Introduction
Cellular differentiation is controlled by cascades of regulatory genes comprising combinations of widely expressed and cell type‐restricted transcription factors. The MEF2 proteins (MEF2A‐D) consist of a family of transcription factors that have a central role during the development of several tissues, including cardiac and skeletal muscle (
Potthoff and Olson, 2007). While MEF2 can synergize with tissue‐specific transcription factors in the various lineages (
Molkentin et al, 1995;
Naidu et al, 1995;
Black et al, 1996;
Morin et al, 2000), the signalling pathways that regulate MEF2 function in a lineage‐specific manner remain to be determined.
P19 embryonal carcinoma (EC) cells are a well‐established pluripotent embryonic stem (ES) cell model that has shed light on unique aspects of molecular mechanisms regulating cardiac and skeletal muscle development (
Skerjanc, 1999;
van der Heyden and Defize, 2003). Results in P19 cells have been confirmed in animal models and/or ES cells (
Pandur et al, 2002;
Karamboulas et al, 2006a;
Kennedy et al, 2009). Following 4 days of cellular aggregation in the presence of dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) to induce differentiation, P19‐derived cardiomyocytes first appear on day 6, while skeletal muscle first appears on day 9. Similarly, mouse ES cells differentiate into cardiac muscle by day 6 and skeletal muscle by day 15, with a profile of gene expression analogous to P19 cells (
van der Heyden and Defize, 2003;
Kennedy et al, 2009;
Gessert and Kuhl, 2010). Previously, we have shown that MEF2C can induce skeletal and cardiac myogenesis as well as neurogenesis in aggregated P19 stem cells (
Skerjanc et al, 1998;
Ridgeway et al, 2000;
Skerjanc and Wilton, 2000), providing a unique tissue culture system in which to examine the cell type‐specific regulation of MEF2C.
The activity and stability of MEF2 transcription factors are controlled by phosphorylation. The transcriptional activity of MEF2 family members can be enhanced upon phosphorylation by several kinases, including p38 MAPK, ERK5/BMK1, protein kinase C, and casein kinase‐II (
Molkentin et al, 1996b;
Han et al, 1997;
Kato et al, 1997;
Yang et al, 1998;
Ornatsky et al, 1999;
Zhao et al, 1999;
Cox et al, 2003;
Barsyte‐Lovejoy et al, 2004). Phosphorylation of MEF2A by ERK family members can target it for degradation, suggesting that ERK kinases have a dual function during myogenesis (
Cox et al, 2003). In contrast, MEF2D transactivation properties are potently abolished upon phosphorylation by PKA at Ser‐121 and Ser‐190 (
Du et al, 2008). Thus, it is clear that the MEF2 family is regulated by posttranslational modification, although the regulation of MEF2 by kinases in P19 EC or ES cells is not understood.
MLCK is important in regulating muscle contraction, cell motility, membrane events, and cell morphology (
Gallagher and Stull, 1997;
Kamm and Stull, 2001). In vertebrates, three genes code for MLCK, including smooth muscle (sm), skeletal muscle (sk), and cardiac muscle (c) MLCK (
Kamm and Stull, 1986;
Kennelly et al, 1987;
Seguchi et al, 2007;
Chan et al, 2008). Unlike, skeletal myosin light chain kinase (skMLCK) and cMLCK, which are specifically expressed in skeletal and cardiac muscles, respectively, smMLCK is expressed ubiquitously in a wide range of tissues. MLCK has a serine/threonine‐kinase catalytic core and a regulatory segment containing autoinhibitory and calmodulin‐binding domains (
Herring et al, 1990;
Takashima, 2009). Myosin II regulatory light chain is the only known substrate for MLCK (
Kamm and Stull, 2001;
Takashima, 2009).
To discover proteins that may regulate MEF2C function in a tissue‐specific manner, we used the tandem affinity purification strategy (
Cox et al, 2003) and identified skMLCK as a MEF2C‐interacting protein during P19 cell differentiation. We set out to determine if skMLCK regulates MEF2C and if this regulation was lineage specific. We identified a novel role for skMLCK in regulating skeletal muscle commitment by controlling MEF2C‐mediated recruitment of p300 to specific promoters.
