Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Roles for Intrinsic Disorder and Fuzziness in Generating Context-specific Function in Ultrabithorax, a Hox Transcription Factor

  • Chapter
Fuzziness

Part of the book series: Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology ((AEMB,volume 725))

Abstract

Surprisingly few transcription factors drive animal development relative to the number and diversity of final tissues and body structures. Therefore, most transcription factors must function in more than one tissue. In a famous example, members of the Hox transcription factor family are expressed in contiguous stripes along the anterior/posterior axis during animal development. Individual Hox transcription factors specify all tissues within their expression domain and thus must respond to cellular cues to instigate the correct tissue-specific gene regulatory cascade. We describe how, in the Drosophila Hox protein Ultrabithorax, intrinsically disordered regions implement, regulate and co-ordinate multiple functions, potentially enabling context-specific gene regulation. The large N-terminal disordered domain encodes most of the transcription activation domain and directly impacts DNA binding affinity by the Ubx homeodomain. Similarly, the C-terminal disordered domain alters DNA binding affinity and specificity, interaction with a Hox binding protein and strongly influences both transcription activation and repression. Phosphorylation of the N-terminal disordered domain and alternative splicing of the C-terminal disordered domain could allow the cell to both regulate and co-ordinate DNA binding, protein interactions and transcription regulation. For regulatory mechanisms relying on disorder to continue to be available when Ubx is bound to other proteins or DNA, fuzziness would need to be preserved in these macromolecular complexes. The intrinsically disordered domains in Hox proteins are predicted to be on the very dynamic end of the disorder spectrum, potentially allowing disorder to persist when Ubx is bound to proteins or DNA to regulate the function of these “fuzzy” complexes. Because both intrinsically disordered regions within Ubx have multiple roles, each region may implement several different regulatory mechanisms identified in fuzzy complexes. These intrinsic disorder-based regulatory mechanisms are likely to be critical for allowing Ubx to sense tissue identity and respond by implementing a context-specific gene regulatory cascade.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Kriwacki RW, Hengst L, Tennant L et al. Structural studies of p21Waf1/Cip1/Sdi1 in the free and Cdk2-bound state: conformational disorder mediates binding diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93:11504–11509.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tompa P, Szász C, Buday L. Structural disorder throws new light on moonlighting. Trends Biochem Sci 2005; 30:484–489.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Romero PR, Zaidi S, Fang YY et al. Alternative splicing in concert with protein intrinsic disorder enables increased functional diversity in multicellular organisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103:8390–8395.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vilasi S, Ragone R. Abundance of intrinsic disorder in SV-IV, a multifunctional androgen-dependent protein secreted from rat seminar vesicle. FEBS J 2008; 275:763–774.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Iakoucheva LM, Radivojac P, Brown CJ et al. The importance of intrinsic disorder for protein phosphorylation. Nucl Acids Res 2004; 32:1037–1049.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lu X, Hamkalo B, Parseghian MH et al. Chromatin condensing functions of the linker histone C-terminal domain are mediated by specific amino acid composition and intrinsic protein disorder. Biochemistry 2009; 48:164–172.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sandhu KS. Intrinsic disorder explains diverse nuclear roles of chromatin remodeling proteins. J Mol Recognit 2009; 22:1–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Galea CA, Wang Y, Sivakolundu SG et al. Regulation of cell division by intrinsically unstructured proteins: intrinsic flexibility, modularity and signaling conduits. Biochemistry 2008; 47:7598–7609.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu Y, Matthews KS, Bondos SE. Multiple intrinsically disordered sequences alter DNA binding by the homeodomain of the Drosophila Hox protein Ultrabithorax. J Biol Chem 2008; 283:20874–20887.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu Y, Matthews KS, Bondos SE. Internal regulatory interactions determine DNA binding specificity by a Hox transcription factor. J Mol Biol 2009; 390:760–774.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Phng LK, Gerhardt H. Angiogenesis: a team effort coordinated by Notch. Dev Cell 2009; 16:196–208.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu J, Perumal NB, Oldfield CJ et al. Intrinsic disorder in transcription factors. Biochemistry 2006; 45:6873–6888.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ward JJ, Sodhi JS, McGuffin LJ et al. Prediction and functional analysis of native disorder in proteins from the three kingdoms of life. J Mol Biol 2004; 337:635–645.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tompa P, Fuxreiter M. Fuzzy complexes: polymorphism and structural disorder in protein-protein interactions. Trends Biochem Sci 2008; 33:2–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Halder G, Callaerts P, Gehring WJ. Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. Science 1995; 267:1788–1792.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lo PCH, Frasch M. Establishing A-P polarity in the embryonic heart tube: a conserved function of Hox genes in Drosophila and vertebrates. Trends Cardiovasc Med 2003; 13:182–187.