Many developmental genes are controlled by shadow enhancers—pairs of enhancers that drive overlapping expression patterns. We hypothesized that compensatory evolution can maintain the total expression of a gene, while individual shadow enhancers diverge between species. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed expression driven by orthologous pairs of shadow enhancers from Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila yakuba, and Drosophila pseudoobscura that control expression of Krüppel, a transcription factor that patterns the anterior-posterior axis of blastoderm embryos. We found that the expression driven by the pair of enhancers is conserved between these three species, but expression levels driven by the individual enhancers are not. Using sequence analysis and experimental perturbation, we show that each shadow enhancer is regulated by different transcription factors. These results support the hypothesis that compensatory evolution can occur between shadow enhancers, which has implications for mechanistic and evolutionary studies of gene regulation.

Hunchback (Hb) is a bifunctional transcription factor that activates and represses distinct enhancers. Here, we investigate the hypothesis that Hb can activate and repress the same enhancer. Computational models predicted that Hb bifunctionally regulates the even-skipped (eve) stripe 3+7 enhancer (eve3+7) in Drosophila blastoderm embryos. We measured and modeled eve expression at cellular resolution under multiple genetic perturbations and found that the eve3+7 enhancer could not explain endogenous eve stripe 7 behavior. Instead, we found that eve stripe 7 is controlled by two enhancers: the canonical eve3+7 and a sequence encompassing the minimal eve stripe 2 enhancer (eve2+7). Hb bifunctionally regulates eve stripe 7, but it executes these two activities on different pieces of regulatory DNA--it activates the eve2+7 enhancer and represses the eve3+7 enhancer. These two shadow enhancers use different regulatory logic to create the same pattern.

Hunchback is a bifunctional transcription factor that can activate and repress gene expression in Drosophila development. We investigated the regulatory DNA sequence features that control Hunchback function by perturbing enhancers for one of its target genes, even-skipped . While Hunchback directly represses the eve stripe 3+7 enhancer, we found that in the eve stripe 2+7 enhancer, Hunchback repression is prevented by Caudal binding—this relationship is called counter-repression. We found evidence that this relationship is conserved by comparing predicted binding sites for Hunchback and Caudal across orthologous eve stripe 2 enhancers. These results alter the textbook view of eve stripe 2 regulation wherein Hb is depicted as a direct activator. Instead, to generate stripe 2, Hunchback repression must be counteracted by Caudal binding. We discuss the implications of this interaction for eve stripe 2 regulation and evolution.

Hunchback (Hb) is a bifunctional transcription factor that activates and represses distinct enhancers. Here, we investigate the hypothesis that Hb can activate and repress the same enhancer. Computational models predicted that Hb bifunctionally regulates the even-skipped (eve) stripe 3+7 enhancer (eve3+7) in Drosophila blastoderm embryos. We measured and modeled eve expression at cellular resolution under multiple genetic perturbations and found that the eve3+7 enhancer could not explain endogenous eve stripe 7 behavior. Instead, we found that eve stripe 7 is controlled by two enhancers: the canonical eve3+7 and a sequence encompassing the minimal eve stripe 2 enhancer (eve2+7). Hb bifunctionally regulates eve stripe 7, but it executes these two activities on different pieces of regulatory DNA--it activates the eve2+7 enhancer and represses the eve3+7 enhancer. These two "shadow enhancers" use different regulatory logic to create the same pattern.

Developmental enhancers integrate graded concentrations of transcription factors (TFs) to create sharp gene expression boundaries. Here we examine the hunchback P2 (HbP2) enhancer which drives a sharp expression pattern in the Drosophila blastoderm embryo in response to the transcriptional activator Bicoid (Bcd). We systematically interrogate cis and trans factors that influence the shape and position of expression driven by HbP2, and find that the prevailing model, based on pairwise cooperative binding of Bcd to HbP2 is not adequate. We demonstrate that other proteins, such as pioneer factors, Mediator and histone modifiers influence the shape and position of the HbP2 expression pattern. Comparing our results to theory reveals how higher-order cooperativity and energy expenditure impact boundary location and sharpness. Our results emphasize that the bacterial view of transcription regulation, where pairwise interactions between regulatory proteins dominate, must be reexamined in animals, where multiple molecular mechanisms collaborate to shape the gene regulatory function.

