Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 3;18(1):e0271081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271081

MYB and ELF3 differentially modulate labor-inducing gene expression in myometrial cells

Virlana M Shchuka 1,*, Nawrah Khader 1, Anna Dorogin 2,3, Oksana Shynlova 2,3,*, Jennifer A Mitchell 1,*
Editor: Atsushi Asakura4
PMCID: PMC9810189  PMID: 36595497

Abstract

Spontaneous uterine contractions are initiated when smooth muscle cells (SMCs) within the uterine muscle, or myometrium, transition from a functionally dormant to an actively contractile phenotype at the end of the pregnancy period. We know that this process is accompanied by gestational time point-specific differences in the SMC transcriptome, which can be modulated by the activator protein 1 (AP-1), nuclear factor kappa beta (NF-κβ), estrogen receptor (ER), and progesterone receptor (PR) transcription factors. Less is known, however, about the additional proteins that might assist these factors in conferring the transcriptional changes observed at labor onset. Here, we present functional evidence for the roles of two proteins previously understudied in the SMC context—MYB and ELF3—which can contribute to the regulation of labor-driving gene transcription. We show that the MYB and ELF3 genes exhibit elevated transcript expression levels in mouse and human myometrial tissues during spontaneous term labor. The expression of both genes was also significantly increased in mouse myometrium during preterm labor induced by the progesterone antagonist mifepristone (RU486), but not during infection-simulating preterm labor induced by intrauterine infusion of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Furthermore, both MYB and ELF3 proteins affect labor-driving gene promoter activity, although in surprisingly opposing ways: Gja1 and Fos promoter activation increases in the presence of MYB and decreases in the presence of ELF3. Collectively, our study adds to the current understanding of the transcription factor network that defines the transcriptomes of SMCs during late gestation and implicates two new players in the control of labor timing.

Introduction

As the gestational period progresses, smooth muscle cells (SMCs) in the myometrium, or muscular component of the uterus, undergo several consecutive phases of structural change. One such change occurs near the end of pregnancy, when a substantial portion of SMCs adopt a state of contractile activity and promote the onset of labor. The difference in contractile ability between the functionally dormant cells at early gestation and those at full term (≥ 37 weeks in humans) is reflected through distinct, context-specific SMC transcriptomes. RNA-seq profiles generated from human myometrial cells indicate that these disparate gene expression patterns are determined by such conditions as: whether SMCs are isolated from a non-pregnant or pregnant individual [1]; labor status at term, or whether term-isolated SMCs were engaged in induced labor or active, spontaneous labor at the time of isolation [1, 2]; the time point of labor, or whether or not SMCs are obtained at term or in advance of term [35]; and, in some cases, the relative localization within the myometrium or sub-population of the isolated SMCs [3, 6]. In rodent models of labor, where SMCs can be collected from a wider range of gestational time points than their human counterparts, distinct stage-specific gene expression profiles are also observed. Myometrial cells isolated in the late gestational period, for example, exhibit substantially different transcriptomes from those isolated at term labor [7, 8]. Furthermore, the SMC transcriptome can differ depending on the particular mode of labor. Spontaneous term labor and experimentally induced preterm labor by either non-infectious or infection-simulating inflammation in mice show a degree of overlap in commonly expressed genes; however, these common mouse models of idiopathic preterm labor and infection-induced preterm labor respectively yield contractile SMCs with non-identical gene expression profiles [7].

Our previous work revealed that the majority of gene expression differences between late gestation SMCs and contracting SMCs in the mouse myometrium at term occurs due to changes in active transcription events. More specifically, many contraction-driving genes undergo increased primary transcript synthesis at labor onset [8]. For instance, the widely studied Connexin 43 (encoded by the GJA1 gene), a vital contraction-associated protein [9, 10], is expressed at low levels in the late gestational quiescent stages, and sharply induced at term labor onset in part due to the spike in active transcription at its coding gene [8]. But the mechanism by which these transcriptional changes are conferred on genes like GJA1 during the SMC quiescence-to-contractility transition is not well understood. The control of patterns of transcriptional activation directly relies on the formation of complexes comprised of key transcription factor proteins, which operate in the same or co-existing regulatory circuitries. Some of the more extensively studied transcription factors that have been linked to the labor-driving transcriptional changes observed in SMCs include members of the Activator protein 1 (AP-1), Nuclear factor kappa beta (NF-κβ), Estrogen receptor (ER), and Progesterone receptor (PR) families. For example, AP-1 heterodimers, but not homodimers, tend to activate the murine Gja1 promoter [11], and this heterodimeric activation effect can be heightened or hampered depending on which major PR isoform is present in SMCs [12].

More recent studies have shown preliminary evidence of co-operation between the more well-established transcription factor quartet and other candidate factors less well-known in this context, such as members of the KLF, SMAD, FOXO, IRF, and HOXA families (reviewed in [13]). Despite these initial advances in identifying putative members of gestational stage-specific transcription factor complexes, the full repertoire of proteins that contribute to the laboring phenotype in SMCs is not comprehensively characterized. In this paper, we present evidence for two additional proteins that contribute to the downstream control of gene regulation in these cells: Myleoblastosis proto-oncogene (MYB) and E74 like ETS transcription factor 3 (ELF3). We hypothesized that these two proteins might act as potential regulators of the laboring SMC phenotype for several reasons: both their corresponding genes are more highly transcribed at term relative to earlier quiescent gestational stages in mouse myometrial tissues [7, 8, 14]. Associated predicted binding motifs for both proteins are also contained within promoters of contraction-associated genes like Gja1. More notably, MYB and ELF3 have been shown to behave as transcriptional activators in cooperation with AP-1 factors in other cellular contexts. For example, Tapias and others determined that, in HeLa cells, MYB controls the transcription of and co-localizes with AP-1 factors at the promoter of Sp3 [15], a gene prominently expressed in SMCs [reviewed in 13]. Likewise, a study by Otero and others demonstrated that ELF3 binds the Mmp13 gene promoter in chondrocyte cells; while AP-1 heterodimers can activate the Mmp13 promoter, the addition of ELF3 further compounds this activation effect [16]. ELF3 has also been shown to interact with NF-κβ in prostate cancer cells in response to pro-inflammatory stimuli that also affect late-gestation SMCs [17]. In light of these findings, we hypothesized that MYB and ELF3 might be significant members of the laboring SMC transcription regulatory network, and ones that function in conjunction with AP-1 factors.

Here, we demonstrate that, as in the case of many labor-driving candidate genes, MYB and ELF3 follow a differential expression pattern trend in mice and humans as SMCs transition from late pregnancy to labor onset. We also observed these expression differences in a mouse model of idiopathic preterm labor, but not in a model of infection-induced preterm labor. Furthermore, we explore the functional potential of these factors in driving the regulation of labor-associated genes. Somewhat surprisingly, we observed opposing effects from each of these factors on labor-associated gene promoter stimulation. Our work here highlights the abilities of MYB and ELF3 to contribute in different ways to the labor-associated gene expression program in myometrial cells. In so doing, we expand the current repertoire of proteins associated with SMC state definition during the gestational period and offer two potential new targets for the development of therapies toward labor timing-related health challenges.

Results

Term labor onset is associated with increased expression of MYB and ELF3 factors in murine and human myometrial tissues

To pinpoint candidate factors that might contribute to the transcriptional up-regulation of labor-associated genes, we considered genes encoding transcription factors that are differentially expressed between gestational days 15 and 19 (active labor) from our previously generated mouse gestational RNA-seq dataset [8]. The expression levels of two labor-upregulated gene targets, Myb and Elf3, were examined by RT-qPCR from RNA extracted at select late gestational time points in both murine and human myometrial tissues (Fig 1A). Across the late gestational timeline, we observed in CD-1 and Bl6 murine models that both Myb and Elf3 transcript levels significantly increase by a respective factor of 3- and 5-fold toward term (Fig 1B; S1 Fig in S1 File). Human myometrial cells exhibit a similar profile in vivo, where transcript levels corresponding to both MYB and ELF3 are substantially higher during active term labor relative to term non-laboring samples (Fig 1C). The sharp, stage-specific expression increase of these transcripts at this particular time point of myometrial cell state transition suggests that these genes may encode critical regulators of the laboring myometrial cell phenotype.

Fig 1. MYB and ELF3 are differentially expressed in CD-1 mouse and human myometrial tissues in vivo depending on labor status.

Fig 1

(A) (left) Schematic of gestational time points for myometrial tissue collection from CD-1 mice. Gestational days (d) at which tissues were collected marked by triangles (red), with indication of term non-laboring (TNIL), term laboring (TL) and postpartum (PP) mouse myometrium alongside key gestational stages (italicized). (right) Schematic of RNA collection from human myometrial tissues, from either the term non-laboring (hTNL) or term laboring (hTL) women. (B) Expression levels (±S.D.) of transcription factor-encoding genes at d15, d17, d19 (TNIL), d19.5 (TL), and d20 (PP) time points, as determined by RT-qPCR. Groups determined by one-way ANOVA to be significantly different (p < 0.05) from one another are labeled with different letters; to indicate p > 0.05, groups are labeled with the same letter. (C) Expression levels (±S.D.) of transcription factor-encoding genes in human TNL and TL myometrium, as determined by RT-qPCR. Statistically significant differences in expression levels between time points are marked by * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.005.

Significant elevation in Myb and Elf3 expression levels is observed in an idiopathic mouse model of preterm labor but not in an infection-associated model

Having observed the elevated expression of the Myb and Elf3 genes from late pregnancy to term labor, we next sought to establish whether these genes followed a similar activation trend in mouse preterm labor models. We investigated levels of Myb and Elf3 transcripts using two established experimental models known to prematurely trigger labor onset in mice: by E. coli-derived lipopolysaccharide (LPS) treatment to mimic infection-induced uterine inflammation; and by mifepristone (RU486) treatment (which blocks the progesterone signaling pathway) to cause non-infectious (“sterile”) preterm labor. The latter is a model for ‘idiopathic’ human preterm labor, and one assumed to be caused by PR function loss [18] (Fig 2A). In mouse uteri infused with LPS, we assessed the expression levels of Myb and Elf3 in preterm laboring myometrium compared to sham controls, or mice treated with a sterile saline infusion. We observed no significant differences in the levels of either target transcript between sham and LPS-treated mice (Fig 2B and 2C). Contrarily, upon examining the expression profiles of our genes of interest in the idiopathic preterm labor mouse model, we observed a different result: the transcript levels of both Myb and Elf3 were significantly elevated in the myometrium of RU486-treated mice relative to vehicle-treated mice (Fig 2B and 2C). These findings suggest that MYB and ELF3 may promote a laboring SMC state in both term and preterm labor, but not necessarily in response to an infection stimulus.

Fig 2. Myb and Elf3 are up-regulated at labor onset in the RU486-, but not in the LPS-induced preterm labor model.

Fig 2

(A) Schematic of gestational time points of interest for RNA collection from CD-1 mouse myometrial tissues in two preterm labor models: local infection-simulating inflammation (LPS) and progesterone withdrawal (RU486). Gestational days (d) at which tissues were collected marked by triangles (red), with indication of injection with RU486 or LPS alongside vehicle and sham controls, respectively, at d15 and at preterm labor (18–24 hours post-infection (hpi), italicized). Expression levels (±S.D.) of transcription factor-encoding genes Myb (B) and Elf3 (C) in sham- and LPS-treated mice (left) and in vehicle- and RU486-treated mice (right), as determined by RT-qPCR. Statistically significant differences in expression levels between control and preterm labor are marked by ** p < 0.01.

