4.8 Article

The E3 ubiquitin ligase complex component COP1 regulates PEA3 group member stability and transcriptional activity

期刊

ONCOGENE
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 1810-1820

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/onc.2009.471

关键词

ETS; ERM; transcription factor; Ub-modification; COP1; DET1

资金

  1. 'Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer' (Comite Nord, France)
  2. 'Association pour la Recherche contre le Cancer' (France)
  3. 'Conseil Regional Nord/Pas-de-Calais' (France)
  4. European Regional Development Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we report that the PEA3 group members interact with the mammalian really interesting new gene (RING) E3 ubiquitin ligase constitutive photomorphogenetic 1 (COP1), which mediates ubiquitylation and subsequent proteasome degradation of the p53 and c-Jun transcription factors. This interaction is mediated by the central region of COP1 including the coiled-coil domain and two COP1-interacting consensus motifs localized in the well-conserved N-terminal transactivation domain of the PEA3 group members. At the transcriptional level, COP1 reduces the transcriptional activity of ERM and the two other PEA3 group proteins on Ets-responsive reporter genes; this effect being dependent on the RING domain of COP1 and the two COP1-interacting motifs of ERM. Reduced transcriptional activity was, however, not related to COP1-induced changes in ERM stability. In fact, increased ubiquitylation and subsequent proteasome-mediated degradation of ERM is achieved only when COP1 is expressed with DET1, a key COP1 partner within the ubiquitylation complex. Conversely, we show that the depletion of COP1 or DET1 by small interference RNA (siRNA) in U2OS cells stabilizes endogenous ERM whereas only COP1 knockdown enhances expression of ICAM-1, a gene regulated by this transcription factor. These results indicate that COP1 is a complex regulator of ERM and the two other PEA3 group members. Oncogene (2010) 29, 1810-1820; doi:10.1038/onc.2009.471; published online 11 January 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据