We have previously shown that most sites bound by E2F family members in vivo do not contain E2F consensus motifs. However, differences between in vivo target sites that contain or lack a consensus E2F motif have not been explored. To understand how E2F binding specificity is achieved in vivo, we have addressed how E2F family members are recruited to core promoter regions that lack a consensus motif and are excluded from other regions that contain a consensus motif. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation coupled with DNA microarray analysis (ChIP-chip) assays, we have shown that the predominant factors specifying whether E2F is recruited to an in vivo binding site are (1) the site must be in a core promoter and (2) the region must be utilized as a promoter in that cell type. We have tested three models for recruitment of E2F to core promoters lacking a consensus site, including (1) indirect recruitment, (2) looping to the core promoter mediated by an E2F bound to a distal motif, and (3) assisted binding of E2F to a site that weakly resembles an E2F motif. To test these models, we developed a new in vivo assay, termed eChIP, which allows analysis of transcription factor binding to isolated fragments. Our findings suggest that in vivo (1) a consensus motif is not sufficient to recruit E2Fs, (2) E2Fs can bind to isolated regions that lack a consensus motif, and (3) binding can require regions other than the best match to the E2F motif.

Previous studies of E2F family members have suggested that protein-protein interactions may be the mechanism by which E2F proteins are recruited to specific genomic regions. We have addressed this hypothesis on a genome-wide scale using ChIP-seq analysis of MCF7 cell lines that express tagged wild type and mutant E2F1 proteins. First, we performed ChIP-seq for tagged WT E2F1. Then, we analyzed E2F1 proteins that lacked the N-terminal SP1 and cyclin A binding domains, the C-terminal transactivation and pocket protein binding domains, and the internal marked box domain. Surprisingly, we found that the ChIP-seq patterns of the mutant proteins were identical to that of WT E2F1. However, mutation of the DNA binding domain abrogated all E2F1 binding to the genome. These results suggested that the interaction between the E2F1 DNA binding domain and a consensus motif may be the primary determinant of E2F1 recruitment. To address this possibility, we analyzed the in vivo binding sites for the in vitro-derived consensus E2F1 motif (TTTSSCGC) and also performed de novo motif analysis. We found that only 12% of the ChIP-seq peaks contained the TTTSSCGC motif. De novo motif analysis indicated that most of the in vivo sites lacked the 5′ half of the in vitro-derived consensus, having instead the in vivo consensus of CGCGC. In summary, our findings do not provide support for the model that protein-protein interactions are involved in recruiting E2F1 to the genome, but rather suggest that recognition of a motif found at most human promoters is the critical determinant.