The Gja1 promoter is respectively activated and repressed in the presence of MYB and ELF3

Having established that Myb and Elf3 are more highly expressed at the onset of labor relative to earlier gestational time points in select labor models, we hypothesized that these factors might coordinate contractility-driving gene expression. To address this hypothesis, we turned to an in vitro experiment system that had previously used luciferase reporter levels as a readout for transcription factor-mediated promoter regulation in a myometrial cell context. Prior studies had observed elevated reporter gene expression levels under the control of the Gja1 promoter in Syrian hamster myometrial (SHM) cells in the presence of AP-1 heterodimers but not AP-1 homodimers [11, 12]. As previously outlined, Gja1 is necessary for the initiation of contractions [9, 10] and the output of this gene promoter has often been used as a proxy for the laboring transcriptional program phenotype. We therefore generated a luciferase construct with a reporter gene under the control of the endogenous murine Gja1 promoter to test the capacity of MYB and ELF3 in activating this promoter, either on their own or in the presence of AP-1 factors. Within the AP-1 FOS and JUN subfamilies, FOSL2 and JUND are especially highly expressed at the protein level at labor onset in mice [19], and we therefore selected these factors for our AP-1 homodimer and heterodimer test combinations. After first confirming the overexpression of transcription factor-encoding constructs introduced into SHM cells (S2 Fig in S1 File), we also verified that Gja1 promoter activity increases with the addition of JUND, and is more significantly elevated in the presence of JUND and FOSL2 proteins, as previously reported [11, 12]. We then transfected the Gja1 promoter-reporter gene plasmid and tested the activation levels of its promoter against a strong expression background of MYB or ELF3, with either factor alone or alongside AP-1 homodimers or heterodimers. First, we observed that the Gja1 promoter was markedly activated in the presence of MYB alone compared to a transcription factor-absent background; furthermore, the addition of MYB to cells expressing JUND and FOSL2 resulted in a significantly increased reporter expression output compared to cells expressing only JUND and FOSL2 (Fig 3A). Having established that MYB can act as a mild activator of the Gja1 promoter in myometrial cells, we next evaluated whether ELF3 might produce a similar result. Surprisingly, the reporter assay revealed that the overexpression of ELF3, either alone or in association with AP-1 dimers, resulted in levels of Gja1 promoter activation that mirror those observed in the absence of any activating transcription factors (Fig 3B). Most strikingly, the addition of ELF3 in the JUND:FOSL2 background altogether eliminates the marked activation effect otherwise observed for the Gja1 promoter in the presence of JUND and FOSL2. These findings suggest that, in myometrial cells, whereas MYB can act as an activator of Gja1 promoter activity, ELF3 can contrarily act as a repressor in this context.

Fig 3. MYB up-regulates while ELF3 down-regulates basal and AP-1 dimer-induced Gja1 promoter activity.

Fig 3

Reporter expression levels from construct with luciferase reporter gene under control of murine Gja1 promoter (Gja1P) relative to expression output of Renilla reporter plasmid. Cell treatment with (A) MYB alone, MYB and JUND:JUND homodimers, and MYB and JUND:FOSL2 heterodimers compared against control set in the absence of MYB; and (B) ELF3 alone, ELF3 and JUND:JUND homodimers, and ELF3 and JUND:FOSL2 heterodimers compared against control set in the absence of ELF3. Average expression level values (±S.D.) for each construct normalized to expression output of promoter construct subject to no transcription factor treatment. Groups determined by one-way ANOVA to be significantly different (p < 0.05) from one another are labeled with different letters; to indicate p > 0.05, groups are labeled with the same letter.

AP-1 factors positively auto-regulate the Fos promoter in myometrial cells

Testing the effects of MYB and ELF3 on the Gja1 promoter offer a preliminary indication of how these factors influence the progression of the labor program. Extending this functional analysis of these proteins to another promoter, however, affords the possibility of distinguishing potential gene promoter-specific effects of these candidate factors. Accordingly, we generated another reporter construct under the control of the endogenous murine Fos promoter. The genomic region upstream of this gene was selected in particular because of the previously observed up-regulation of Fos gene transcription in myometrial cells; the established role of the FOS protein in driving labor-associated gene promoter activation; and our previous findings that the Fos locus exhibits signs of elevated transcription during active murine labor relative to late pregnancy [8, 1921]. Before testing the effects of either ELF3 or MYB on Fos promoter activity, however, unlike in the case of the Gja1 promoter, the effects of JUN or FOS factors on this promoter had not yet been established in a myometrial context. We therefore first tested the effects of either JUND alone or FOSL2 and JUND together on reporter expression levels under the control of the Fos promoter in SHM cells. We observed a generally similar activation trend for the Fos promoter as in the case of the Gja1 promoter: compared to treatment with no transcription factors, treatment of cells with JUND exhibited a slight elevation in reporter expression; the presence of JUND and FOSL2, however, significantly increased Fos promoter-mediated luciferase expression levels by a factor of over 5-fold (Fig 4A, left). These results suggest that the Fos gene may be auto-regulated by AP-1 factors in myometrial cells at the onset of labor.

Fig 4. MYB up-regulates while ELF3 down-regulates basal and AP-1 dimer-induced Fos promoter activity.

Fig 4

Reporter expression levels from construct with luciferase reporter gene under control of murine Fos promoter (FosP) relative to expression output of Renilla reporter plasmid. Cell treatment with (A) MYB alone, MYB and JUND:JUND homodimers, and MYB and JUND:FOSL2 heterodimers compared against control set in the absence of MYB; and (B) ELF3 alone, ELF3 and JUND:JUND homodimers, and ELF3 and JUND:FOSL2 heterodimers compared against control set in the absence of ELF3. Average expression level values (±S.D.) for each construct normalized to expression output of promoter construct subject to no transcription factor treatment. Groups determined by one-way ANOVA to be significantly different (p < 0.05) from one another are labeled with different letters; to indicate p > 0.05, groups are labeled with the same letter.

Fos promoter activities in the presence of MYB or ELF3 mirror the transcriptional effects observed at the Gja1 promoter

Having established that AP-1 factors positively control Fos promoter activity in myometrial cells, we next evaluated the effects of MYB or ELF3, either individually or in the presence of AP-1 factors, on Fos promoter-mediated reporter expression levels. Here, again, Fos promoter activity followed the same regulatory trend as that observed in the case of the Gja1 promoter: the addition of MYB resulted in a net upregulation of Fos promoter activity beyond levels observed in the absence of any transcription factors and in the presence of JUND and FOSL2 (Fig 4A). Similarly, the introduction of ELF3 on its own or alongside activating transcription factors caused a significant decrease in Fos promoter activity, significantly dampening any up-regulation effect otherwise observed in the presence of JUND and FOSL2 (Fig 4B). Considered together, these data collectively suggest that MYB is capable of activating labor-associated gene expression, both on its own and even further in the presence of FOS:JUN heterodimers. Furthermore, although Elf3 transcripts are more highly expressed at the onset of labor relative to late pregnancy, the ELF3 protein appears to be able to act as a repressor and even override the activation effects of AP-1 factors on labor-associated gene regulation.

Discussion

Our findings collectively reflect the potential of MYB and ELF3 (albeit in apparently opposing roles) in modulating the gene expression program needed for SMCs to adopt a contractile state. We observed that both genes are more highly transcribed toward the end of the gestational period compared to one or more timepoints in the late gestation period in mouse and human models of term labor. We were surprised that, contrary to Bl6 mice and humans, CD-1 mice appeared to exhibit significantly increased Myb and Elf3 transcript levels in SMCs by the term-not-in-labor stage, rather than at active labor. Because mouse strain-specific differences are unlikely to be the exclusive reason behind this discrepancy, further investigation would be warranted to account for these observations. Our further finding that Myb and Elf3 undergo a particular spike in expression in the idiopathic preterm labor model associated with PR function loss, but not in the infection-simulating model, suggests that the corresponding proteins may be involved in particular pathways in laboring SMCs. MYB and ELF3 may be targeted specifically by the PR signaling pathway at term. Since AP-1 factor-mediated effects on Gja1 promoter activity differ depending upon their PR isoform partner and its ligand status [12], other transcription factors may be likewise affected.

As our later results show, the AP-1 factor trans-activation potential can be altered in the presence of MYB or ELF3. The activation of Gja1 and Fos promoter activity by MYB is consistent with evidence of this factor’s function as a transcriptional activator in other studies, particularly in the context of cells from hematopoietic lineages [22]. Furthermore, an enrichment of MYB binding motifs in open chromatin genomic regions of pregnant human myometrium has previously been demonstrated (although this analysis excluded testing in an active laboring context) [1]. Thus, one possible and appealing explanation for the means by which MYB might impart the activation of labor-associated genes is through a direct transcriptional mechanism. Our observations lead us to postulate that MYB may be able to work in the same transcriptional complex with AP-1 heterodimers to boost the expression of labor-associated genes in term pregnant myometrium.

Compared to our findings regarding MYB protein activity, the role of ELF3 in contractile SMCs is less clear. As we demonstrated here, the Elf3 gene expression trend from late pregnancy to labor onset is consistent with what was previously observed via microarray experiments, as in the case of Myb [23]. Indeed, we originally hypothesised that this transcription factor might play a role in up-regulating labor-associated genes, especially in light of previous demonstrations of ELF3-mediated induction of a matrix metalloproteinase gene promoter in cooperation with FOS:JUN heterodimers in chondrocyte cells [16]. Sinh et al. have also previously established a negative correlation in breast cancer cells between ELF3 levels and the expression of ZEB1 and ZEB2 [24], proteins that have been shown to repress the expression of the well-studied labor-associated genes, Gja1 and Oxtr [25]. The converse repressive regulatory effect of ELF3 on Gja1 and Fos promoter activities that we observed, however, does fall in line with certain findings related to ELF3-mediated gene regulation. ELF3 directly binds key labor program-driving ER alpha (ERɑ) and represses ERɑ-mediated gene transcription in breast cancer cells [26]; ELF3 has also been shown to decrease activation of labor-associated collagen genes in a non-SMC context [27]. These data collectively complement our finding that ELF3 plays a repressive role in labor-associated gene regulation.

The question remains as to why Elf3 is highly transcribed at labor relative to day 15, a time point when its activity would assumedly be needed to support a labor-associated gene repression program. We present two separate, but not mutually exclusive hypotheses: since ELF3 has been shown in different cellular contexts and processes to act as an activator or a repressor, perhaps ELF3 can exert a gene-activating role during labor if the protein contains different post-translational modifications or transcription factor partners that were not present in our current study. Examining the modification status of ELF3 at non-laboring and laboring stages would give a first indication if stage-specific differences exist that might impose opposing functional consequences. Alternatively, but not necessarily mutually exclusively, our finding might indicate a possible role for ELF3 in the early postpartum period, the onset of which requires a rapid reduction in labor-associated gene expression events. In this case, having high quantities of ELF3 readily available already during labor may assist in the successful transition from SMC contractility back to quiescence. Here, testing the effects of conditional blocking of Elf3 expression before or at the labor onset stage in SMCs in mouse models can partially address this question by offering insights as to whether the postpartum involution process is consequently hindered or significantly altered.

Still further work needs to be done to uncover the exact molecular mechanisms by which MYB and ELF3 impart their activities in SMCs during labor-proximal gestational stages. Non-human cell lines and animal models offer a preliminary glance at the molecular players controlling contraction-driving genes. Establishing functional changes directly relevant to human parturition, however, requires additional experimental techniques. To test whether MYB and/or ELF3 act as transcription factors in the same complex as AP-1 and PR factors, proof-of-interaction tests via co-immunoprecipitation or proximity ligation assay experiments in human tissues are needed. Chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments can also indicate whether either protein directly binds open chromatin regions in or near contraction-associated genes in human term-not-in-labor or active laboring SMCs. More broadly, If MYB and ELF3 play an essential role in establishing the contractile physiological phenotype in the myometrium, uterine contractility tests on transcription factor overexpression models like those developed by Peavey et al. for PRs [28] can best address this question.

