Sure. I could quote a bundle of suttas but for the sake of conversation, in my own words, as I understand it:
The characteristic of dukkha is seen through anicca, because of the fact that what is impermanent, subject to dissolution, A: will bring stress when clung to, upon it's inevitable dissolution, and B: cannot provide any lasting satisfaction. I think that's pretty straightforward.
In the discourses anatta is often introduced with the logic that what is stressful is not fit to be regarded as self. I think that in one sense, this explanation probably had something to do with countering the Brahmic concepts of a blissful (permanent) self. And in another sense, our self-concept is itself bundled up in clinging, it is sustained by the accretion of "I" and "mine", etc. This is the very same clinging that causes stress in the aforementioned ways, due to anicca. Plus it is all the more stressful to lose what we consider to be "ours" or "us". Therefore it is smart to not get caught up in self-ing those things, since it just leads to more stress.
And also, our self-conceit is tied to (unwise) notions of permanency, continuity. Of an observer, of objects which are observed, of consciousness. By developing the perception of the inconstancy of all the components of our experience and seeing through those assumptions of permanency, insight into anatta can be directly developed.
So, that's my elaboration! Feel free to pick at it. There are definitely a lot of ways that these relationships can be conceptualized.