Genomic sequence comparisons between human, mouse and pufferfish (Takifugu rubripes (Fugu)) have revealed a set of extremely conserved noncoding sequences. While this high degree of sequence conservation suggests severe evolutionary constraint and predicts a lack of tolerance to change in order to retain in vivo functionality, such elements have been minimally explored experimentally. In this study, we describe the in-depth characterization of an ancient conserved enhancer, Dc2 located near the dachshund gene, which displays a human-Fugu identity of 84% over 424 basepairs (bp). In addition to this large overall conservation, we find that Dc2 is characterized by the presence of a large block of sequence (144 bp) that is completely identical between human, mouse, chicken, zebrafish and Fugu. Through the testing of reporter vector constructs in transgenic mice, we observed that the 424 bp Dc2 conserved element is necessary and sufficient for brain tissue enhancer activity. In vivo analyses also revealed that the 144 bp 100% conserved sequence is necessary, but not sufficient, to replicate Dc2 enhancer function. However, the introduction of two separate 16 bp insertions into the highly conserved enhancer core did not cause any detectable modification of its in vivo activity. Our observations indicate that the 144 bp 100% conserved element is tolerant of change at least at the resolution of this transgenic mouse assay and suggest that purifying selection on Dc2 sequence might not be as strong as we predicted or that some unknown property also constrains this highly conserved enhancer sequence. Thank you for your letter of February 15 th and for the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled "In Vivo Characterization of a Vertebrate Ultra-conserved Enhancer", by Poulin et al. We have addressed the reviewers' concerns in a revised manuscript, which we are resubmitting for your consideration.Our detailed response is as follows:Reviewer #21. Abstract -last sentence should read: "tolerant of change at least AT the resolution…"We have changed this typo.
2.Introduction paragraph four (page 4), first sentence. Statement "which is involved in embryonic development" is too vague. Please state, briefly, the function of DACH.We have added an introduction description of DACHs known function and reference to its Drosophila homolog.
3.Introduction paragraph four (page 4). When first introducing Dc2, please define it as a conserved, functional element at DACH (i.e., since the Dc nomenclature was not used previously in the text).We have made this change.
4.Introduction paragraph four (page 4). Please provide a reference for the statement "known degeneracy of the sequences recognized by transcription factors".We have added a reference.
5.Results paragraph one (page 5), first sentence. Please restate the locus (DACH) at which Dc2 resides.We have made this change.
6.Results "Refinement of the Minimal Necessary Dc2 Enhancer". Authors state that the 424 bp fragment drives expression pattern in transgenics that is "indistingu...