As they stand, our findings are important to consider in light of potential therapeutic applications that can be developed to address the critical health challenges associated with early labor onset. For instance, as we previously discussed [13], attempts to target MYB with different drugs or compounds to downregulate its activity in the context of treating acute myeloid leukemia have been met with some success [2931]. Of course, therapeutic treatment of human extreme preterm birth may mandate somewhat different strategies than that of cancer. Nevertheless, much recent work shows promise in the targeting of genomic activity in SMCs in order to prolong pregnancy to term. For instance, our earlier study uncovered gestational time point-specific, genome-wide active histone mark patterns; the observation of these patterns support previous findings that the onset of labor is associated with global histone deacetylation [8, 32, 33]. Recently, Zierden and others have developed a mode of delivery of suspensions containing inhibitors of histone deacetylase proteins alongside the labor-stalling hormone, progesterone; their results showed that these two-target suspensions provide greater efficacy in preterm birth prevention in bacterial infection-induced mouse labor models than do two prominent approved drugs [34]. In light of these findings, and with further inquiry into the regulation mechanisms of MYB and ELF3, the most effective therapeutic measures toward preterm birth might involve pinpointing multiple targets, including these two proteins.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the protocol approved by the Research Ethics Board, Sinai Health System REB# 02-0061A and REB# 18-0168A. All subjects donating myometrial biopsies for research gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All research using human tissues was performed in a class II-certified laboratory by qualified staff trained in biological and chemical safety protocols, and in accordance with Health Canada guidelines and regulations.

All mouse experiments were approved by the Animal Care Committee of The Centre for Phenogenomics (TCP) (Animal Use Protocol #0164H). Guidelines set by the Canadian Council for Animal Care were strictly followed for handling of mice. Virgin outbred CD-1 or inbred Bl6 (C57/Bl6) mice used in these experiments were purchased from Harlan Laboratories (http://www.harlan.com/).

Human myometrial tissue collection

After receiving written consent, myometrial biopsies from healthy women undergoing term-not-in-labor elective Caesarean sections (TNL, n = 5) or spontaneous, non-induced term labor (TL, n = 5) were collected and transferred from the operating theatre to the laboratory. For the TL group, biopsies were obtained during emergency Caesarean sections due to breech presentation and fetal distress. Patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), clinical chorioamnionitis, fetal anomalies, gestational diabetes/hypertension, cervical cerclage, preeclampsia, antepartum hemorrhage, and autoimmune disorders were excluded from the study. After the delivery of the fetus and placenta, a small 1.5 cm sliver of myometrium was collected from the upper margin of the incision made in the lower uterine segment in both laboring and non-laboring women prior to closing of the uterus. The endometrium was removed, and myometrial tissues were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until needed.

Mouse gestational model tissue collection

All animals were housed in a pathogen-free, humidity-controlled 12h light, 12h dark cycle TCP facility with free access to food and water. Female CD-1 and Bl6 mice were naturally bred; the morning of vaginal plug detection was designated as gestational day (d) 1. Pregnant mice were maintained until the appropriate gestational time point. For term labor models, gestation in mice on average is up to 3 weeks. Delivery under these conditions occurred during the evening of d19 or the morning of d20. Our criteria for labor were based on delivery of at least one pup.

In the term labor model, samples were collected on gestational days 15, 17, 19 term-not-in-labor (TNIL), 19–20 during active labor (TL), and 2–8 hours postpartum (PP) for CD-1 mice and on gestational days 15, 18.75 (TNIL), 19–20 during active labor (TL) and 2–8 hours PP for Bl6 mice. Myometrial tissues were collected at 10 AM on all gestational days with the exception of labor samples (TL), which were collected once the dams had delivered at least one pup. In the infection-associated inflammation preterm labor model, mice underwent a mini-laparotomy under isoflurane for anesthesia on gestational day 15, and were given an intrauterine injection of either sterile saline (sham) or 125 μg of E. coli-derived LPS (serotype 055:B5) in sterile saline. Mice were sacrificed 24 hours after sham surgery or during LPS-induced preterm labor, which occurred 24 hours post infection +/- 6 hours. In the idiopathic preterm labor model, mice were subcutaneously injected with vehicle (corn oil/ethanol) or 150 μg of mifepristone (RU486) on gestational day 15. Mice were sacrificed 24 hours after injection or during RU486-induced preterm labor, which occurred 24 hours post injection +/- 2 hours.

Mice were euthanized by carbon dioxide inhalation. The part of the uterine horn close to the cervix from which the fetus was already expelled during term or preterm labor was removed and discarded; the remainder was collected for analysis. For each day of gestation, tissue was collected from 4–8 different animals. Isolated uteri were placed into ice-cold PBS. Uterine horns were bisected longitudinally and dissected away from both pups and placentas. The decidua basalis was cut away from the myometrial tissue. The decidua parietalis was carefully removed from the myometrial tissue by mechanical scraping on ice, which eliminated the entire luminal and glandular epithelium and most of the uterine stroma. Myometrial tissues were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until needed.

Gene expression quantification by RNA extraction and RT-qPCR

Myometrial tissues were crushed into a fine powder on dry ice. Total RNA was extracted using Trizol and further treated with DNase I to remove genomic DNA. RNA was reverse transcribed using the high-capacity cDNA synthesis kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Target gene expression was monitored by qPCR using SYBR Select (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and primers that target sequences within the exons of pertinent mRNA transcripts (S1, S2 Tables in S1 File), and normalized to levels of total H1f0 (Bl6 mice), Tbp (CD-1 mice) or Mapk1 (human) mRNA. These reference genes have been previously used because of their most consistent profiles of expression at similar levels across gestational time points [8, 19]. Relative expression levels were calculated against genomic DNA-based standard curve references. All samples were confirmed not to have DNA contamination because no target amplification was observed with DNA polymerase in the qPCR reactions for reverse transcriptase-negative samples.

Syrian hamster myometrial (SHM) cell culture

Syrian hamster myometrial (SHM) cells supplied by Professor Oksana Shynlova were cultured in phenol-free DMEM supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 100 IU/ml penicillin, and 100 μg/ml streptomycin (Pen-Strep). Cells were kept in a 37°C/5% CO2 environment and passaged and/or had their media replaced, as appropriate, every 2–4 days. Cell media was tested and confirmed negative for presence of mycoplasma via Mycoplasma PCR Detection Kit (Biovision, catalog #K1476-100).

Reporter plasmid cloning and acquisition

For luciferase assays, we utilized pGL4.23 (luciferase vector) or modified versions thereof and pGL4.23 (Renilla vector) from Promega. To generate luciferase constructs under the control of Gja1 and Fos promoters (Addgene catalog #188114 and #188113, respectively), the promoters were amplified from Bl6 murine genomic DNA. The original minimal promoter from the pGL4.23 construct was first removed via digestion with BglII and NcoI and purification of the plasmid backbone. The labor-associated endogenous gene promoters were cloned into the pGL4.23 backbone (Promega) either directly from gDNA (using overhang-containing primers) in the case of the Fos promoter, or from transitional pJET-1.2 vector backbones containing the cloned promoter in the case of the Gja1 promoter (S3 Table in S1 File). All transcription factor-encoding constructs consisted of a pcDNA3.1 plasmid backbone, with the exception of the plasmid encoding ELF3, which consisted of a pCI plasmid backbone. The potential regulatory activity of any one transcription factor-encoding plasmid was always compared to its gene-free plasmid backbone counterpart. FOSL2- and JUND-encoding plasmids are described in Mitchell and Lye [11] and can be obtained from Addgene (catalog #187907 and #187904, respectively). The pCl and pCl-ELF3 constructs [35] were a kind gift from Dr. Miguel Otero and Dr. Mary B. Goldring, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. The MYB-FLAG construct was obtained from Addgene (catalog #66980 [36]).

Western blot

SHM cells were transfected with 100 ng of construct/well of 4 wells in 24-well plate format 24h post-seeding. 48h post transfection, media was removed and cells were washed with PBS and frozen at -80°C. Cells were lysed in York lysis buffer (1M Tris/HCl pH 6.8, 10% SDS (final conc. 2%), glycerol (final conc. 10%), and ddH2O, with proteinase and phosphatase inhibitor cocktail (Halt Protease and Phosphatase Inhibitor Cocktail, EDTA-free, Thermo Scientific). Cells were scraped out of wells, with pooling of well contents from 4 wells pertaining to the same transfected vector on ice. Samples were kept cool as debris was removed and sonicated prior to denaturing of proteins by heating at 95°C and to leaving samples to cool on ice for 5 min each. Following a final centrifuge spin, lysate-containing supernatants were collected and protein quantities were determined via BCA (Pierce BCA Protein Assay Kit, Thermo Scientific). Proteins were denatured by addition of 2X Laemmeli buffer/10% β-mercaptoethanol (Bio-Rad/Sigma, respectively) to samples and subjection of samples to boiling for 2 min at 95°C. Samples were incubated on ice, centrifuged at 4°C, and supernatants were transferred to new tubes. 20 μg of protein lysate from each sample were loaded into each lane of a 10% SDS-PAGE gel. Contents were separated prior to transfer onto a nitrocellulose membrane. Membranes were blocked by incubation with blocking solution (2.5% milk) prior to addition of the appropriate antibody in 2.5% or 5% milk solution (1/1000 dilution anti-JUND, sc-74 (Santa Cruz); 1/1000 dilution anti-FOSL2, sc-171 (Santa Cruz); 1/2000 dilution anti-ELF3, A6371 (ABclonal); 1/2000 dilution anti-FLAG, F1804 (Millipore Sigma)) for incubation overnight at 4°C. Membranes were washed three times in TBST prior to incubation with secondary antibody (1/5000 dilution horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated anti-mouse (Bio-Rad, 170–6516) or anti-rabbit (Bio-Rad, 170–6515)), as appropriate) for 30 min. Membranes were washed three times in TBST prior to incubation in ECL solution (Western Lightning Plus, Chemiluminescent Substrate, PerkinElmer) for 5 min. Membranes were developed and images were visualized (S2 Fig in S1 File) using Bio-Rad Image Lab Software.

Luciferase assays

Activity of predicted labor-associated transcription factor candidates was assayed using a dual luciferase reporter assay (Promega). On Day 0, SHM cells were seeded in antibiotic-free media at a density of 5x104 cells/well within a 24-well plate format. On Day 1, media was replaced with Opti-Mem 1hr prior to transfection. Using Lipofectamine 3000, molar equivalents of the appropriate transcription factor-encoding constructs were transfected into cells, alongside a 1:1 molar ratio of Luciferase (pGL4.23) to Renilla (pGL4.75, Promega) vectors, which we determined as the optimised ratio for most uniform Renilla levels across vector treatments in these assays. Total transfected DNA for any one vector combination set did not exceed a maximum amount of 500 ng/well. On Day 2, Opti-Mem was replaced with fresh antibiotic-free SHM media. On Day 3, media was removed and cells were lysed in 1X passive lysis buffer/PBS, incubated at RT for 15 min, and frozen at -80°C for at least one hour and up to one week. Reporter activity was measured on the Fluoroskan Ascent FL plate reader 48 hpt and calculated by normalising firefly expression to Renilla expression.

Statistical analyses

Significant changes in myometrial gene expression in mouse term gestational profiles were determined by one-way ANOVA with Tukey correction. Changes in gene expression in mouse preterm labor models were determined by unpaired t-tests using GraphPad Prism 9. Human myometrial gene expression data were analyzed by unpaired t-tests using GraphPad Prism 9. Luciferase assay data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA using Sigma Plot12 and significant differences were confirmed by the Holm-Sidak method.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supporting Information for: MYB and ELF3 differentially modulate labor-inducing gene expression in myometrial cells.

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images. Raw images for S2 Fig in S1 File.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Luis Abatti for his advice pertaining to construct design, and Dr. Lubna Nadeem for her extensive guidance and instruction in the SHM cell culture and luciferase assay experiment design. We also thank the human myometrial specimen donors, the Research Centre for Women’s and Infants’ Health BioBank at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Sinai Health System, particularly the staff in the Labor and Delivery Unit for their support in the human specimen collection used in this study. Select figures in this study were created using BioRender (Biorender.com).