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hughes CL, Kaufman TC. Hox genes and the evolution of the arthropod body plan. Evol Dev 2002; 4:459–499.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lewis EB. A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila. Nature 1978; 276:565–570.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gellon G, McGinnis W. Shaping animal body plans in development and evolution by modulation of Hox expression patterns. Bio Essays 1998; 20:116–125.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pearson JC, Lemons D, McGinnis W. Modulating Hox gene functions during animal body patterning. Nature Rev Genet 2005; 6:893–904.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bondos SE, Tan XX. Combinatorial transcription regulation: the interaction of transcription factors and cell signaling molecules with homeodomain proteins in Drosophila development. Crit Rev Euk Gene Express 2001; 11:145–171.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mann RS, Lelli KM, Joshi R. Hox specificity: unique roles for cofactors and collaborators. Curr Topics Dev Biol 2009; 88:63–101.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bienz M. Homeotic genes and positional signaling in the Drosophila viscera. Trends Genet 1994; 10:22–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rivilin PK, Gong A, Schneiderman AM et al. The role of Ultrabithorax in the patterning of adult thoracic muscles in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Genes Evol 2001; 211:55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rogulja-Ortmann A, Renner S, Technau GM. Antagonistic roles for Ultrabithorax and Antennapedia in regulating segment-specific apoptosis of differentiated motoneurons in the Drosophila embryonic central nervous system. Development 2008; 135:3435–3445.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Graba Y, Aragnol D, Pradel J. Drosophila Hox complex downstream targets and the function of homeotic genes. BioEssays 1997; 19:379–388.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Capovilla M, Brandt M, Botas J. Direct regulation of decapentaplegic by Ultrabithorax and its role in Drosophila midgut morphogenesis. Cell 1994; 76:461–475.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. de Navas LF, Garulet DL, Sánchez-Herrero E. The Ultrabithorax Hox gene of Drosophila controls haltere size by regulating the Dpp pathway. Development 2006; 133:4495–4506.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Weatherbee SD, Halder G, Kim J et al. Ultrabithorax regulates genes at several levels of the wing-patterning hierarchy to shape the development of the Drosophila haltere. Genes Dev 1998; 12:1474–1482.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bondos SE, Catanese DJ Jr, Tan XX et al. Hox transcription factor Ultrabithorax Ib physically and genetically interacts with Disconnected Interacting Protein 1, a double-stranded RNA-binding protein. J Biol Chem 2004; 279:26433–26444.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bondos SE, Tan XX, Matthews KS. Physical and genetic interactions link Hox function with diverse transcription factors and cell signaling proteins. Mol Cell Proteomics 2006; 5:824–834.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chan SK, Jaffe L, Capovilla M et al. The DNA binding specificity of Ultrabithorax is modulated by cooperative interactions with Extradenticle, another homeoprotein. Cell 1994; 78:603–615.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Tan XX, Bondos S, Li L et al. Transcription activation by Ultrabithorax Ib requires a predicted a-helical region. Biochemistry 2002; 41:2774–2785.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. López AJ, Artero RD, Perez-Alonso M. Stage, tissue and cell specific distribution of alternative Ultrabithorax mRNAs and protein isoforms in the Drosophila embryo. Roux’s Arch Dev Biol 1996; 205:450–459.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mann RS, Hogness DS. Functional dissection of Ultrabithorax proteins in D. melanogaster. Cell 1990; 60:597–610.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Subramaniam V, Bomze HM, López AJ. Functional differences between Ultrabithorax protein isoforms in Drosophila melanogaster: evidence from elimination, substitution and ectopic expression of specific isoforms. Genetics 1994; 136:979–991.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Reed HC, Hoare T, Thomsen S. Alternative splicing modulates Ubx protein function in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 2010; 184:745–758.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bomze HM, López AJ. Evolutionary conservation of the structure and expression of alternatively spliced Ultrabithorax isoforms from Drosophila. Genetics 1994; 136:965–977.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Merabet S, Hudry B, Saadaoui M et al. Classification of sequence signatures: a guide to Hox protein function. BioEssays 2009; 31:500–511.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Compt Appl Biosci 1992; 8:275–282.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. White SH. Global statistics of protein sequences: implications for the origin, evolution and prediction of protein structure. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 1994; 23:407–439.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Tourasse NJ, Li WH. Selective constraints, amino acid composition and the rate of protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol 2000; 17:656–664.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Brooks DJ, Fresco JR. Increased frequency of cysteine, tyrosine and phenylalanine since the last universal ancestor. Mol Cell Proteomics 2002; 1:125–131.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hubbard S, Benyon RJ. Proteolysis of native proteins as a structural probe. In: Benyon R, Bonds JS, eds. Proteolytic Enzymes, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001:248–249.

