scholarly journals The Corepressor mSin3a Interacts with the Proline-Rich Domain of p53 and Protects p53 from Proteasome-Mediated Degradation

2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 3974-3985 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack T. Zilfou ◽  
William H. Hoffman ◽  
Michael Sank ◽  
Donna L. George ◽  
Maureen Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Suppressor ◽  
Binding Domain ◽  
Protein Stabilization ◽  
Independent Manner ◽  
Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor Protein ◽  
Rich Domain ◽  
Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor ◽  
Retinoblastoma Tumor ◽  
Sin3 Complex

ABSTRACT While the transactivation function of the tumor suppressor p53 is well understood, less is known about the transrepression functions of this protein. We have previously shown that p53 interacts with the corepressor protein mSin3a (hereafter designated Sin3) in vivo and that this interaction is critical for the ability of p53 to repress gene expression. In the present study, we demonstrate that expression of Sin3 results in posttranslational stabilization of both exogenous and endogenous p53, due to an inhibition of proteasome-mediated degradation of this protein. Stabilization of p53 by Sin3 requires the Sin3-binding domain, determined here to map to the proline-rich region of p53, from amino acids 61 to 75. The correlation between Sin3 binding and stabilization supports the hypothesis that this domain of p53 may normally be subject to a destabilizing influence. The finding that a synthetic mutant of p53 lacking the Sin3-binding domain has an increased half-life in cells, compared to wild-type p53, supports this premise. Interestingly, unlike retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein, MDMX, and p14ARF, Sin3 stabilizes p53 in an MDM2-independent manner. The ability of Sin3 to stabilize p53 is consistent with the model whereby these two proteins must exist on a promoter for extended periods, in order for repression to be an effective mechanism of gene regulation. This model is consistent with our data indicating that, unlike the p300-p53 complex, the p53-Sin3 complex is immunologically detectable for prolonged periods following exposure of cells to agents of DNA damage.

INVESTIGATING THE ROLE AND REGULATION OF THE SPECIFIC ANDGENERAL PRB-E2F1 INTERACTIONS

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Matthew J Cecchini ◽  
Frederick A Dick
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Suppressor ◽  
Binding Site ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor Protein ◽  
Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor ◽  
C Terminus ◽  
Proliferation And Apoptosis ◽  
Retinoblastoma Tumor ◽  
And Control

Background/Purpose. The retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein (pRB) plays a central role in proliferative control and is a frequent target for inactivation in cancer. The G1-Sphase transition of the cell cycle is regulated by pRB, which is capable of interacting with E2F family members and inhibiting the transcription of genesrequired to progress into S-phase. E2F1 is unique from other E2F family members as it can induce both apoptosis and proliferation. To control these contrasting functions of E2F1, a second E2F1 binding site exists in the C-terminus of pRB that can control apoptosis separately from proliferation. This anti-apoptotic function of pRBcan in some circumstances promote tumorigenesis, which leads to the question; is pRB a tumor suppressor or an oncogene? Methods. To investigate this, a gene-targeted mouse model is being engineered to selectively disrupt the ability of pRB to control proliferation through the general E2F binding site while still retaining the ability tocontrol apoptosis through the specific E2F1 site. Results. A series of novel mutants were engineered to selectively disrupt the binding of E2Fs at the general site, and prevent pRB from controlling proliferation. The mutants retain the ability to bind E2F1 and control apoptosis through thespecific binding site, which is not disrupted. Conclusions. By separating the ability of pRB to control proliferation and apoptosis under in vivo conditions, a better understanding into the significance of these two functions in development and tumorigenesis can be gained.

scholarly journals Differential Regulation of Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor Protein by G1 Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Complexes In Vivo

2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (14) ◽  
pp. 4773-4784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergei A. Ezhevsky ◽  
Alan Ho ◽  
Michelle Becker-Hapak ◽  
Penny K. Davis ◽  
Steven F. Dowdy
Keyword(s):  
Cyclin E ◽  
Active Form ◽  
Dominant Negative ◽  
Tumor Suppressor Protein ◽  
Cyclin D ◽  
Cyclin Dependent Kinase ◽  
Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor Protein ◽  
Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor ◽  
Retinoblastoma Tumor

ABSTRACT The retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein (pRB) negatively regulates early-G1 cell cycle progression, in part, by sequestering E2F transcription factors and repressing E2F-responsive genes. Although pRB is phosphorylated on up to 16 cyclin-dependent kinase (Cdk) sites by multiple G1 cyclin-Cdk complexes, the active form(s) of pRB in vivo remains unknown. pRB is present as an unphosphorylated protein in G0 quiescent cells and becomes hypophosphorylated (∼2 mol of PO4 to 1 mol of pRB) in early G1 and hyperphosphorylated (∼10 mol of PO4 to 1 mol of pRB) in late G1 phase. Here, we report that hypophosphorylated pRB, present in early G1, represents the biologically active form of pRB in vivo that is assembled with E2Fs and E1A but that both unphosphorylated pRB in G0 and hyperphosphorylated pRB in late G1 fail to become assembled with E2Fs and E1A. Furthermore, using transducible dominant-negative TAT fusion proteins that differentially target cyclin D-Cdk4 or cyclin D-Cdk6 (cyclin D-Cdk4/6) and cyclin E-Cdk2 complexes, namely, TAT-p16 and TAT–dominant-negative Cdk2, respectively, we found that, in vivo, cyclin D-Cdk4/6 complexes hypophosphorylate pRB in early G1 and that cyclin E-Cdk2 complexes inactivate pRB by hyperphosphorylation in late G1. Moreover, we found that cycling human tumor cells expressing deregulated cyclin D-Cdk4/6 complexes, due to deletion of the p16 INK4a gene, contained hypophosphorylated pRB that was bound to E2Fs in early G1and that E2F-responsive genes, including those for dihydrofolate reductase and cyclin E, were transcriptionally repressed. Thus, we conclude that, physiologically, pRB is differentially regulated by G1 cyclin-Cdk complexes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document