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FRN 173252, held by J.A.M. and O.S.; cihr-irsc.gc.ca). Studentship funding was provided by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (CGS D held by V.M.S.; nserc-crsng.gc.ca). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Wu SP, Anderson ML, Wang T, Zhou L, Emery OM, Li X, et al. Dynamic transcriptome, accessible genome, and PGR cistrome profiles in the human myometrium. FASEB J [Internet]. 2019. Feb 1 [cited 2021 Apr 30];34(2):2252–68. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31908010/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chan YW, Van den Berg HA, Moore JD, Quenby S, Blanks AM. Assessment of myometrial transcriptome changes associated with spontaneous human labour by high-throughput RNA-seq. Exp Physiol [Internet]. 2014. Mar 1 [cited 2021 Apr 30];99(3):510–24. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24273302/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Liu LL, Li H, Dargahi D, Shynlova O, Slater D, Jones SJM, et al. HoxA13 regulates phenotype regionalization of human pregnant myometrium. J Clin Endocrinol Metab [Internet]. 2015. Dec 1 [cited 2021 Apr 30];100(12):E1512–22. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26485220/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stanfield Z, Lai PF, Lei K, Johnson MR, Blanks AM, Romero R, et al. Myometrial Transcriptional Signatures of Human Parturition. Front Genet [Internet]. 2019. Apr 1 [cited 2022 Jun 6];10. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30988671/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Arrowsmith S, Fang Y, Sharp A. Comparison of the myometrial transcriptome from singleton and twin pregnancies by RNASeq. PLoS One. 2020. Jan 1;15(1). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227882 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pique-Regi R, Romero R, Garcia-Flores V, Peyvandipour A, Tarca AL, Pusod E, et al. A single-cell atlas of the myometrium in human parturition. JCI insight [Internet]. 2022. Mar 8 [cited 2022 Mar 18];7(5). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35260533/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Migale R, MacIntyre DA, Cacciatore S, Lee YS, Hagberg H, Herbert BR, et al. Modeling hormonal and inflammatory contributions to preterm and term labor using uterine temporal transcriptomics. BMC Med [Internet]. 2016. Jun 13 [cited 2020 Oct 26];14(1). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27291689/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shchuka VM, Abatti LE, Hou H, Khader N, Dorogin A, Wilson MD, et al. The pregnant myometrium is epigenetically activated at contractility-driving gene loci prior to the onset of labor in mice. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Döring B, Shynlova O, Tsui P, Eckardt D, Janssen-Bienhold U, Hofmann F, et al. Ablation of connexin43 in uterine smooth muscle cells of the mouse causes delayed parturition. J Cell Sci [Internet]. 2006. May 1 [cited 2021 May 24];119(9):1715–22. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16595547/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tong D, Lu X, Wang HX, Plante I, Lui E, Laird DW, et al. A dominant loss-of-function GJA1 (Cx43) mutant impairs parturition in the mouse. Biol Reprod. 2009. Jun;80(6):1099–106. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.108.071969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mitchell JA, Lye SJ. Differential activation of the connexin 43 promoter by dimers of activator protein-1 transcription factors in myometrial cells. Endocrinology [Internet]. 2005. Apr [cited 2020 Oct 26];146(4):2048–54. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15618352/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nadeem L, Shynlova O, Matysiak-Zablocki E, Mesiano S, Dong X, Lye S. Molecular evidence of functional progesterone withdrawal in human myometrium. Nat Commun [Internet]. 2016. May 25 [cited 2020 Oct 26];7:11565. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27220952/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Khader N, Shchuka VM, Shynlova O, Mitchell JA. Transcriptional Control of Parturition: Insights from Gene Regulation Studies in the Myometrium. Mol Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2021. Apr 6 [cited 2021 Apr 8]; Available from: https://academic.oup.com/molehr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/molehr/gaab024/6212651 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Salomonis N, Cotte N, Zambon AC, Pollard KS, Vranizan K, Doniger SW, et al. Identifying genetic networks underlying myometrial transition to labor. Genome Biol. 2005;6(2). doi: 10.1186/gb-2005-6-2-r12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tapias A, Ciudad CJ, Noé V. Transcriptional regulation of the 5′-flanking region of the human transcription factor Sp3 gene by NF-1, c-Myb, B-Myb, AP-1 and E2F. Biochim Biophys Acta—Gene Regul Mech. 2008;1779(5):318–29. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2008.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Otero M, Plumb DA, Tsuchimochi K, Dragomir CL, Hashimoto K, Peng H, et al. E74-like Factor 3 (ELF3) impacts on Matrix Metalloproteinase 13 (MMP13) transcriptional control in articular chondrocytes under proinflammatory stress. J Biol Chem. 2012. Jan 27;287(5):3559–72. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.265744 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Longoni N, Sarti M, Albino D, Civenni G, Malek A, Ortelli E, et al. ETS transcription factor ESE1/ELF3 orchestrates a positive feedback loop that constitutively activates NF-κB and drives prostate cancer progression. Cancer Res. 2013. Jul 15;73(14):4533–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shynlova O, Nedd-Roderique T, Li Y, Dorogin A, Lye SJ. Myometrial immune cells contribute to term parturition, preterm labour and post-partum involution in mice. J Cell Mol Med [Internet]. 2013. Jan [cited 2021 Oct 22];17(1):90–102. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23205502/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nadeem L, Farine T, Dorogin A, Matysiak-Zablocki E, Shynlova O, Lye S. Differential expression of myometrial AP-1 proteins during gestation and labour. J Cell Mol Med [Internet]. 2018. Jan 1 [cited 2020 Oct 26];22(1):452–71. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28945005/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mitchell JA, Lye SJ. Regulation of connexin43 expression by c-fos and c-jun in myometrial cells. Cell Adhes Commun. 2000;8(4–6):299–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Oldenhof AD, Shynlova OP, Liu M, Lowell Langille B, Lye SJ. Mitogen-activated protein kinases mediate stretch-induced c-fos mRNA expression in myometrial smooth muscle cells. Am J Physiol—Cell Physiol [Internet]. 2002. [cited 2021 May 28];283(5 52–5). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12372814/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wang X, Angelis N, Thein SL. MYB—A regulatory factor in hematopoiesis. Gene [Internet]. 2018. Jul 30 [cited 2022 Mar 25];665:6–17. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29704633/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bethin KE, Nagai Y, Sladek R, Asada M, Sadovsky Y, Hudson TJ, et al. Microarray analysis of uterine gene expression in mouse and human pregnancy. Mol Endocrinol [Internet]. 2003. Aug 1 [cited 2022 Jun 13];17(8):1454–69. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12775764/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sinh ND, Endo K, Miyazawa K, Saitoh M. Ets1 and ESE1 reciprocally regulate expression of ZEB1/ZEB2, dependent on ERK1/2 activity, in breast cancer cells. Cancer Sci [Internet]. 2017. May 1 [cited 2021 Sep 2];108(5):952–60. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28247944/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Renthal N, Chen C, Williams K, Gerard R, Prange-Kiel J, Mendelson C. miR-200 family and targets, ZEB1 and ZEB2, modulate uterine quiescence and contractility during pregnancy and labor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet]. 2010. Nov 30 [cited 2021 Sep 19];107(48):20828–33. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21079000/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gajulapalli VNR, Samanthapudi VSK, Pulaganti M, Khumukcham SS, Malisetty VL, Guruprasad L, et al. A transcriptional repressive role for epithelial-specific ETS factor ELF3 on oestrogen receptor alpha in breast cancer cells. Biochem J [Internet]. 2016. Apr 15 [cited 2020 Oct 26];473(8):1047–61. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26920025/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Otero M, Peng H, El Hachem K, Culley KL, EB W, Quinn J, et al. ELF3 modulates type II collagen gene (COL2A1) transcription in chondrocytes by inhibiting SOX9-CBP/p300-driven histone acetyltransferase activity. Connect Tissue Res [Internet]. 2017. Jan 2 [cited 2021 Sep 2];58(1):15–26. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27310669/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Peavey MC, Wu SP, Li R, Liu J, Emery OM, Wang T, et al. Progesterone receptor isoform B regulates the Oxtr-Plcl2-Trpc3 pathway to suppress uterine contractility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(11). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2011643118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Coulibaly A, Haas A, Steinmann S, Jakobs A, Schmidt TJ, Klempnauer KH. The natural anti-tumor compound Celastrol targets a Myb-C/EBP?-p300 transcriptional module implicated in myeloid gene expression. PLoS One. 2018. Feb 1;13(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yusenko M V., Trentmann A, Casolari DA, Abdel Ghani L, Lenz M, Horn M, et al. C/EBPβ is a MYB- and p300-cooperating pro-leukemogenic factor and promising drug target in acute myeloid leukemia. Oncogene [Internet]. 2021. Jul 22 [cited 2022 Mar 25];40(29):4746–58. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33958723/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Walf-Vorderwülbecke V, Pearce K, Brooks T, Hubank M, Van Den Heuvel-Eibrink MM, Zwaan CM, et al. Targeting acute myeloid leukemia by drug-induced c-MYB degradation. Leukemia [Internet]. 2018. Apr 1 [cited 2022 Mar 25];32(4):882–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29089643/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Condon JC, Jeyasuria P, Faust JM, Wilson JW, Mendelson CR. A decline in the levels of progesterone receptor coactivators in the pregnant uterus at term may antagonize progesterone receptor function and contribute to the initiation of parturition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet]. 2003. Aug 5 [cited 2022 Jan 28];100(16):9518–23. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12886011/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Moynihan AT, Hehir MP, Sharkey AM, Robson SC, Europe-Finner GN, Morrison JJ. Histone deacetylase inhibitors and a functional potent inhibitory effect on human uterine contractility. Am J Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2008. [cited 2022 Jan 28];199(2):167.e1–167.e7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18455134/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zierden HC, Ortiz JI, DeLong K, Yu J, Li G, Dimitrion P, et al. Enhanced drug delivery to the reproductive tract using nanomedicine reveals therapeutic options for prevention of preterm birth. Sci Transl Med. 2021. Jan 1;13(576). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Oettgen P, Alani RM, Barcinski MA, Brown L, Akbarali Y, Boltax J, et al. Isolation and characterization of a novel epithelium-specific transcription factor, ESE-1, a member of the ets family. Mol Cell Biol [Internet]. 1997. Aug [cited 2022 Jun 7];17(8):4419–33. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9234700/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Roe JS, Mercan F, Rivera K, Pappin DJ, Vakoc CR. BET Bromodomain Inhibition Suppresses the Function of Hematopoietic Transcription Factors in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Mol Cell [Internet]. 2015. Jun 18 [cited 2022 Jun 7];58(6):1028–39. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25982114/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Atsushi Asakura

28 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-17810MYB and ELF3 differentially modulate labor-inducing gene expression in myometrial cellsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mitchell,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 12 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Atsushi Asakura, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure (1 and 2) in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure (1 and 2) to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Title: MYB and ELF3 differentially modulate labor-inducing gene expression in myometrial cells

In this study, MYB and ELF3 gene expressions were assayed in the human and murine myometrium of different gestational ages including term not in labor and in labor. Next, the authors utilized two different preterm mouse models: infection-caused preterm model (LPS injection) and progesterone withdrawal preterm model (RU486 injection). Both Myb and Elf3 mRNA levels were increased by RU486 injection, but not by LPS. Using a sophisticated luciferase construct with a reporter gene under the control of the Gja1 promoter to test the capacity of MYB and ELF3 in activating this promoter, the authors showed that Gja1 and Fos promoter activation increased in the presence of MYB, but rather decreased in the presence of ELF3. As the authors mentioned, MYB can act as an activator of Gja1 promoter activity, whereas ELF3 can act as a repressor in myometrial cells. Finally, the authors tested the auto-regulation (feed-forward fashion) of the Fos promoter in myometrial cells. MYB upregulated Fos promoter activity even in the absence of JUND and FOSL2, and MYB further upregulated it in the presence of JUND and FOSL2. In contrast, ELF3 suppressed the Fos promoter activity in the presence of JUND and FOSL2.

Comments:

1) Lines 83-86. Introduction section: The authors picked up two genes, MYB and ELF3 but the reasons are unclear. Please explain why these two genes were focused in this study.

2) Lines 83-86. The explanations of MYB ELF3 are necessary in the Introduction section because these genes are not familiar or famous in the field of reproduction. Please explain the functions of MYB and ELF3 in other tissues citing the previous published papers.