    Google Scholar 

  45. López AJ, Hogness DS. Immunochemical dissection of the Ultrabithorax homeoprotein family in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88:9924–9928.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. White RAH, Wilcox M. Protein products of the bithorax complex in Drosophila. Cell 1984; 39:163–171.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Hegedus T, Serohijos AWR, Dokholyan NV et al. Computational studies reveal phosphorylation-dependent changes in the unstructured R domain of CFTR. J Mol Biol 2008; 378:1052–1063.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Bondos SE, Bicknell A. Detection and prevention of protein aggregation before, during and after purification. Anal Bioch 2003; 316:223–231.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Passner JM, Ryoo HD, Shen L et al. Structure of a DNA-bound Ultrabithorax-Extradenticle homeodomain complex. Nature 1999; 397:714–719.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Bridges CB, Morgan TH. The third-chromosome group of mutant characters of Drosophila melanogaster. Publs Carnegie Instn 1923; 327:1–251.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Garber RL, Kuroiwa A, Gehring WJ. Genomic and cDNA clones of the homeotic locus Antennapedia in Drosophila. EMBO J 1983; 2:2027–2036.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Scott MP, Weiner AJ, Polisky BA et al. The molecular organization of the Antennapedia complex of Drosophila. Cell 1983; 35:763–776.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. McGinnis W, Levine MS, Hafen E et al. A conserved DNA sequence in homeotic genes of the Drosophila antennapedia and bithorax complexes. Nature 1984; 308:428–433.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. McGinnis W, Garber RL, Wirz J et al. A homologous protein-coding sequence in Drosophila homeotic genes and its conservation in other metazoans. Cell 1984; 37:403–408.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Hersh BM, Nelson CE, Stoll SJ et al. The UBX-regulated network in the haltere imaginal disc of D. melanogaster. Dev Biol 2007; 302:717–727.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Carr A, Biggin MD. A comparison of in vivo and in vitro DNA-binding specificities suggests a new model for homeoprotein DNA binding in Drosophila embryos. EMBO J 1999; 18:1598–1608.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Mastick GS, McKay R, Oligino T et al. Identification of target genes regulated by homeotics proteins in Drosophila melanogaster through genetic selection of Ultrabithorax protein-binding sites in yeast. Genetics 1995; 139:349–363.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhai Z, Stein MAS, Lohmann I. Expression of the apoptosis gene reaper in homeotic, segmentation and other mutants in Drosophila. Gene Expr Patterns 2009; 9:357–363.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Damante G, Pelizzari L, Esposito G et al. A molecular code dictates sequence-specific DNA recognition by homeodomains. EMBO J 1996; 15:4992–5000.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Berger MF, Badis G, Gehrke AR. Variation in homeodomain DNA binding revealed by high-resolution analysis of sequence preferences. Cell 2008; 133:1266–1276.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Noyes MB, Christensen RG, Wakabayashi A et al. Analysis of homeodomain specificities allows the family-wide prediction of preferred recognition sites. Cell 2008; 133:1277–1289.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Ekker SC, Young E, von Kessler DP et al. Optimal DNA sequence recognition by the Ultrabithorax homeodomain of Drosophila. EMBO J 1991; 10:1179–1186.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Ekker SC, Jackson DG, von Kessler DP et al. The degree of variation in DNA sequence recognition among four Drosophila homeotic proteins. EMBO J 1994; 13:3551–3560.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Frazee RW, Taylor JA, Tulius TD. Interchange of DNA-binding modes in the deformed and Ultrabithorax homeodomain of Drosophila. EMBO J 2002; 10:1179–1186.