Cited by 367Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationEpigenetics and DNA Methylation

Low Affinity Binding Site Clusters Confer Hox Specificity and Regulatory Robustness

Open access
Crocker, Justin, Abe, Namiko, Rinaldi, Lucrezia, McGregor, Alistair P., Frankel, Nicolás, Wang, Shu, Alsawadi, Ahmad, Valenti, Philippe +4 more·2015·Cell

Abstract

In animals, Hox transcription factors define regional identity in distinct anatomical domains. How Hox genes encode this specificity is a paradox, because different Hox proteins bind with high affinity in vitro to similar DNA sequences. Here, we demonstrate that the Hox protein Ultrabithorax (Ubx) in complex with its cofactor Extradenticle (Exd) bound specifically to clusters of very low affinity sites in enhancers of the shavenbaby gene of Drosophila. These low affinity sites conferred specificity for Ubx binding in vivo, but multiple clustered sites were required for robust expression when embryos developed in variable environments. Although most individual Ubx binding sites are not evolutionarily conserved, the overall enhancer architecture-clusters of low affinity binding sites-is maintained and required for enhancer function. Natural selection therefore works at the level of the enhancer, requiring a particular density of low affinity Ubx sites to confer both specific and robust expression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.041

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Flexible enhancer grammar ensures robust gene expression control through suboptimal transcription factor binding motifs, which reinforce the requirement for transcription factor cooperativity and create opportunities for fine-tuning enhancer activity levels.

    “Another means by which flexible enhancer grammar ensures robust gene expression control is through “suboptimal” TF binding motifs, which reinforce the requirement for TF cooperativity and create opportunities for fine-tuning enhancer activity levels [125–128].”

    From Transcriptional enhancers and their communication with gene promoters (2021) · cites this paper as [126]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mann RS Lelli KM Joshi R 2009 Hox specificity unique roles for cofactors and collaborators Curr Top Dev Biol 88 63 101 19651302 PMC2810641

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crocker, J., Abe, N., Rinaldi, L., McGregor, A. P., Frankel, N., Wang, S., Alsawadi, A., Valenti, P., Plaza, S., Payre, F., Mann, R. S., & Stern, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Oxford Brookes University (GB)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
  • Mann, Richard S.
  • Stern, David L.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
160
Issue
1-2
Pages
191-203
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002964220
Cited by
363
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 22
FWCI
12.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-14-CE11-0010)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM054510, GM054510, R35GM118336)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
Keywords
Hox transcription factors, Ultrabithorax, enhancer architecture, Drosophila embryogenesis, regional identity, transcriptional specificity, enhancer evolution
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, DNA-Binding Proteins, Drosophila melanogaster, Embryo, Nonmammalian, Enhancer Elements, Genetic, Gene Expression Regulation, Molecular Sequence Data, Protein Binding, Transcription Factors, Sequence Alignment, Homeodomain Proteins, Drosophila Proteins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review