3) Lines 83-86. What is the functional relationship between MYB and ELF3? This is a very important point in this paper but it is not mentioned throughout the manuscript. These two genes were analyzed in parallel, but if these two molecules were not interacting with each other, it is nonsense to show the data of MYB and ELF3 together.

4) Figure. 1. In mice, both Myb and Elf3 mRNA levels have been already increased at D19 term not in labor, and the expression levels were as high as those in labor. However, in humans, the gene expressions of MYB and ELF3 were lower in term not in labor than those of term in labor. What causes the difference of increase pattern between mice and humans?

In sFig. 1, the Myb and Elf3 gene expression patterns of Bl6 mice are similar to those of humans, not to CD-1 mice. It is likely that there is a difference in the expression pattern between mice strains. Please discuss it.

5) Lines 166-168. The information that the elevated reporter gene expression levels under the control of the Gja1 in the presence of AP-1 heterodimer but not AP-1 homodimers (ref. 11,12) is very important to understand the results of Fig. 3. Please introduce the Nature Communication paper (Ref 12) in the Introduction section.

6) Line 169. Brief explanation of Gja1 gene is warranted here. This gene corresponds to CX43, a gap junction protein.

7) Line 173. The brief explanation of JUND and FOSL2 is also necessary here or in the Introduction section. I know that these genes are the components of Jun and Fos subfamily, respectively, but the AP-1 transcriptional factors and its related molecules should be concisely explained for readers.

8) The data in Figure 3 are very interesting. Gja1 and Fos promoter activation increased in the presence of MYB. In contrast, ELF3 suppressed the Gja1 and Fos promoter activation. This luciferase assay-construct is elegant. This is just a comment.

9) The paragraphs of “AP-1 factors positively auto-regulate the Fos promoter in myometrial cells” (lines 200-221) and “Fos promoter activities in the presence of MYB or ELF3 mirror the transcriptional effects observed at the Gja1 promoter” (lines 233-249) are the result of same figure, Figure 4, so it might be better to combine these two paragraphs together.

10) Overall, I recommend describing the key molecules (for example, Gja1, AP-1, Jun, Fos, etc) in the Introduction section. Most of these molecules are introduced in the Result section at present, so it is hard to follow for readers.

Reviewer #2: SUMMARY:

The authors examined two genes, Myb and Elf3, identified to be up-regulated during mice labor in a previously published study that utilised total RNA-seq. Firstly, they correlated the myometrial tissue expression levels of their transcripts to (i) different stages of in vivo physiological pregnancy and labor in mice (d15, d17, d19, d19.5 and d20; all five time points for CD-1 and four for Bl6 strain) and humans (no labor and labor; both term gestation), and (ii) two established in vivo mouse models of preterm labor (LPS and RU486 exposure). Secondly, luciferase-based reporter gene assays were used to demonstrate the effects of Myb and Elf3 expression, alongside genes that encode FOSL2 and JUND (AP-1 monomers), from plasmids transfected into immortalised SHM cells on the activities of (iii) Gja1 and (iv) Fos gene promoters (cloned from Bl6 genomic DNA). Results show (i) previous RNA-seq findings validated using qPCR, (ii) RU486 increases Myb and Elf3 transcripts more so than LPS, and (iii)-(iv) Myb expression enhances both Gja1 and Fos gene promoter activity but the opposite was observed from Elf3 expression. Together, these preliminary findings present Myb and Elf3 as novel labor-associated transcription factors of interest.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Abstract

-Minor:

• Lines 25-27: the first letter of each transcription factor (full) name should be lower case.

• Line 34: use lower case for ‘lipopolysaccharide’.

Introduction

Concise and well-structured; relevant references have been included.

-Major:

• Lines 83-86: it would be helpful to briefly explain why MYB and ELF3 were chosen as novel proteins of interest in the Introduction, rather than this first being provided in the Results (lines 104-105), section. Furthermore, explicit hypotheses/aims of the study should be stated to justify the choices of experiments that were undertaken.

-Minor:

• Line 46: please define “term” gestation for PLOS readers who may not be familiar with obstetrics terminology.

Results

-Major:

• Line 138-139: it should be explicitly stated that the modelling of ‘idiopathic’ human preterm labor using mice in the present study is based on the assumption (not definitively proven) that human idiopathic preterm labor is caused solely by loss of progesterone receptor function when using RU486.

• All figures: please state in the captions what the error bars are representative of (e.g. mean ± SEM or SD).

• Fig S2: can the authors provide data to show MYB protein abundance in transfected cells (alongside the FLAG tag abundance data shown)?

• Fig 3 and 4: captions for these figures state “Average expression level values for each construct normalised to expression output of promoter construct subject to no TF treatment” – does this mean that cells transfected with both TF construct(s) and pG-Gja1P were all normalised to cells with only pG-Gja1P, and hence why there are no error bars for the ‘pG-Gja1P’ group? If all values from cells transfected with TF constructs were normalised to ‘no TF treatment’, does this mean that ‘no TF treatment’ values used for ANOVA were all ‘1’? Why not present (and undertake statistical analysis on) the values “calculated by normalising the firefly to Renilla expression” (line 437) without further normalisation to the ‘pG-Gja1P’ group?

• Fig 3 and 4: please state why JUND and FOSL2 were the chosen members of the AP-1 family of proteins to examine using the reporter assay, and thus why the other AP-1 monomers appear to not be relevant to this study.

-Minor:

• Fig 1, 3, 4, S1: is it possible for the authors to add or use alternative annotations to indicate statistical significance on graphs for ANOVA? For example, in Fig 3, it is unclear whether ‘pG-Gja1P, JUND/JUND’ vs ‘pG-Gja1P, JUND/JUND/MYB’ are significantly different according to ANOVA.

• Fig 2: check style consistency (symbol colours and error bar thickness) of ‘B’ graph on right.

• Fig 2 caption (line 154): please give the full name for “hpi” if only used once in the manuscript; also check that the ‘B’ and ‘C’ labels for the graphs match the description in the caption.

• Fig S2: please state full names for all abbreviations used to label the figure in the caption.

Discussion

Good consideration of recent developments relevant to MYB and ELF3.

-Major:

• Please add a ‘Study limitations’ paragraph to briefly discuss, for example, (i) limits of using cell lines and animal models to infer expression/function-related changes during human parturition (particularly for addressing the discrepancy between in vivo gene expression and in vitro gene promoter activity data for Elf3), (ii) absence of molecular biology techniques that assess interactions between transcription factors as postulated by the authors (e.g. line 262-265), and (iii) absence of functional assays beyond transcription factor/gene promoter activity that would truly demonstrate the impact of MYB and ELF3 expression on myometrial phenotype (amongst all other changes that will occur at a multitude of other proteins during physiological and pathological labor).

• Lines 282-290: it would be good for the authors to present suggestions for experiments to be done to address the two conjectures proposed to explain high Elf3 expression in vivo despite repressive effects on gene promotor activity in vitro (to elaborate on “Further work” at line 291).

• Please elaborate on the difference observed for Myb and Elf3 expression between LPS and RU486 mice preterm labor models, and explicitly state the relevance of AP-1 to the RU486 model that would further justify it being the focus of the reporter assays.

Materials & Methods

-Major:

• A good description of how mice myometrium tissues were dissected and stored after removal from the body has been included (lines 362-367). Please add an equivalent description for human myometrium tissues in the ‘Human tissue collection’ section.

• Lines 325-327: were cases of artificial induction and augmentation of labor also excluded?

• Lines 375-376: either include Supplemental Data and/or citations to support the statement that “these reference genes were most consistently expressed at similar levels across gestational time points”.

• Line 377-379: review the technical accuracy and/or whether the positioning of this statement at the end of the paragraph makes sense. Were the authors referring to checking for genomic DNA contamination during qPCR, which uses DNA polymerase, or at conversion of RNA to cDNA using reverse transcriptase (and checked using agarose gel electrophoresis)?

• “Reporter plasmid cloning and acquisition” section (pages 18-19): insert mention of S2 Fig, and also state whether transfection efficiency for cells used for reporter assays was checked for all n=3 shown in Fig 3 and 4.

• Table S3: check all primer sequences provided are accurate, as well as their text formatting.

• Line 423: please state what equipment (and software) was used to acquire the (digital) images of the ECL reagent-treated membranes, as well as briefly describe how the images were analysed.

Minor:

• Details for animal research ethics (lines 332-336) would be better placed under the same ‘Ethics statement’ heading (page 15) used for the ethics described for the human-derived samples, but as a separate paragraph. The remainder of the ‘Animal model’ section (lines 336-342) could then form the first paragraph of the ‘Mouse gestational model myometrial tissue collection’ headed section (page 16) instead.

• Line 320: please add “Human” to the start of the ‘tissue collection’ heading to better distinguish from the section that describes mice tissue collection.

• Line 324: do the authors mean ‘breech’ where it states “bridge” presentation?

• Would it be possible for the authors to present median with range values for gestation age, gravida, and parity for their human study participants – potentially in a Supplemental Table? BMI, ethnicity, whether participants had a previous caesarean section, and presence/absence of fetal membrane rupture immediately prior to caesarean section would also be of interest if available.

• Line 350: insert ‘preterm’ before “labor”.

• Line 373: state what qPCR reagent was used with the cDNA samples and primers (e.g. SYBR Green?).

• Lines 374-375: state which housekeeping gene was assigned to each mouse strain (as indicated in Fig 1 and S1).

• Tables S1, S2 & S3: please add RefSeq accession numbers used to confirm specificity of each pair of primers (using e.g. NCBI Primer-BLAST).

• Lines 382-383: Abbreviations – “DMEM media” technically uses the word ‘media’ twice; same applies to “Opti-MEM media” at lines 433-434. Please state the full name for “FBS” (instead of using the abbreviation if only used once in the manuscript).

• Lines 381-385: please state where the SHM cells were sourced from. Purchased commercially or donated by a named collaborator?

• Line 382: specify type of plate if “plate” is to be used in this sentence.

• Line 383: state the working concentrations of penicillin and streptomycin in the media used instead of stating “1%”.

• Line 385: please state what method of mycoplasma testing was used.

• Line 395: what was the “pCI” construct used for?

• Lines 395-397: check the relevance of references 29 and 30 for their corresponding sentences.

• Lines 402 and 435: missing degrees symbol in “-80C”.

• Line 417: please check the catalog number or supplier info for anti-ELF3.

Other minor points

• Check “Hist1” is the correct gene name (and not referring to a gene cluster).

• ‘MAPK1’ is the official gene name for ERK2; the latter is considered a synonym.

• Check that Greek letters are used instead of their Latin substitutes (e.g. “u” (where it should be ‘�’) at lines 356 and 412).

• Please be consistent with use of abbreviations. For example, “GD” was used to abbreviate ‘gestation day’ in line 339, but then “gestation day” was used throughout the following ‘Mouse gestational model myometrial tissue collection’ section in Materials and Methods instead of ‘GD’. Same with “pp” for ‘postpartum in lines 347-348.

• Please provide full name for the “TF” abbreviation at its first use (line 178?).

• Check citations. For example, according to the References list, Sinh is first author for reference 20 (not 19) in lines 272-274, and cited reference 28 in line 307 looks like it should be 29.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 3;18(1):e0271081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271081.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Nov 2022

NOTE: in our response all references to page and line numbers refer to the version with changes tracked.

RESPONSE to REVIEWER 1

Reviewer #1: Title: MYB and ELF3 differentially modulate labor-inducing gene expression in myometrial cells

In this study, MYB and ELF3 gene expressions were assayed in the human and murine myometrium of different gestational ages including term not in labor and in labor. Next, the authors utilized two different preterm mouse models: infection-caused preterm model (LPS injection) and progesterone withdrawal preterm model (RU486 injection). Both Myb and Elf3 mRNA levels were increased by RU486 injection, but not by LPS. Using a sophisticated luciferase construct with a reporter gene under the control of the Gja1 promoter to test the capacity of MYB and ELF3 in activating this promoter, the authors showed that Gja1 and Fos promoter activation increased in the presence of MYB, but rather decreased in the presence of ELF3. As the authors mentioned, MYB can act as an activator of Gja1 promoter activity, whereas ELF3 can act as a repressor in myometrial cells. Finally, the authors tested the auto-regulation (feed-forward fashion) of the Fos promoter in myometrial cells. MYB upregulated Fos promoter activity even in the absence of JUND and FOSL2, and MYB further upregulated it in the presence of JUND and FOSL2. In contrast, ELF3 suppressed the Fos promoter activity in the presence of JUND and FOSL2.