Discussion
Our data support a model whereby the ability of MEF2C to establish commitment to the skeletal muscle lineage is regulated, at least in part, by skMLCK phosphorylation of MEF2C on T
80. In the absence of phosphorylation, MEF2C can bind to endogenous skeletal muscle promoters but cannot recruit p300/PCAF, leading to a lack of histone acetylation (
Figure 8A). As a consequence, the synergy between MRFs and MEF2C is disrupted, resulting in minimal MRF upregulation and a deficit in the formation of committed skeletal myoblasts (
Figures 3,
4, and
6) or in the activation of quiescent satellite cells (
Figure 5). Thus, skMLCK and, by implication, regulators of skMLCK (
Kamm and Stull, 2001), control the transition from skeletal muscle progenitors or quiescent satellite cells, which can repopulate the satellite cell niche (
Montarras et al, 2005;
Kuang et al, 2008), to skeletal myoblasts or activated satellite cells, respectively (
Figure 8B).
SkMLCK belongs to a family of Ca
2+‐dependent protein kinases and the phosphorylation of MEF2C by skMLCK was found to require Ca
2+ (
Figure 2). Sufficient intracellular Ca
2+ levels are vital for C2C12 differentiation into skeletal muscle (
Porter et al, 2002). Further, Ca
2+‐activated signalling has a crucial role in regulating myogenesis by a variety of mechanisms, including the promotion of E protein‐MyoD heterodimerization (
Hauser et al, 2008), the loss of HDAC4/5 repression of MEF2 by Ca
2+/CaM‐dependent kinase (
Lu et al, 2000;
McKinsey et al, 2000), and the activation of calcineurin (
Delling et al, 2000;
Friday et al, 2000). Thus, our results are consistent with the importance of Ca
2+ in regulating skeletal muscle development and reveal a novel mechanism of transcriptional regulation by Ca
2+.
The regulation of myogenesis by skMLCK was both lineage and stage specific, having little effect on the formation of either cardiac muscle or skeletal muscle progenitors. Cardiac muscle genes, such as GATA‐4 and Nkx2‐5, were still upregulated by the MEFT80A mutant or after treatment with ML‐7, and were not upregulated by skMLCK overexpression. Similarly, skeletal muscle progenitor genes, such as Pax3/7 and Meox1, were unaffected by changes in skMLCK activity. In contrast, expression of the MRFs along with muscle structural genes was dependent on skMLCK activity. Finally, although MEF2C binds and recruits p300 to muscle promoters (
Sartorelli et al, 1997), the mutant MEFT80A appeared deficient in p300 recruitment. It is likely that other transcription factors present in MEF2C complexes in the cardiac muscle lineage can compensate for the loss of p300 recruitment by MEFT80A. Thus, specificity of regulation by skMLCK appears to be mediated by the ability of MEF2C to recruit p300 to skeletal versus cardiac muscle promoters at the stage of muscle commitment.
Interestingly, the phosphorylation‐deficient MEF2C mutant could still enhance H3K4 trimethylation on skeletal muscle promoters, indicating a specific role for skMLCK in regulating histone acetylation, as opposed to p38, which can regulate histone trimethylation via MEF2D, but not p300 recruitment in myoblasts (
Rampalli et al, 2007;
Serra et al, 2007;
Guasconi and Puri, 2009). However, other effects of skMLCK on chromatin cannot be ruled out. Overall, our data suggest that, in contrast to the cardiac muscle lineage, the complex of transcription factors bound to MEF2C in the skeletal muscle pathway requires MEF2C‐T
80 phosphorylation for efficient p300 recruitment.
Previous studies have analysed T
80 in the context of mutating ESRT
77−80 to VNQA and found that this mutant could still homodimerize and heterodimerize and bind to HDAC4 and DNA (
Molkentin et al, 1996a;
Lu et al, 2000). These studies agree with our finding that MEFT80A could bind and activate exogenous promoters as efficiently as wild‐type MEF2C.
