smatch T.C in the core motif CAT which is accompanied by decreased core d-scores. The higher score values of CYP3A91, as compared to CYP3A92, were in agreement with the stronger in vitro effects of the 57 bp insert derived from the former gene. Functional characterization of the human CYP3A4 YY1 binding site We first confirmed the reported binding of 
YY1 PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22180813 to the consensus binding site within the CYP3A4 promoter-derived 57 bp fragment using an electrophoretic mobility gel shift assay. An IRDye800-labeled oligonucleotide encompassing the CYP3A4 YY1 binding site served as a probe. A previously purchase Darapladib described YY1-binding sequence from an unrelated gene was included as a positive control. A shifted complex was obtained for the CYP3A4 YY1 region-derived oligonucleotide with MDCK.2 cell-derived nuclear extract. The complex migrated at the same level as the YY1-DNA positive control complex. The identity of the shift was confirmed with an anti-YY1 antibody, which resulted in an immonodepletion. In contrast, an anti-PXR antibody, included as a negative control, had no effect. The functional importance of the CYP3A4-derived YY1 binding site was then investigated in the CYP3A5 promoter context using mutagenesis followed by transfection into MDCK.2 cells. Statistically significant effects were observed with two mutants: The CYP3A557insM1 mutant converts the imperfect YY1 core motif CAC into a consensus motif CAT such as seen in galago CYP3A91 and in marmoset CYP3A21. This enhanced the repression of the promoter activity conferred by the 57 bp fragment. In the CYP3A5-57insM7 mutant, the core motif consensus dinucleotide CA was replaced with the non-consensus dinucleotide AG. Simultaneously, the dinucleotide TT outside the binding core motif, implicated in the specificity of YY1 binding, was Tissue-Specific Expression of CYP3A5 and CYP3A4 replaced by the dinucleotide GA. This mutant not only fully abolished the repressive effect of the 57 bp region on the CYP3A5driven luciferase but increased its activity 5-fold in comparison to the wild-type CYP3A5 promoter. As no such excessive activity was observed with the ��spacer��sequence, this suggested the existence within the 57 bp fragment of additional, as yet unidentified transcriptional enhancers which come to light after the removal of the YY1-mediated repression. Tissue-Specific Expression of CYP3A5 and CYP3A4 However, mutant CYP3A5-57M6, generated to inactivate a putative E-box-like binding site overlapping with the YY1binding site, had no effect on activity. Likewise, we saw no changes in luciferase activity upon the mutation of the NF1 or of the second, more downstream E-box binding site. Taken together with the EMSA experiments, these results demonstrated the existence of an YY1 binding site within the 57 bp fragment of the CYP3A4 promoter which mediated transcriptional repression in renal cells. They also suggested the existence of as yet unidentified pro-transcriptional elements in this fragment which are, however, fully suppressed by YY1. The effects of YY1 and PXR on the CYP3A4 promoter activity in intestinal cells The loss of the YY1 response element from the CYP3A5 promoter and its retention in the CYP3A4 promoter were fully consistent with the differential expression of these genes in renal cells. However, this mechanism was in an apparent contrast with the expression of CYP3A4 in small-intestinal cells LS174T and in the small intestine in vivo. We reasoned that the absence of CYP3A4 repression in i