We would like to thank the reviewer for their assessment of our work.

Comments:

1) Lines 83-86. Introduction section: The authors picked up two genes, MYB and ELF3 but the reasons are unclear. Please explain why these two genes were focused in this study.

As requested, we have provided our justification for focusing on MYB and ELF3 in the laboring myometrial context in the introduction section. On pgs. 5-6, lines 94-109, the text now reads:

“We hypothesized that these two proteins might act as potential regulators of the laboring SMC phenotype for several reasons: both their corresponding genes are more highly transcribed at term relative to earlier quiescent gestational stages in mouse myometrial tissues [7,8,14]. Associated predicted binding motifs for both proteins are also contained within promoters of contraction-associated genes like Gja1. More notably, MYB and ELF3 have been shown to behave as transcriptional activators in cooperation with AP-1 factors in other cellular contexts. For example, Tapias and others determined that, in HeLa cells, MYB both controls the transcription of and co-localizes with AP-1 factors at the promoter of Sp3 [15], a gene prominently expressed in SMCs [reviewed in 13]. Likewise, a study by Otero and others demonstrated that ELF3 binds the Mmp13 gene promoter in chondrocyte cells; while AP-1 heterodimers can activate the Mmp13 promoter, the addition of ELF3 further compounds this activation effect [16]. ELF3 has also been shown to interact with Nf-κβ in prostate cancer cells in response to pro-inflammatory stimuli that affect late-gestation SMCs [17]. In light of these findings, we hypothesized that MYB and ELF3 might be significant members of the laboring SMC transcription regulatory network, and ones that function in conjunction with AP-1 factors.”

2) Lines 83-86. The explanations of MYB ELF3 are necessary in the Introduction section because these genes are not familiar or famous in the field of reproduction. Please explain the functions of MYB and ELF3 in other tissues citing the previous published papers.

As stated in our response to comment 1), this explanation is now provided on pgs. 5-6, in lines 94-109. Briefly, we summarized the findings from several critical studies regarding these proteins’ functions as activating transcription factors in different cell types, which included determining the binding partners and target gene promoters of MYB and/or ELF3 in HeLa cells (Tapias et al., 2008), chondrocyte cells (Otero et al., 2012), and prostate cancer cells (Longoni et al., 2013).

3) Lines 83-86. What is the functional relationship between MYB and ELF3? This is a very important point in this paper but it is not mentioned throughout the manuscript. These two genes were analyzed in parallel, but if these two molecules were not interacting with each other, it is nonsense to show the data of MYB and ELF3 together.

As stated in our response to comment 1), the justification for focusing on MYB and ELF3 together is now provided on pgs. 5-6, in lines 94-109. Briefly, since MYB and ELF3 are upregulated during labor in SMCs and appear, in other cellular contexts, to interact with the same binding partners (AP-1 factors) to exert an activation effect on target gene families whose expression is critical for SMCs in late gestation and/or during active labor, we originally hypothesized that these two factors might both be involved in AP-1-mediated gene regulation, and we therefore focused on both these factors in this paper.

4) Figure. 1. In mice, both Myb and Elf3 mRNA levels have been already increased at D19 term not in labor, and the expression levels were as high as those in labor. However, in humans, the gene expressions of MYB and ELF3 were lower in term not in labor than those of term in labor. What causes the difference of increase pattern between mice and humans?

In sFig. 1, the Myb and Elf3 gene expression patterns of Bl6 mice are similar to those of humans, not to CD-1 mice. It is likely that there is a difference in the expression pattern between mice strains. Please discuss it.

We were surprised by this finding and have acknowledged this discrepancy in a new paragraph in the discussion section on pgs. 14-15, lines 298-303. The excerpt pertaining to this comment now reads:

“We were surprised that, contrary to Bl6 mice and humans, CD-1 mice appeared to exhibit significantly increased Myb and Elf3 transcript levels in SMCs by the term not in labor stage, rather than at active labor. Because mouse strain-specific differences are unlikely to be the exclusive reason to account for this discrepancy, further investigation would be warranted to account for these observations.”

5) Lines 166-168. The information that the elevated reporter gene expression levels under the control of the Gja1 in the presence of AP-1 heterodimer but not AP-1 homodimers (ref. 11,12) is very important to understand the results of Fig. 3. Please introduce the Nature Communication paper (Ref 12) in the Introduction section.

As requested, we have provided a succinct overview of the central findings regarding AP-1-mediated control of Gja1 promoter activity from the referred-to studies by Mitchell and Lye (2005) and Nadeem et al. (2016) in the introduction section, on pg. 4, in lines 78-80. The text now reads:

“For example, AP-1 heterodimers, but not homodimers, tend to activate the murine Gja1 promoter [11], and this heterodimeric activation effect can be heightened or hampered depending on which major PR isoform is present in SMCs [12].”

6) Line 169. Brief explanation of Gja1 gene is warranted here. This gene corresponds to CX43, a gap junction protein.

As requested, we have provided an introduction and overview of Gja1 gene and CX43 protein function in the introduction section on pg. 4, in lines 66-70, and 78-80, and have further elaborated on the use of this gene’s promoter in reporter assays in SMCs on pg. 10, in lines 197-199. These three excerpts now read:

“For instance, the widely studied Connexin 43 (encoded by the GJA1 gene), a vital contraction-associated protein [9,10], is induced at term labor onset relative to late gestational quiescent stages, in part due to the spike in active transcription from its coding gene at term [8].”

“For example, AP-1 heterodimers, but not homodimers, tend to activate the murine Gja1 promoter [11], and this heterodimeric activation effect can be heightened or hampered depending on which major PR isoform is present in SMCs [12].”

“As previously outlined, Gja1 is necessary for the initiation of contractions [9,10] and the output of this gene promoter has often been used as a proxy for the laboring transcriptional program phenotype.”

7) Line 173. The brief explanation of JUND and FOSL2 is also necessary here or in the Introduction section. I know that these genes are the components of Jun and Fos subfamily, respectively, but the AP-1 transcriptional factors and its related molecules should be concisely explained for readers.

As requested, we have provided this brief introduction to and explanation of JUND and FOSL2 functions on pg. 10, in lines 202-204. The text now reads:

“Within the AP-1 FOS and JUN subfamilies, FOSL2 and JUND are especially highly expressed at the protein level at labor onset in mice [19], and we therefore selected these factors for our AP-1 homodimer and heterodimer test combinations.”

8) The data in Figure 3 are very interesting. Gja1 and Fos promoter activation increased in the presence of MYB. In contrast, ELF3 suppressed the Gja1 and Fos promoter activation. This luciferase assay-construct is elegant. This is just a comment.

Thank you for this comment.

9) The paragraphs of “AP-1 factors positively auto-regulate the Fos promoter in myometrial cells” (lines 200-221) and “Fos promoter activities in the presence of MYB or ELF3 mirror the transcriptional effects observed at the Gja1 promoter” (lines 233-249) are the result of same figure, Figure 4, so it might be better to combine these two paragraphs together.

Because the effects of AP-1 factors on Fos promoter activity in laboring SMCs have not, to our knowledge, yet been tested, we wanted to highlight the importance of this finding before turning to the additional effects of MYB or ELF3 in this context, and we provided two headings for data in the same figure. Because we did not deem it appropriate to show two separate figures with partial overlap in the displayed data, we kept these data (showing the effects of AP-1 on Fos promoter activity first, then the effects of adding MYB with or without AP-1 factors) in the same figure.

10) Overall, I recommend describing the key molecules (for example, Gja1, AP-1, Jun, Fos, etc) in the Introduction section. Most of these molecules are introduced in the Result section at present, so it is hard to follow for readers.

We thank the reviewer for their recommendations and have modified the introduction to address this comment.

RESPONSE to REVIEWER 2

Reviewer #2: SUMMARY:

The authors examined two genes, Myb and Elf3, identified to be up-regulated during mice labor in a previously published study that utilised total RNA-seq. Firstly, they correlated the myometrial tissue expression levels of their transcripts to (i) different stages of in vivo physiological pregnancy and labor in mice (d15, d17, d19, d19.5 and d20; all five time points for CD-1 and four for Bl6 strain) and humans (no labor and labor; both term gestation), and (ii) two established in vivo mouse models of preterm labor (LPS and RU486 exposure). Secondly, luciferase-based reporter gene assays were used to demonstrate the effects of Myb and Elf3 expression, alongside genes that encode FOSL2 and JUND (AP-1 monomers), from plasmids transfected into immortalised SHM cells on the activities of (iii) Gja1 and (iv) Fos gene promoters (cloned from Bl6 genomic DNA). Results show (i) previous RNA-seq findings validated using qPCR, (ii) RU486 increases Myb and Elf3 transcripts more so than LPS, and (iii)-(iv) Myb expression enhances both Gja1 and Fos gene promoter activity but the opposite was observed from Elf3 expression. Together, these preliminary findings present Myb and Elf3 as novel labor-associated transcription factors of interest.

We would like to thank the reviewer for their assessment of our work.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Abstract

-Minor:

• Lines 25-27: the first letter of each transcription factor (full) name should be lower case.

We have made the requested changes in the abstract on pg. 2, in lines 24-26.

• Line 34: use lower case for ‘lipopolysaccharide’.

We have made the requested change on pg. 2, line 34.

Introduction

Concise and well-structured; relevant references have been included.

-Major:

• Lines 83-86: it would be helpful to briefly explain why MYB and ELF3 were chosen as novel proteins of interest in the Introduction, rather than this first being provided in the Results (lines 104-105), section. Furthermore, explicit hypotheses/aims of the study should be stated to justify the choices of experiments that were undertaken.

As per our response to Reviewer #1, we have provided our justification for focusing on MYB and ELF3, and our hypotheses regarding their activities in the laboring myometrial context in the introduction section, on pgs. 5-6, lines 94-109. The text now reads:

“We hypothesized that these two proteins might act as potential regulators of the laboring SMC phenotype for several reasons: both their corresponding genes are more highly transcribed at term relative to earlier quiescent gestational stages in mouse myometrial tissues [7,8,14]. Associated predicted binding motifs for both proteins are also contained within promoters of contraction-associated genes like Gja1. More notably, MYB and ELF3 have been shown to behave as transcriptional activators in cooperation with AP-1 factors in other cellular contexts. For example, Tapias and others determined that, in HeLa cells, MYB both controls the transcription of and co-localizes with AP-1 factors at the promoter of Sp3 [15], a gene prominently expressed in SMCs [reviewed in 13]. Likewise, a study by Otero and others demonstrated that ELF3 binds the Mmp13 gene promoter in chondrocyte cells; while AP-1 heterodimers can activate the Mmp13 promoter, the addition of ELF3 further compounds this activation effect [16]. ELF3 has also been shown to interact with Nf-κβ in prostate cancer cells in response to pro-inflammatory stimuli that affect late-gestation SMCs [17]. In light of these findings, we hypothesized that MYB and ELF3 might be significant members of the laboring SMC transcription regulatory network, and ones that function in conjunction with AP-1 factors.”

-Minor:

• Line 46: please define “term” gestation for PLOS readers who may not be familiar with obstetrics terminology.

As requested, we have provided the definition of “full term” for humans. The text on pg. 3, lines 45-46, now reads: “full term (or at least 39 weeks in humans)…”

Results

-Major:

• Line 138-139: it should be explicitly stated that the modelling of ‘idiopathic’ human preterm labor using mice in the present study is based on the assumption (not definitively proven) that human idiopathic preterm labor is caused solely by loss of progesterone receptor function when using RU486.

