The identification of L86F, a novel, disease-causing mutation in FOXC1, is helpful in refining our molecular model of the FHD of FOXC1. The mutation of two adjacent nucleotides is rare (CG→TT), and the mechanism for this change is unknown. The transversion of the C toT at nucleotide 257 is a silent mutation and may be a rare polymorphism. However, this silent mutation has been reported only in this proband and his mother, probably reflecting that the change is specific to this pedigree.
Previous characterization has shown that an isoleucine mutation at position 87 leads to a drastic reduction in the levels of FOXC1 protein, presumably by destabilizing the protein.
18 That mutations at amino acid 86, including the relatively severe proline mutation, do not affect the stability of FOXC1 protein, offers insight into the role of residues within helix 1 of the FHD. An I87M mutation of FOXC1, one amino acid downstream, destabilizes the protein, demonstrating that amino acid position 87 has an important intramolecular role, contributing to the overall structure and stability of the FOXC1 protein.
18 Although the L86F and L86P mutations result in stable protein products, mutations at this position still can disrupt FOXC1 function. FOXC1 L86F is localized to cell nuclei and retains the ability to bind the FOXC1 binding site in EMSA experiments. The binding of L86F FOXC1 to the FOXC1 binding site is impaired in comparison with the wild type, but clearly the FHD retains enough of its overall structure to bind DNA.
Compared with FOXC1 L86F, the L86P synthetic mutation severely perturbs the nuclear localization of FOXC1. Given that FOXC1 L86F localizes to the nucleus at wild-type levels, it seems likely that the inclusion of a proline within helix 1 disrupts the helical structure, perturbing the overall structure of the FHD of FOXC1 enough that the transport machinery is no longer able to accumulate FOXC1 in the nucleus. The L86P alteration is also severe enough to abolish FOXC1 DNA binding.
Both the L86F and the L86P mutations severely impair the transactivational ability of FOXC1. In the case of L86F, although the mutation still has appreciable DNA binding capacity, the mutation severely perturbs the ability of FOXC1 to drive transcription of the luciferase reporter, possibly due to failed interactions with the transcriptional machinery. These data indicate that position 86 has an intermolecular role, as evidenced by the diminished activity of FOXC1 L86F. As for FOXC1 L86P, this mutant shows a serious disruption in nuclear localization and did not appear to bind the FOXC1 binding site in EMSAs. Although the disruption to transactivation is severe in comparison to wild-type FOXC1 transactivation, there is still residual transactivation above that in the ΔFHD and L86F FOXC1 proteins. It is possible that the EMSAs, which showed an absence of L86P binding to the FOXC1 binding site, may not be sensitive enough to detect the small amount of binding that is sufficient for transactivation above the baseline. It is also possible that some binding of FOXC1 L86P occurs when the FOXC1 binding site is presented in the context of the reporter plasmid and not on the smaller FOXC1 binding site oligonucleotide used in the EMSAs. Nevertheless, the severe disruption of the transactivation ability of FOXC1 L86F and L86P illustrates the importance of this residue to FOXC1 function. These data support the idea that while position 86 has an intermolecular function, as evidenced by the transactivation defect of FOXC1, helix 1 overall plays a strong intramolecular role, demonstrated by the severe DNA binding defects seen with FOXC1 L86P.
The clinical features of the patient carrying the L86F FOXC1 mutation provide further evidence for FOXC1’s being an important regulator of mesodermal development. Experiments in murine models have shown that deletions of
Foxc1 can cause severe ocular phenotypes
11 15 20 21 22 23 24 including iris hypoplasia and maldevelopment of the iridocorneal angle.
24 Findings of ocular anomalies in our patient, in association with the L86F FOXC1 mutation, is a strong demonstration of mouse models that recapitulate human defects. Murine models have also demonstrated that
Foxc1 plays an important role in cardiac development.
6 15 Our patient had a myocardial infarction. Although some other patients with AR malformation have been reported to have cardiac defects,
5 6 9 15 16 such clinical cardiac findings are infrequently present in them. The cardiac anomalies in our patient may simply be a comorbidity or may reflect still poorly understood stochastic and genetic background influences on
FOXC1-associated human disease.
The analysis of the naturally occurring FOXC1 L86F disease-causing missense mutation again demonstrates that there is a lack of strong genotype–phenotype correlations in
FOXC1 pathogenesis. Within individuals with AR malformation due to
FOXC1 mutations, it is not possible to predict the severity of the disease, or whether the disease will manifest in anomalous or syndromic form, from the degree of molecular deficiency in FOXC1 function. The available evidence implies that FOXC1 activity is strictly regulated and has a tight threshold with both upper and lower limits.
FOXC1 duplications cause AR-like malformations
7 25 26 as do mutations that cause functional nulls of
FOXC1.
7 8 9 10 18
AR malformations can also result from mutations in the homeobox gene
PITX2 on the long arm of human chromosome 4, region 25.
27 However, in a manner that is quite different from
FOXC1 mutations, mutations in
PITX2 have strong genotype–phenotype correlations.
28 29 It appears that the greater the disruption to PITX2 activity, the more severe the phenotype of the disease. Mutations in PITX2 follow a progressive model where severity of AR phenotypes is directly correlated to diminished protein activity. In contrast, mutations in FOXC1 appear to follow a threshold model where normal development is reliant on wild-type levels of FOXC1 activity, with any reduction or increase in activity leading to maldevelopment. Although the pathways and/or mechanisms disrupted by
FOXC1 or
PITX2 mutations are clearly regulated differently, both result in AR malformations. Thus AR malformations may represent a point of convergence of different pathways and mechanisms in eye development.
The authors thank Farideh Mirzayans, Jody Marshall for technical assistance, and Robert Ritch for assistance with the patients’ reports.