The finding that MEF2C is highly expressed in quiescent satellite cells (
Pallafacchina et al, 2010) (
Figure 6) suggests that the recruitment of class II HDACs by MEF2C (
Lu et al, 2000;
McKinsey et al, 2000) may have an important role in satellite cell formation or maintenance. From gene profiling analysis, HDAC2, 4, and 11 transcripts are present at high levels in quiescent satellite cells (
Pallafacchina et al, 2010). Release of HDAC repression by CamK or PKD1 signalling (
McKinsey et al, 2000;
Kim et al, 2008) may then allow for the phosphorylation of MEF2C by skMLCK and the subsequent upregulation of MyoD and Myf5, creating an activated satellite cell (
Figure 8). This transition appears crucial in that MRF expression in activated satellite cells is detrimental towards their ability to reconstitute the satellite cell niche after transplantation (
Montarras et al, 2005;
Kuang et al, 2007).
The recent finding that p38α signalling regulates Pax7 expression and expansion of satellite cells (
Palacios et al, 2010) led us to compare the inhibition of skMLCK with that of p38. As expected, SB treatment blocked the downregulation of Pax7, and appeared to enhance activated satellite cell proliferation by upregulating Myf5 expression. Treatment with both drugs resulted in a blockade of ML‐7 inhibition, consistent with SB functioning downstream to prevent a reduction in Pax7 expression. Higher concentrations of ML‐7 may provide a more extensive downregulation of MyoD and Myf5. The efficient inhibition of differentiation by SB may be due in part to a reduction in MEF2 activity, since p38 kinase phosphorylation of MEF2 is important for its activity during muscle differentiation (
Wu et al, 2000;
Penn et al, 2004). Future experiments will determine whether ML‐7 treatment is beneficial towards the use of satellite cells for muscle therapy.
Mice lacking skMLCK showed no obvious phenotype, including no change in body mass or viability, although the efficiency of satellite cell formation was not examined in these mice (
Zhi et al, 2005). Since smMLCK is also expressed in skeletal muscle, it is possible that it could compensate for the loss of skMLCK during development, similar to the previously shown compensation of MyoD by MRF4 and Myf5 (
Kassar‐Duchossoy et al, 2004). Similarly, mice lacking MEF2C in skeletal or cardiac muscle lineages do not display early differentiation defects (
Lin et al, 1997;
Potthoff et al, 2007). This is likely due to compensation by other MEF2 family members, since disruption of MEF2 function with dominant negative approaches results in a loss of differentiation into cardiac or skeletal muscle in transgenic mice or C2C12 cells, respectively (
Ornatsky et al, 1997;
Karamboulas et al, 2006a). ML‐7, which inhibited MyoD and Myf5 upregulation in mouse ES, P19, and satellite cells, inhibits all forms of MLCK. Thus, skMLCK may not be the only MLCK that can regulate skeletal muscle commitment.
In addition to muscle contraction, MLCK regulates a variety of other processes, including cell morphology, cell motility, and membrane events (
Kamm and Stull, 2001). These events may be mediated in non‐muscle cells by MLCK phosphorylation of myosin II. Since the MEF2 family is expressed in a wide variety of tissues and regulates a broad range of proteins (
Sandmann et al, 2006;
Potthoff et al, 2007), our results implicate the regulation of MEF2 as a mechanism for MLCK function in both muscle and non‐muscle cells. Thus, it is possible that MEF2 factors may be regulated by MLCK in a variety of biological processes.
In summary, we have identified a novel phosphorylation of MEF2C by skMLCK that regulates the commitment of cells to the skeletal muscle lineage at least in part by regulating the ability of MEF2C to recruit p300 to skeletal muscle‐specific promoters. Inhibition of MLCK activity reduced the upregulation of MRFs that occurs during the commitment of mES and P19 cells to myoblasts and during the activation of quiescent satellite cells. Our work supports the use of P19 cells as a model system to identify novel molecular pathways regulating myogenesis and our findings may lead to innovative approaches to muscle replacement therapies.