Chromatin insulators are thought to restrict the action of enhancers and silencers. The best-known insulators in Drosophila require proteins such as Suppressor of Hairy wing (Su(Hw)) and Modifier of mdg4 (Mod(mdg4)) to be functional. The insulatorrelated proteins apparently colocalize as nuclear speckles in immunostained cells. It has been asserted that these speckles are 'insulator bodies' of many Su(Hw)-insulator DNA sites held together by associated proteins, including Mod(mdg4). As we show here using flies, larvae and S2 cells, a mutant Mod(mdg4) protein devoid of the Q-rich domain supports the function of Su(Hw)-dependent insulators and efficiently binds to correct insulator sites on the chromosome, but does not form or enter the Su(Hw)-marked nuclear speckles; conversely, the latter accumulate another (C-truncated) Mod(mdg4) mutant that cannot interact with Su(Hw) or with the genuine insulators. Hence, it is not the functional genomic insulators but rather aggregated proteins that make the so-called 'insulator bodies'.

The Su(Hw) insulator found in the gypsy retrotransposon is the most potent enhancer blocker in Drosophila melanogaster. However, two such insulators in tandem do not prevent enhancer-promoter communication, apparently because of their pairing interaction that results in mutual neutralization. Furthering our studies of the role of insulators in the control of gene expression, here we present a functional analysis of a large set of transgenic constructs with various arrangements of regulatory elements, including two or three insulators. We demonstrate that their interplay can have quite different outcomes depending on the order of and distance between elements. Thus, insulators can interact with each other over considerable distances, across interposed enhancers or promoters and coding sequences, whereby enhancer blocking may be attenuated, cancelled, or restored. Some inferences concerning the possible modes of insulator action are made from collating the new data and the relevant literature, with tentative schemes illustrating the regulatory situations in particular model constructs.

There is ample evidence that the enhancers of a promoterless yellow locus in one homologous chromosome can activate the yellow promoter in the other chromosome where the enhancers are inactive or deleted, which is indicative of a high specificity of the enhancer-promoter interaction in yellow. In this paper, we have found that the yellow sequence from -100 to -69 is essential for stimulation of the heterologous eve (TATA-containing) and white (TATA-less) promoters by the yellow enhancers from a distance. However, the presence of this sequence is not required when the yellow enhancers are directly fused to the heterologous promoters or are activated by the yeast GAL4 activator. Unexpectedly, the same promoter proximal region defines previously described promoter-specific, long-distance repression of the yellow promoter by the gypsy insulator on the mod(mdg4) ( u1 ) background. These finding suggest that proteins bound to the -100 to -69 sequence are essential for communication between the yellow promoter and upstream regulatory elements.

No abstract