Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
MyoD and NeuroD2, master regulators of myogenesis and neurogenesis, bind to a "shared" E-box sequence (CAGCTG) and a "private" sequence (CAGGTG or CAGATG, respectively). To determine whether private-site recognition is sufficient to confer lineage specification, we generated a MyoD mutant with the DNA-binding specificity of NeuroD2. This chimeric mutant gained binding to NeuroD2 private sites but maintained binding to a subset of MyoD-specific sites, activating part of both the muscle and neuronal programs. Sequence analysis revealed an enrichment for PBX/MEIS motifs at the subset of MyoD-specific sites bound by the chimera, and point mutations that prevent MyoD interaction with PBX/MEIS converted the chimera to a pure neurogenic factor. Therefore, redirecting MyoD binding from MyoD private sites to NeuroD2 private sites, despite preserved binding to the MyoD/NeuroD2 shared sites, is sufficient to change MyoD from a master regulator of myogenesis to a master regulator of neurogenesis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fong et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: