified mainly into small ncRNAs and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs). Small ncRNAs are range from 17 nt to approximately 200 nt in length, while lncRNAs have lengths greater than 200 nt . Small RH19, Xist, MALAT1, and HOTAIR have been well characterized in mammals through genetic and molecular studies  have been observed with the absence of Xrn1 in budding yeast cells  medium , which are expressed with low abundance in vegetative yeast cells, have also been identified . Interes) medium . Furtherrecently . Some MUrecently .TERRAs), which is degraded by the nuclear 5′-end exonuclease Rat1, has also been found to control telomere length , which is sensitive to the early termination of lncRNA transcription, has also been identified in the RNA-binding factor Nrd1 mutant cells . Similarcis- or trans- model  and RNA-induced transcriptional silencing (RITS) which mediate the interactions between regulatory siRNAs and their nucleotide targets, have not been observed in this species , to alter chromatin structure and modify histones, which influences the recruitment or activity of transcription factors . Chromatin trans . All thenization .Although numerous long non-coding transcripts have been identified in fungi, only a few have been functionally identified . HoweverS. cerevisiae, the induction of meiosis and sporulation are dependent on the transcriptional activation of the IME1 (Inducer of Meiosis 1) gene. At present, at least three lncRNAs  have been identified to control the switch of mating-type in S. cerevisiae. IRT1 arises from the same strand as the IME1 promoter. A meiosis-repressive transcription activator, Rme1, acts as a coactivator to induce the production of the lncRNA IRT1. Then, IRT1 recruits the histone methyltransferase Set2 and the histone deacetylase Set3 to inhibit IME1 expression through establishing repressive chromatin at the IME1 promoter  can produces MAT a/α diploid cells. In promoter . Furthernscribed . RME2 is of IME4 . Moreove meiosis .pHO-lncRNA, which originates at ∼2,700 bp upstream of the HO gene, is responsible for mating-type interconversion during cell-cycle re-entry after a pheromone-dependent arrest in G1. It is induced to force nucleosome repositioning at the locus of the downstream located HO endonuclease in S. cerevisiae  are transcribed from the locus and physically interact with RNA-binding protein Mei2 to form a meiRNA-Mei2 complex  arises from the 1,147 nt upstream of the pho1 mRNA transcription start site in response to the addition of phosphate. However, with the deprivation of phosphate, the expression of prt is abolished through an unknown mechanism, leading to the expression of pho1 (A/T)xxTTxAA-3′) present in the pho1 and tgp1 promoters  motifs. The binding of Mmi1 in prt and nc-tgp1 induces the assembly of heterochromatin at their target gene loci . The transcription of this antisense transcript is associated with the transcriptional activator Reb1, which binds to chromatin near the site of lncRNA initiation  in the SRG1 promoter , the Paf1 complex, chromatin reassembly factors , and specific amino acids in histones H3 and H4  at the ASP3 promoter and makes this region more accessible for RNAPII’s transcription  is transcribed from the upstream intergenic region of FLO11 in the same direction while PWR1 (1.2 kb) is antisense to ICR1. The expression of FLO11 is repressed when the transcription factor Sfl1 binds to the FLO11 promoter, while another transcription factor, Flo8, activates it. Both Flo8 and Sfl1 compete for FLO11 promoter binding, and which of the two lncRNAs is expressed is determined through histone deacetylase Hda1 regulation. Hda1-mediated deacetylation condenses the chromatin at the Flo8- and Sfl1-binding sites. When Flo8 binds Sfl1, the transcription of PWR1 is activated. Then, PWR1 interferes with ICR1 through transcriptional interference, leading to the expression of FLO11. Conversely, the expression of ICR1 is activated with the binding of Sfl1 and the recruitment of histone deacetylase Hda1, then prevent the transcription of FLO11 , budding yeast (S. cerevisiae), fission yeast (S. pombe), mice (Mus musculus), zebrafish (Danio rerio), and plants , indicating its important functions in regulating telomerase  leads to strong reductions of the carotenoid biosynthesis genes at mRNA levels. However, the content of carS mRNA is maintained at a higher level, indicating that carP is involved in activating the expression of carotenoid genes in Fusarium with an unknown molecular mechanism (Cryptococcus neoformans, the lncRNA RZE1 controls the yeast-to-hyphal transition by regulating the key morphogenesis regulator Znf2 (HAX1 has been identified as promoting cellulase expression in Trichoderma reesei (Cochliobolus heterostrophus, the transcription factor Cmr1, which regulates melanin biosynthesis, is transcribed in both sense and antisense directions. The transition of the melanin gene cluster is regulated by both the antisense transcript of Cmr1 and the MAPK pathway, resulting in the euchromatin and heterochromation (In addition, besides the regulatory lncRNA which was functionally identified in yeast, several lncRNAs have also been characterized in filamentous fungi. For instance, the deletion of the poorly transcribed lncRNA echanism . Additiotor Znf2 . Moreovea reesei . In the romation .S. cerevisiae and S. pombe are both controlled by lncRNA-based chromatin silencing, their regulatory mechanisms are totally divergent. This suggested that there is great diversity in regulatory mechanisms in fungi kingdom. Therefore, more extensive studies are still needed to clarify the molecular mechanisms of expression, regulation, and functions of lncRNAs. Moreover, functional identifications in other fungi, especially pathogenic fungi, will result in a comprehensive understanding of pathogenicity mechanisms in fungi. However, pathogenicity-related lncRNAs in fungi is still less well documented. Advanced sequencing data will unveil profiles of lncRNAs and provide new insights and promising lncRNA candidates in this area.With the availability of high-throughput sequencing technology, the identification of lncRNAs is becoming easier. Thus, scientists are facing another major challenge: the functional characterization of the regulatory mechanisms of ncRNAs. However, owing to the non-conservative, development- and condition-specific nature of lncRNAs, it is still difficult to identify their functions at the molecular level. For example, although the sporulation processes of the two yeasts M. oryzae, and these circRNAs may play important roles in the regulation of growth and development. Thus, there is enormous potential for increasing our understanding of the relatively new field of circRNAs in fungi.Recently, a new type of lncRNA, circRNA, has been identified as playing important roles in animals and plants , but litWe believe that ongoing fungal lncRNA-based studies will provide important insights into how lncRNAs regulate important biological processes in fungi. Research in simple eukaryotes may provide important clues for understanding how this novel discovered regulatory lncRNAs function in eukaryotic cells.JL conceived the manuscript. JL, XL, ZY, ZH, and K-QZ discussed and developed its conceptual framework. JL wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.