As requested, we have provided an acknowledgment of this assumption on pg. 8, in line 166. The text now reads: “a model for ‘idiopathic’ human preterm labor, and one assumed to be caused by PR function loss [18].”

• All figures: please state in the captions what the error bars are representative of (e.g. mean ± SEM or SD).

As requested, we have updated the captions in all figures to indicate that error bars are representative of average expression values ±SD.

• Fig S2: can the authors provide data to show MYB protein abundance in transfected cells (alongside the FLAG tag abundance data shown)?

We have performed Western blots on the contents of lysates from SMCs and other MYB-expressing cells and tested several commercially available anti-Myb antibodies. For all tested antibodies, we either did not observe any band, or we observed multiple bands and a lack of a size-specific band in our transfected SHM cells as well as other control cells. As a result, we are not confident that any of these antibodies work to correctly mark the Myb protein, and are therefore not confident about submitting data from any of these antibodies for publication. The western indicating MYB-Flag abundance does show expression of the MYB-flag protein at the expected size only in transfected cells. Although this does not reveal if there is any expression of endogenous MYB in the untransfected cells, transfection of MYB-flag into SHM cells did have an effect on expression of the reporter indicating that even if there is some expression of MYB under basal conditions the transfected in MYB-flag was still able to modify gene expression.

• Fig 3 and 4: captions for these figures state “Average expression level values for each construct normalised to expression output of promoter construct subject to no TF treatment” – does this mean that cells transfected with both TF construct(s) and pG-Gja1P were all normalised to cells with only pG-Gja1P, and hence why there are no error bars for the ‘pG-Gja1P’ group? If all values from cells transfected with TF constructs were normalised to ‘no TF treatment’, does this mean that ‘no TF treatment’ values used for ANOVA were all ‘1’? Why not present (and undertake statistical analysis on) the values “calculated by normalising the firefly to Renilla expression” (line 437) without further normalisation to the ‘pG-Gja1P’ group?

To clarify, our normalization method for our luciferase assay data in this paper involves using reporter output values from the promoter construct alone to normalize the reporter outputs from every other experimental condition (i.e. promoter construct with one or more of MYB, ELF3, and AP-1 factors). In so doing, we follow a past precedent in the literature, wherein output from the promoter construct alone is commonly used to normalize each set of experimental data because there can be variation in the magnitude of the response within each individual replicate set, even though the overall profile of changes remains the same. We have therefore normalized and represented our luciferase reporter data in this way to be consistent with the ways in which these kinds of data have been presented in prior scholarship. For examples of these kinds of data representations, see Thomas et al., 2021; Thakur et al., 2019; Sinh et al., 2017; Nadeem et al., 2016; Lim and Lappas, 2014; Lim et al., 2013; Blum et al., 2012; Lindström et al., 2008; and Mitchell and Lye, 2005.

• Fig 3 and 4: please state why JUND and FOSL2 were the chosen members of the AP-1 family of proteins to examine using the reporter assay, and thus why the other AP-1 monomers appear to not be relevant to this study.

As per our response to Reviewer #1, we have provided this explanation of JUND and FOSL2 on pg. 10, in lines 202-204. The text now reads:

“Within the AP-1 FOS and JUN subfamilies, FOSL2 and JUND are especially highly expressed at the protein level at labor onset in mice [19], and we therefore selected these factors for our AP-1 homodimer and heterodimer test combinations.”

-Minor:

• Fig 1, 3, 4, S1: is it possible for the authors to add or use alternative annotations to indicate statistical significance on graphs for ANOVA? For example, in Fig 3, it is unclear whether ‘pG-Gja1P, JUND/JUND’ vs ‘pG-Gja1P, JUND/JUND/MYB’ are significantly different according to ANOVA.

The ANOVA method is the most applicable standard statistical method used to test statistically significant differences among multiple experimental conditions for the qPCR and reporter assay data in the indicated figures. This method does not, as in the case of a t-test, test the statistical significance of any one individual pair of compared conditions; rather, the ANOVA allows us to compare the means of multiple conditions to test if they are significantly different from one another before completing the multiple pairwise comparisons.

As per the letter-based representational significance display, the occurrence of the same letters between two experimental conditions represents no statistically significant differences between those conditions. In the case the reviewer has highlighted here, the addition of MYB to pG-Gja1P, JUND/JUND does not significantly alter promoter activity compared to pG-Gja1P (hence the letter “B” applies to both conditions). We have used the legends in the referred-to figures to indicate how the letter display is to be interpreted: as stated in the figure captions, “Groups determined by one-way ANOVA to be significantly different (p < 0.05) from one another are labeled with different letters; to indicate p > 0.05, groups are labeled with the same letter”

• Fig 2: check style consistency (symbol colours and error bar thickness) of ‘B’ graph on right.

We have corrected the above-mentioned consistency errors in Fig 2. All symbol colors and error bar thicknesses are uniform.

• Fig 2 caption (line 154): please give the full name for “hpi” if only used once in the manuscript; also check that the ‘B’ and ‘C’ labels for the graphs match the description in the caption.

We have given the full name for “hpi” on pg. 9, in line 183 and have rewritten the figure caption to match the (revised) figure on pg. 9, in lines 183-186. The text now reads:

“Expression levels (±S.D.) of transcription factor-encoding genes Myb (B) and Elf3 (C) in sham- and LPS-treated mice (left) and in vehicle- and RU486-treated mice (right), as determined by RT-qPCR.”

• Fig S2: please state full names for all abbreviations used to label the figure in the caption.

We have stated the full names for the abbreviations in Fig S2. The text now reads:

“Protein levels of factor encoded by designated construct, with pCDNA3.1 (pcDNA) empty vector used as negative control (CTL).”

Discussion

Good consideration of recent developments relevant to MYB and ELF3.

-Major:

• Please add a ‘Study limitations’ paragraph to briefly discuss, for example, (i) limits of using cell lines and animal models to infer expression/function-related changes during human parturition (particularly for addressing the discrepancy between in vivo gene expression and in vitro gene promoter activity data for Elf3), (ii) absence of molecular biology techniques that assess interactions between transcription factors as postulated by the authors (e.g. line 262-265), and (iii) absence of functional assays beyond transcription factor/gene promoter activity that would truly demonstrate the impact of MYB and ELF3 expression on myometrial phenotype (amongst all other changes that will occur at a multitude of other proteins during physiological and pathological labor).

As requested, we have written a separate paragraph that responds to all three listed points in our discussion section on pg. 17, in lines 359-371, where we acknowledged the three aforementioned limits and indicated the kinds of experiments that could further validate the roles MYB and ELF3 play in pregnant and/or laboring SMCs. The text now reads:

“Still further work needs to be done to uncover the exact molecular mechanisms by which MYB and ELF3 impart their activities in SMCs during labor-proximal gestational stages. Non-human cell lines and animal models offer a preliminary glance at the molecular players controlling contraction-driving genes. Establishing functional changes directly relevant to human parturition, however, requires additional experimental techniques. If MYB and/or ELF3 act as transcription factors in the same complex as AP-1 and PR factors, proof-of-interaction tests via co-immunoprecipitation or proximity ligation assay experiments in human tissues are needed. Chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments can also indicate whether either protein directly binds open chromatin regions in contraction-associated genes in human term not in labor or active laboring SMCs. More broadly, If MYB and ELF3 play an essential role in establishing the contractile physiological phenotype in the myometrium, uterine contractility tests on transcription factor overexpression models like those developed by Peavey et al. for PRs [28] can best address this question.”

• Lines 282-290: it would be good for the authors to present suggestions for experiments to be done to address the two conjectures proposed to explain high Elf3 expression in vivo despite repressive effects on gene promotor activity in vitro (to elaborate on “Further work” at line 291).

As requested, we have extended our discussion to incorporate the requested suggestions on pgs. 16-17, lines 349-351 and 355-358. The text now reads:

“The question remains as to why Elf3 is highly transcribed at labor relative to day 15, when its activity would assumedly be more needed to support a labor-associated gene repression program. We present two separate, but not mutually exclusive hypotheses: since ELF3 has been shown in different cellular contexts and processes to act as an activator or repressor, perhaps ELF3 can exert a gene-activating role during labor if the protein contains different post-translational modifications or transcription factor partners that were not present in our current study. Examining the modification status of ELF3 at non-laboring and laboring stages would give a first indication if stage-specific differences exist that might impose functional consequences. Alternatively, but not necessarily mutually exclusively, our finding might indicate a possible role for ELF3 in the early postpartum period, the onset of which requires a rapid reduction in labor-associated gene expression events. In this case, having high quantities of ELF3 readily available already during labor may assist in the successful transition from SMC contractility back to quiescence. Here, testing the effects of conditional blocking of Elf3 expression before or at the labor onset stage in SMCs in mouse models can partially address this question by offering insights as to whether the postpartum involution process is consequently hindered or significantly altered.”

• Please elaborate on the difference observed for Myb and Elf3 expression between LPS and RU486 mice preterm labor models, and explicitly state the relevance of AP-1 to the RU486 model that would further justify it being the focus of the reporter assays.

As requested, we have elaborated on our finding regarding differential expression differences for Myb and Elf3 between the two preterm labor models, and discussed the significant of AP-1 factors in the RU486 model in our discussions section on pg. 15, in lines 303-309. The text now reads:

“Our further finding that Myb and Elf3 undergo a particular spike in expression in the idiopathic, but not the infection-simulating model of preterm labor suggests that the corresponding proteins may be involved in specific pathways in laboring SMCs. MYB and ELF3 may be targeted specifically by the PR signaling pathway at term. Since AP-1 factor-mediated effects on Gja1 promoter activity differ depending upon their PR isoform partner and its ligand status [12], it is likely that other transcription factors may be likewise affected.”

Materials & Methods

-Major:

• A good description of how mice myometrium tissues were dissected and stored after removal from the body has been included (lines 362-367). Please add an equivalent description for human myometrium tissues in the ‘Human tissue collection’ section.

We have expanded our description of the human myometrial tissue collection on pg. 19, in lines 407, and 415-417. The text now reads:

“After receiving written consent, myometrial biopsies from healthy women undergoing term not in labor elective Caesarean sections (TNL, n=5) or spontaneous, non-induced term labor (TL, n=5) were collected and transferred from the operating theatre to the laboratory. For the TL group, biopsies were obtained during emergency Caesarean sections due to breech presentation and fetal distress. Patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), clinical chorioamnionitis, fetal anomalies, gestational diabetes/hypertension, cervical cerclage, preeclampsia, antepartum hemorrhage, and autoimmune disorders were excluded from the study. After the delivery of fetus and placenta, a small 1.5 cm sliver of myometrium was collected from the upper margin of the uterine incision made in the lower uterine segment in both laboring and non-laboring women prior to closing of the uterus. The endometrium was removed, and myometrial tissues were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until needed.”

• Lines 325-327: were cases of artificial induction and augmentation of labor also excluded?

Yes, we only collected myometrial samples from patients undergoing spontaneous, non-induced term labor and elective Caesarean procedures. We have clarified this in our methods paragraph on pg. 19, in line 407 (see in above response).

• Lines 375-376: either include Supplemental Data and/or citations to support the statement that “these reference genes were most consistently expressed at similar levels across gestational time points”.

As requested, we have added the citations to the studies that have previously utilized these reference genes on pg. 22, in line 466.

• Line 377-379: review the technical accuracy and/or whether the positioning of this statement at the end of the paragraph makes sense. Were the authors referring to checking for genomic DNA contamination during qPCR, which uses DNA polymerase, or at conversion of RNA to cDNA using reverse transcriptase (and checked using agarose gel electrophoresis)?

We have provided this requested clarification of on pg. 22, in lines 467-469. The text now reads:

“All samples were confirmed not to have DNA contamination because no target amplification was observed with DNA polymerase in the qPCR reactions for reverse transcriptase-negative samples.”

• “Reporter plasmid cloning and acquisition” section (pages 18-19): insert mention of S2 Fig, and also state whether transfection efficiency for cells used for reporter assays was checked for all n=3 shown in Fig 3 and 4.

