HIF-1 Regulates Iron Homeostasis in Caenorhabditis elegans by Activation and Inhibition of Genes Involved in Iron Uptake and Storage

Caenorhabditis elegans ftn-1 and ftn-2, which encode the iron-storage protein ferritin, are transcriptionally inhibited during iron deficiency in intestine. Intestinal specific transcription is dependent on binding of ELT-2 to GATA binding sites in an iron-dependent enhancer (IDE) located in ftn-1 and ftn-2 promoters, but the mechanism for iron regulation is unknown. Here, we identify HIF-1 (hypoxia-inducible factor -1) as a negative regulator of ferritin transcription. HIF-1 binds to hypoxia-response elements (HREs) in the IDE in vitro and in vivo. Depletion of hif-1 by RNA interference blocks transcriptional inhibition of ftn-1 and ftn-2 reporters, and ftn-1 and ftn-2 mRNAs are not regulated in a hif-1 null strain during iron deficiency. An IDE is also present in smf-3 encoding a protein homologous to mammalian divalent metal transporter-1. Unlike the ftn-1 IDE, the smf-3 IDE is required for HIF-1–dependent transcriptional activation of smf-3 during iron deficiency. We show that hif-1 null worms grown under iron limiting conditions are developmentally delayed and that depletion of FTN-1 and FTN-2 rescues this phenotype. These data show that HIF-1 regulates intestinal iron homeostasis during iron deficiency by activating and inhibiting genes involved in iron uptake and storage

RNA-Seq analysis of the functional link between vascular disruption and adverse developmental consequences

Presented at the Annual Society of Toxicology meetin

The next generation of risk assessment multi-year study-highlights of findings, applications to risk assessment, and future directions

Background : The Next Generation (NexGen) of Risk Assessment effort is a multi-year collaboration among several organizations evaluating new, potentially more efficient molecular, computational, and systems biology approaches to risk assessment. This article summarizes our findings, suggests applications to risk assessment, and identifies strategic research directions. Objective : Our specific objectives were to test whether advanced biological data and methods could better inform our understanding of public health risks posed by environmental exposures. Methods : New data and methods were applied and evaluated for use in hazard identification and dose–response assessment. Biomarkers of exposure and effect, and risk characterization were also examined. Consideration was given to various decision contexts with increasing regulatory and public health impacts. Data types included transcriptomics, genomics, and proteomics. Methods included molecular epidemiology and clinical studies, bioinformatic knowledge mining, pathway and network analyses, short-duration in vivo and in vitro bioassays, and quantitative structure activity relationship modeling. Discussion : NexGen has advanced our ability to apply new science by more rapidly identifying chemicals and exposures of potential concern, helping characterize mechanisms of action that influence conclusions about causality, exposure–response relationships, susceptibility and cumulative risk, and by elucidating new biomarkers of exposure and effects. Additionally, NexGen has fostered extensive discussion among risk scientists and managers and improved confidence in interpreting and applying new data streams. Conclusions : While considerable uncertainties remain, thoughtful application of new knowledge to risk assessment appears reasonable for augmenting major scope assessments, forming the basis for or augmenting limited scope assessments, and for prioritization and screening of very data limited chemicals