This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplemental Research Data All Versions of this Article: gr.5875007v1 17/2/136    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cooper, S. J. Articles by Myers, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cooper, S. J. Articles by Myers, R. M. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Letter

Serum response factor binding sites differ in three human cell types

¹ Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305-5120, USA

The serum response factor (SRF) is essential for embryonic development and maintenance of muscle cells and neurons. The mechanism by which this factor controls these divergent pathways is unclear. Here we present a genome-wide view of occupancy of SRF at its binding sites with a focus on those that vary with cell type. We used chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) in combination with human promoter microarrays to identify 216 putative SRF binding sites in the human genome. We performed independent quantitative PCR validation at over half of these sites that resulted in 146 sites we assert to be true binding sites at over 90% confidence. Nearly half of the sites are bound by SRF in only one of the three cell types we tested, providing strong evidence for the diverse roles for SRF in different cell types. We also explore possible mechanisms controlling differential binding of SRF in these cell types by assaying cofactor binding, DNA methylation, histone methylation, and histone acetylation at a subset of sites bound preferentially in smooth muscle cells. Although we did not see a strong correlation between SRF binding and epigenetics modifications, at these sites, we propose that SRF cofactors may play an important role in determining cell-dependent SRF binding sites. ELK4 (previously known as SAP-1 [SRF-associated protein-1]) is ubiquitously expressed. Therefore, we expected it to occupy sites where SRF binding is common in all cell types. Indeed, 90% of SRF sites also bound by ELK4 were common to all three cell types. Together, our data provide a more complete understanding of the regulatory network controlled by SRF.

³ Switchgear Genomics, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA.

⁴ Corresponding author.

E-mail myers{at}shgc.stanford.edu; fax (650) 725-9689.

[Supplemental material is available online at www.genome.org.]

Article published online before print. Article and publication date are at http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.5875007

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. Miano SRF'ing the actin cytoskeleton with no destrin Physiol Genomics, June 10, 2008; 34(1): 6 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Flanagin, J. D. Nelson, D. G. Castner, O. Denisenko, and K. Bomsztyk Microplate-based chromatin immunoprecipitation method, Matrix ChIP: a platform to study signaling of complex genomic events Nucleic Acids Res., February 11, 2008; 36(3): e17 - e17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Strausberg and S. Levy Promoting transcriptome diversity Genome Res., July 1, 2007; 17(7): 965 - 968. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]