Enhancers are DNA sequences composed of transcription factor binding sites that drive complex patterns of gene expression in space and time. Until recently, studying enhancers in their genomic context was technically challenging. Therefore, minimal enhancers, the shortest pieces of DNA that can drive an expression pattern that resembles a gene’s endogenous pattern, are often used to study features of enhancer function. However, evidence suggests that some enhancers require sequences outside the minimal enhancer to maintain function under environmental perturbations. We hypothesized that these additional sequences also prevent misexpression caused by a transcription factor binding site mutation within a minimal enhancer. Using the Drosophila melanogaster even-skipped stripe 2 enhancer as a case study, we tested the effect of a Giant binding site mutation (gt-2) on the expression patterns driven by minimal and extended enhancer reporter constructs. We found that, in contrast to the misexpression caused by the gt-2 binding site mutation in the minimal enhancer, the same gt-2 binding site mutation in the extended enhancer did not have an effect on expression. The buffering of expression levels, but not expression pattern, is partially explained by an additional Giant binding site outside the minimal enhancer. Mutating the gt-2 binding site in the endogenous locus had no significant effect on stripe 2 expression. Our results indicate that rules derived from mutating enhancer reporter constructs may not represent what occurs in the endogenous context.

Computational models of enhancer function generally assume that transcription factors (TFs) exert their regulatory effects independently, modeling an enhancer as a "bag of sites." These models fail on endogenous loci that harbor multiple enhancers, and a "two-tier" model appears better suited: in each enhancer TFs work independently, and the total expression is a weighted sum of their expression readouts. Here, we test these two opposing views on how cis-regulatory information is integrated. We fused two Drosophila blastoderm enhancers, measured their readouts, and applied the above two models to these data. The two-tier mechanism better fits these readouts, suggesting that these fused enhancers comprise multiple independent modules, despite having sequence characteristics typical of single enhancers. We show that short-range TF-TF interactions are not sufficient to designate such modules, suggesting unknown underlying mechanisms. Our results underscore that mechanisms of how modules are defined and how their outputs are combined remain to be elucidated.

Enhancers are DNA sequences composed of transcription factor binding sites that drive complex patterns of gene expression in space and time. Until recently, studying enhancers in their genomic context was technically challenging. Therefore, minimal enhancers, the shortest pieces of DNA that can drive an expression pattern that resembles a gene's endogenous pattern, are often used to study features of enhancer function. However, evidence suggests that some enhancers require sequences outside the minimal enhancer to maintain function under environmental perturbations. We hypothesized that these additional sequences also prevent misexpression caused by a transcription factor binding site mutation within a minimal enhancer. Using the Drosophila melanogastereven-skipped stripe 2 enhancer as a case study, we tested the effect of a Giant binding site mutation (gt-2) on the expression patterns driven by minimal and extended enhancer reporter constructs. We found that, in contrast to the misexpression caused by the gt-2 binding site deletion in the minimal enhancer, the same gt-2 binding site deletion in the extended enhancer did not have an effect on expression. The buffering of expression levels, but not expression pattern, is partially explained by an additional Giant binding site outside the minimal enhancer. Deleting the gt-2 binding site in the endogenous locus had no significant effect on stripe 2 expression. Our results indicate that rules derived from mutating enhancer reporter constructs may not represent what occurs in the endogenous context.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) encourages trainees to make Individualized Development Plans to help them prepare for academic and nonacademic careers. We describe our approach to building an Individualized Development Plan, the reasons we find them useful and empowering for both PIs and trainees, and resources to help other labs implement them constructively.