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gutmanas A, Billeter M. Specific DNA recognition by the Antp homeodomain: MD simulations of specific and nonspecific complexes. Proteins 2004; 57:772–782.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Hoey T, Levine M. Divergent homeo box proteins recognize similar DNA seuqneces in Drosophila. Nature 1988; 332:858–861.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Kalionis B, O’Farrell PH. A universal target sequence is bound in vitro by diverse homeodomains. Mech Dev 1993; 43:57–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Gehring WJ, Qian YQ, Billeter M et al. Homeodomain-DNA recognition. Cell 1994; 78:211–223.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Clapier CR, Cairns BR. The biology of chromatin remodeling complexes. Ann Rev Biochem 2009; 78:273–304.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Gavis ER, Hogness DS. Phosphorylation, expression and function of the Ultrabithorax protein family in Drosophila melanogaster. Development 1991; 112:1077–1093.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Li L, von Kessler D, Beachy PA et al. pH-dependent enhancement of DNA binding by the Ultrabithorax homeodomain. Biochemistry 1996; 35:9832–9839.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Tour E, Hittinger CT, McGinnis W. Evolutionarily conserved domains required for activation and repression functions of the Drosophila Hox protein Ultrabithorax. Development 2005; 132:5271–5281.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Chan SK, Pöpperl H, Krumlauf R et al. An Extradenticle-induced conformational change in a Hox protein overcomes an inhibitory function of the conserved hexapeptide motif. EMBO J 1996; 15:2476–2487.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Li X, Murre C, McGinnis W. Activity regulation of a Hox protein and a role for the homeodomain in inhibiting transcriptional activation. EMBO J 1999; 18:198–211.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Garza AS, Ahmad N, Kumar R. Role of intrinsically disordered protein regions/domains in transcriptional regulation. Life Sci 2009; 84:189–193.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Krasnow MA, Saffman EE, Kornfeld K et al. Transcriptional activation and repression by Ultrabithorax proteins in cultured Drosophila cells. Cell 1989; 57:1031–1043.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Galant R, Carroll SB. Evolution of a transcriptional repression domain in an insect Hox protein. Nature 2002; 415:910–913.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W. Hox protein mutation and the macroevolution of the insect body plan. Nature 2002; 415:914–917.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Pinsonneault J, Florence B, Vaessin H et al. A model for Extradenticle-induced function as a switch that changes Hox proteins from repressors to activators. EMBO J 1997; 16:2032–2042.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Saleh M, Rammbaldi I, Yang XJ et al. Cell signaling switches Hox-Pbx complexes from repressors to activators of transcription. Mol Cell Biol 2000; 20:8623–8633.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Merabet S, Kambris Z, Capovilla M et al. The hexapeptide and linker regions of the AbdA Hox protein regulate its activating and repressive functions. Dev Cell 2003; 4:761–768.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Merabet S, Saadaoui M, Sambrani N et al. A unique Extradenticle recruitment mode in the Drosophila Hox protein Ultrabithorax. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104:16946–16951.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Mann RS, Chan SK. Extra specificity from Extradenticle: the partnership between HOX and PBX/EXD homeodomain proteins. Trends Genet 1996; 12:258–262.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Mann RS, Affolter M. Hox proteins meet more partners. Curr Opin Genet Dev 1998; 8:423–429.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. van Dijk MA, Murre C. Extradenticle raises the DNA binding specificity of homeotic selector gene products. Cell 1994; 78:617–624.