Since S2 Fig displays the western blot results that confirm the successful transfection of SHM cells with our constructs of interest, we have added a reference to S2 Fig in the Western blot section on pg. 25 in line 522, as this appears the more appropriate location for this reference.

In first establishing our transfection experiments, we set up a test transfection with pmaxGFP to ensure that the high (>90%) transfection efficiency commonly associated with SHM cells was observed in our own experiments. When we checked for transfection with pmaxGFP, we observed both at 24 hours post transfection and at 48 hours post transfection that our results were consistent with this fact, and that the vast majority of cells (>90%) are well-transfected.

We also want to note that the Renilla (pGL4.75) plasmid we use in our luciferase vectors internally controls for transfection efficiency. The output of Renilla can vary from replicate to replicate, but is similar within each condition and therefore allows us to accurately determine, despite replicate-to-replicate variation, whether the overall profile of changes in reporter activity between different test conditions is consistent. We also noted that all experiments display a similar level of Renilla expression from replicate to replicate, indicating no gross variations in transfection efficiency.

• Table S3: check all primer sequences provided are accurate, as well as their text formatting.

As requested, we verified that all provided primer sequences are accurate, and have added a brief caption that explains the formatting of the primer sequences in S3 Table in particular. This caption reads:

“Lowercase letters represent additional portion of Gja1 coding region before the first nucleotide in the codon encoding the first Met residue (Gja1) or the overhang portion of the primer corresponding to the sequence in the target vector backbone. Refseq accession numbers obtained from portion of primer sequences that does not correspond to overhang.”

• Line 423: please state what equipment (and software) was used to acquire the (digital) images of the ECL reagent-treated membranes, as well as briefly describe how the images were analysed.

We have provided the equipment and software name details and expanded upon the membrane treatment details on pg. 25, in lines 522-523. The text now states:

“Membranes were developed and images were visualized (SFig2) using Bio-Rad Image Lab Software.”

Minor:

• Details for animal research ethics (lines 332-336) would be better placed under the same ‘Ethics statement’ heading (page 15) used for the ethics described for the human-derived samples, but as a separate paragraph. The remainder of the ‘Animal model’ section (lines 336-342) could then form the first paragraph of the ‘Mouse gestational model myometrial tissue collection’ headed section (page 16) instead.

As per the reviewer’s comments, we have reorganized these sections on pages 19-22, lines 392-455. The text with the pertinent changes now reads:

Lines 392-403: “Ethics statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the protocol approved by the Research Ethics Board, Sinai Health System REB# 02-0061A and REB# 18-0168A. All subjects donating myometrial biopsies for research gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All research using human tissues was performed in a class II-certified laboratory by qualified staff trained in biological and chemical safety protocols, and in accordance with Health Canada guidelines and regulations.

All mouse experiments were approved by the Animal Care Committee of The Centre for Phenogenomics (TCP) (Animal Use Protocol #0164H). Guidelines set by the Canadian Council for Animal Care were strictly followed for handling of mice. Virgin outbred CD-1 or inbred Bl6 (C57/Bl6) mice used in these experiments were purchased from Harlan Laboratories (http://www.harlan.com/).”

Lines 419-455: “Mouse gestational model tissue collection

All animals were housed in a pathogen-free, humidity-controlled 12h light, 12h dark cycle TCP facility with free access to food and water. Female CD-1 and Bl6 mice were naturally bred; the morning of vaginal plug detection was designated as gestational day (d) 1. Pregnant mice were maintained until the appropriate gestational time point. For term labor models, gestation in mice on average is up to 3 weeks, where delivery under these conditions occurred during the evening of d19 or morning of d20. Our criteria for labor were based on delivery of at least one pup.

In the spontaneous labor gestational model, samples were collected on gestational days 15, 17, 19 term-not-in-labor (TNIL), 19-20 during active labor (LAB), and 2–8 hours postpartum (PP) for CD-1 mice and on gestational days 15, 18.75 (TNIL), 19-20 during active labor (LAB) and 2–8 hours PP for Bl6 mice. Myometrial tissues were collected at 10 AM on all gestational days with the exception of labor samples (LAB), which were collected once the dams had delivered at least one pup. In the infection-associated inflammation preterm labor model, mice underwent a mini-laparotomy under isoflurane for anesthesia on gestational day 15, and were given an intrauterine injection of either sterile saline (sham) or 125 µg of E. coli-derived LPS (serotype 055:B5) in sterile saline. Mice were sacrificed 24 hours after sham surgery or during LPS-induced preterm labor, which occurred 24 hours post infection +/- 6 hours. In the idiopathic preterm labor model, mice were subcutaneously injected with vehicle (corn oil/ethanol) or 150 µg of mifepristone (RU486) on gestational day 15. Mice were sacrificed 24 hours after injection or during RU486-induced preterm labor, which occurred 24 hours post injection +/- 2 hours.

Mice were euthanized by carbon dioxide inhalation. The part of the uterine horn close to the cervix from which the fetus was already expelled during term or preterm labor was removed and discarded; the remainder was collected for analysis. For each day of gestation, tissue was collected from 4-8 different animals. Isolated uteri were placed into ice-cold PBS. Uterine horns were bisected longitudinally and dissected away from both pups and placentas. The decidua basalis was cut away from the myometrial tissue. The decidua parietalis was carefully removed from the myometrial tissue by mechanical scraping on ice, which removed the entire luminal and glandular epithelium and most of the uterine stroma. Myometrial tissues were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until needed.”

• Line 320: please add “Human” to the start of the ‘tissue collection’ heading to better distinguish from the section that describes mice tissue collection.

As requested, we have added this term on pg. 19, in line 405.

• Line 324: do the authors mean ‘breech’ where it states “bridge” presentation?

We have made this correction on pg. 19, line 409.

• Would it be possible for the authors to present median with range values for gestation age, gravida, and parity for their human study participants – potentially in a Supplemental Table? BMI, ethnicity, whether participants had a previous caesarean section, and presence/absence of fetal membrane rupture immediately prior to caesarean section would also be of interest if available.

All term not in labor and term labor samples were collected between 38-40 weeks, while a history of previous Caesarean section is part of our inclusion criteria for term not in labor samples. Aside from this, we do not have the requested information for all samples from available recordings at the time of collection.

• Line 350: insert ‘preterm’ before “labor”.

We have made this insertion on pg. 21, in line 439.

• Line 373: state what qPCR reagent was used with the cDNA samples and primers (e.g. SYBR Green?).

We have clarified that we have used SYBR Select from Thermo Fisher Scientific on pg. 22, in line 461.

• Lines 374-375: state which housekeeping gene was assigned to each mouse strain (as indicated in Fig 1 and S1).

As requested, we have made this assignation on pg. 22, in line 463. The text now reads:

“Target gene expression was monitored by qPCR using SYBR Select (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and primers that target sequences within the exons of pertinent mRNA transcripts (S1/2 Tables) and normalized to levels of total H1f0 (Bl6 mouse), Tbp (CD-1 mouse) or Mapk1 (human) mRNA.”

• Tables S1, S2 & S3: please add RefSeq accession numbers used to confirm specificity of each pair of primers (using e.g. NCBI Primer-BLAST).

We have provided the requested accession numbers in the tables, as appropriate.

• Lines 382-383: Abbreviations – “DMEM media” technically uses the word ‘media’ twice; same applies to “Opti-MEM media” at lines 433-434. Please state the full name for “FBS” (instead of using the abbreviation if only used once in the manuscript).

We have removed the double use of the word “media” in the cell culture methodology section, and stated the full name of FBS, as requested, on pg. 22, in line 473, and pg. 25, in line 534.

• Lines 381-385: please state where the SHM cells were sourced from. Purchased commercially or donated by a named collaborator?

We have clarified our internal sourcing of SHM cells from Professor Oksana Shynlova on pg. 22, in line 472.

• Line 382: specify type of plate if “plate” is to be used in this sentence.

We have removed the term “plate” in this instance (now removed on pg. 22, in line 473).

• Line 383: state the working concentrations of penicillin and streptomycin in the media used instead of stating “1%”.

We have provided these working concentration values on pg. 22, in line 474. The text now reads:

“Syrian hamster myometrial (SHM) cells supplied by Professor Oksana Shynlova were cultured in phenol-free DMEM supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 100 IU/ml penicillin, and 100 µg/ml streptomycin (Pen-Strep).”

• Line 385: please state what method of mycoplasma testing was used.

We have clarified that we have utilized the Mycoplasma PCR Detection Kit from Biovision (catalog #K1476-100) on pg. 23, in line 477.

• Line 395: what was the “pCI” construct used for?

We have provided this clarification on pg. 23, in lines 488-492. The text now reads:

“All transcription factor-encoding constructs consisted of a pcDNA3.1 plasmid backbone, with the exception of the plasmid encoding ELF3, which consisted of a pCI plasmid backbone. The potential regulatory activity of any one transcription factor-encoding plasmid was always compared to its gene-free plasmid backbone counterpart.”

• Lines 395-397: check the relevance of references 29 and 30 for their corresponding sentences.

As requested, we have checked and corrected these references on pg. 23, in lines 494 and 496. The text now respectively refers to the original paper characterizing ELF3 and its associated vector (Oettgen et al., 1997) and the paper assigned to the MYB vector we used that is deposited with Addgene (Roe et al., 2015).

• Lines 402 and 435: missing degrees symbol in “-80C”.

We have added the degrees symbol in these instances, now on pg. 24, in line 501 and on pg. 25, in line 536.

• Line 417: please check the catalog number or supplier info for anti-ELF3.

We have checked and corrected the catalog number to its correct name, A6371, now on pg. 24, in line 516.

Other minor points

• Check “Hist1” is the correct gene name (and not referring to a gene cluster).

As requested, regarding this gene, we have provided the name that is associated with the most updated version of the UCSC Genome Browser, both throughout the manuscript and in the relevant figure.

• ‘MAPK1’ is the official gene name for ERK2; the latter is considered a synonym

We have changed every instance in the manuscript and relevant figure of our use of ERK2 to MAPK1.

• Check that Greek letters are used instead of their Latin substitutes (e.g. “u” (where it should be ‘�’) at lines 356 and 412).

We have made the requested corrections, now on pg. 21, in line 444, and on pg. 24, in line 511.

• Please be consistent with use of abbreviations. For example, “GD” was used to abbreviate ‘gestation day’ in line 339, but then “gestation day” was used throughout the following ‘Mouse gestational model myometrial tissue collection’ section in Materials and Methods instead of ‘GD’. Same with “pp” for ‘postpartum in lines 347-348.

We have revised the manuscript to use “d” consistently throughout the manuscript text and relevant figures to indicate the gestational day. We have made the requested alteration in the abbreviation for postpartum, now on pg. 21, in line 435.

• Please provide full name for the “TF” abbreviation at its first use (line 178?).

We have reviewed the manuscript so that the full name – transcription factor – is used consistently throughout instead of the abbreviated “TF.” As requested, we have provided the full name for “TF” in that location, now on pg. 11, in line 218.

• Check citations. For example, according to the References list, Sinh is first author for reference 20 (not 19) in lines 272-274, and cited reference 28 in line 307 looks like it should be 29.

We have checked all and corrected any erroneous citations. We would like to note that, with the addition of several new references in the revised version of the manuscript, the numbers corresponding to particular references have changed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviews.docx

Decision Letter 1

Atsushi Asakura

6 Dec 2022

MYB and ELF3 differentially modulate labor-inducing gene expression in myometrial cells

PONE-D-22-17810R1

Dear Dr. Mitchell,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Atsushi Asakura, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript was well-revised. Additional information was included in the introduction section. I recommend this article for publishing.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Atsushi Asakura

23 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-17810R1

MYB and ELF3 differentially modulate labor-inducing gene expression in myometrial cells

Dear Dr. Mitchell:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Atsushi Asakura

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Supporting Information for: MYB and ELF3 differentially modulate labor-inducing gene expression in myometrial cells.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images. Raw images for S2 Fig in S1 File.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviews.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES