4.1 Review

Ubiquitin-like modifications in the DNA damage response

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2017.07.001

关键词

Ubiquitin-like modifiers (UBLs); DNA damage response; SUM Oylation; NEDDylation I; SGylation; FATylation; UFMylation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [31530016, 31461143012]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2013CB911002, 2015CB910601]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genomic DNA is damaged at an extremely high frequency by both endogenous and environmental factors. An improper response to DNA damage can lead to genome instability, accelerate the aging process and ultimately cause various human diseases, including cancers and neurodegenerative disorders. The mechanisms that underlie the cellular DNA damage response (DDR) are complex and are regulated at many levels, including at the level of post-translational modification (PTM). Since the discovery of ubiquitin in 1975 and ubiquitylation as a form of PTM in the early 1980s, a number of ubiquitin-like modifiers (UBLs) have been identified, including small ubiquitin-like modifiers (SUMOs), neural precursor cell expressed, developmentally down-regulated 8 (NEDD8), interferon-stimulated gene 15 (ISG15), human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-F adjacent transcript 10 (FAT10), ubiquitin-fold modifier 1 (UFRM1), URM1 ubiquitin-related modifier-1 (URM1), autophagy-related protein 12 (ATG12), autophagy-related protein 8 (ATG8), fan ubiquitin-like protein 1 (FUB1) and histone mono-ubiquitylation 1 (HUB1). All of these modifiers have known roles in the cellular response to various forms of stress, and delineating their underlying molecular mechanisms and functions is fundamental in enhancing our understanding of human disease and longevity. To date, however, the molecular mechanisms and functions of these UBLs in the DDR remain largely unknown. This review summarizes the current status of PTMs by UBLs in the DDR and their implication in cancer diagnosis, therapy and drug discovery.

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

4.1
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