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Heuber SD, Lohmann I. Shaping segments: Hox gene function in the genomic age. BioEssays 2008; 30:965–979.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Merabet S, Pradel J, Graba Y. Getting a molecular grasp on Hox contextual activity. Trends Genet 2005; 21:477–480.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Xu L. Regulation of Smad activities. Biochem Biophys Acta 2006; 1759:503–513.22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Walsh CM, Carroll SB. Collaboration between Smads and a Hox protein in target gene repression. Development 2007; 134:3585–3592.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Verheyen EM, Gottardi CJ. Regulation of Wnt/betal-Catenin signaling by protein kinases. Dev Dyn 2010; 239:34–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Johnson FB, Parker E, Krasnow MA. Extradenticle protein is a selective cofactor for the Drosophila homeotics: role of the homeodomain and YPWM amino acid motif in the interaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92:739–743.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Shanmugan K, Featherstone MS, Saragovi HU. Residues flanking the HOX YPWM motif contribute to cooperative interactions with PBX. J Biol Chem 1997; 272:19081–19087.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Asahara H, Dutta S, Kao HY et al. Pbx-Hox heterodimers recruit coactivator-corepressor complexes in an isoform-specific manner. Mol Cell Biol 1999; 19:8219–8225.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Haynes C, Oldfield CJ, Ji F et al. Intrinsic disorder is a common feature of hub proteins from four eukaryotic interactomes. PLoS Comp Biol 2006; 8:890–901.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Hilser VJ, Thompson EB. Intrinsic disorder as a mechanism to optimize allosteric coupling in proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104:8311–8315.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Dunker AK, Cortese MS, Romero P. Flexible nets: the roles of intrinsic disorder in protein interaction networks. FEBS J 2005; 272:5129–5148.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Hall J, Karplus PA, Barbar E. Multivalency in the assembly of intrinsically disordered dynein intermediate chain. J Biol Chem 2009; 48:33115–33121.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Beachy PA, Varkey J, Young KE et al. Cooperative binding of an Ultrabithorax homeodomain protein to nearby and distant DNA sites. Mol Cell Biol 1993; 13:6941–6956.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Gebelein B, Culi J, Ryoo HD et al. Specificity of Distalless repression and limb primordia development by Abdominal Hox proteins. Dev Cell 2002; 3:487–498.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Gebelein B, McKay DJ, Mann RS. Direct integration of Hox and segmentation gene inputs during Drosophila development. Nature 2004; 431:653–659.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Sun B, Hursh DA, Jackson D et al. Ultrabithorax protein is necessary but not sufficient for full activation of decapentaplegic expression in the visceral mesoderm. EMBO J 1995; 14:520–535.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, Texas, USA

    Sarah E. Bondos & Hao-Ching Hsiao

Authors
  1. Sarah E. Bondos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hao-Ching Hsiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah E. Bondos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Enzymology, Biological Research Center, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

    Monika Fuxreiter PhD

  2. Institute of Enzymology, Biological Research Center, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

    Peter Tompa PhD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bondos, S.E., Hsiao, HC. (2012). Roles for Intrinsic Disorder and Fuzziness in Generating Context-specific Function in Ultrabithorax, a Hox Transcription Factor. In: Fuxreiter, M., Tompa, P. (eds) Fuzziness. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 725. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0659-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation