The C. elegans mesenchymal niche for germline stem cells (GSCs) employs GLP-1/Notch signaling to maintain a pool of ~50 GSCs (1,2). Loss-of-function Notch mutants cannot maintain GSCs (3) and gain-of-function mutants cause germline tumors (4). All metazoan Notch signaling relies on cleavage of the Notch receptor to generate the Notch intracellular domain (NICD), which moves into the nucleus and forms a ternary complex with DNA-binding protein LAG-1 and transcriptional co-activator LAG-3/SEL-8. To date, identification of direct transcriptional targets of GLP-1/Notch signaling in the germline has relied on indirect methods and revealed four possible genes:
fbf-2 (5),
lip-1 (6),
lst-1 and
sygl-1 (7). We set out to test the validity of these proposed targets and to identify others by chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP). To this end, we generated Mos-mediated transgenic lines expressing epitope-tagged versions of the GLP-1 receptor and LAG-1 DNA-binding protein. The
glp-1 transgene includes the
glp-1 genomic locus plus a C-terminal 6xmyc6HIS tag; it rescues
glp-1 null homozygotes to fertility and enables visualization of both transmembrane and intranuclear GLP-1 NICD. The
lag-1 transgene is driven by the germline-specific
mex-5 promoter and contains an N-terminal 6xFLAG tag; it rescues homozygotes for the unusual germline-specific
lag-1(
q426) allele from 75% sterility/25% embryonic lethality to 100% fertility and viability. GLP-1::6xmyc6HIS is expressed in the distal germline and 6XFLAG::LAG-1 is expressed in the germline. ChIP-Seq with these epitope-tagged Notch signaling components enriches for the
sygl-1 and
lst-1 promoters, confirming their identification as direct targets, but not for
fbf-1 or
lip-1, casting doubt on those genes as direct Notch targets. In addition, our ChIP-Seq data identifies other likely targets currently being assayed for biological effects.References: (1) Angelo and Van Gilst (2009) Science 326(5955): 954; (2) Cinquin et al. (2010) PNAS 107(5): 2048; (3) Austin and Kimble (1987) Cell 51: 589; (4) Berry et al. (1997) Development 124: 925; (5) Lamont et al. (2004) Dev Cell 7(5): 697; (6) Lee et al. (2006) EMBO J 25(1): 88; (7) Kershner et al. (2014) PNAS 111(10): 3739.