Literature DB >> 18836037

E2F in vivo binding specificity: comparison of consensus versus nonconsensus binding sites.

Alina Rabinovich1, Victor X Jin, Roman Rabinovich, Xiaoqin Xu, Peggy J Farnham.   

Abstract

We have previously shown that most sites bound by E2F family members in vivo do not contain E2F consensus motifs. However, differences between in vivo target sites that contain or lack a consensus E2F motif have not been explored. To understand how E2F binding specificity is achieved in vivo, we have addressed how E2F family members are recruited to core promoter regions that lack a consensus motif and are excluded from other regions that contain a consensus motif. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation coupled with DNA microarray analysis (ChIP-chip) assays, we have shown that the predominant factors specifying whether E2F is recruited to an in vivo binding site are (1) the site must be in a core promoter and (2) the region must be utilized as a promoter in that cell type. We have tested three models for recruitment of E2F to core promoters lacking a consensus site, including (1) indirect recruitment, (2) looping to the core promoter mediated by an E2F bound to a distal motif, and (3) assisted binding of E2F to a site that weakly resembles an E2F motif. To test these models, we developed a new in vivo assay, termed eChIP, which allows analysis of transcription factor binding to isolated fragments. Our findings suggest that in vivo (1) a consensus motif is not sufficient to recruit E2Fs, (2) E2Fs can bind to isolated regions that lack a consensus motif, and (3) binding can require regions other than the best match to the E2F motif.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18836037      PMCID: PMC2577861          DOI: 10.1101/gr.080622.108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genome Res        ISSN: 1088-9051            Impact factor:   9.043


  57 in total

Review 1.  Gene therapy progress and prospects: episomally maintained self-replicating systems.

Authors:  M Conese; C Auriche; F Ascenzioni
Journal:  Gene Ther       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.250

Review 2.  The E2F transcriptional network: old acquaintances with new faces.

Authors:  Desssislava K Dimova; Nicholas J Dyson
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2005-04-18       Impact factor: 9.867

3.  A role for Myc in facilitating transcription activation by E2F1.

Authors:  J Y Leung; G L Ehmann; P H Giangrande; J R Nevins
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 9.867

4.  Subunit composition determines E2F DNA-binding site specificity.

Authors:  Y Tao; R F Kassatly; W D Cress; J M Horowitz
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.272

5.  Cloning and characterization of mouse E2F8, a novel mammalian E2F family member capable of blocking cellular proliferation.

Authors:  Baidehi Maiti; Jing Li; Alain de Bruin; Faye Gordon; Cynthia Timmers; Rene Opavsky; Kaustubha Patil; John Tuttle; Whitney Cleghorn; Gustavo Leone
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2005-02-18       Impact factor: 5.157

6.  Chromosome-wide mapping of estrogen receptor binding reveals long-range regulation requiring the forkhead protein FoxA1.

Authors:  Jason S Carroll; X Shirley Liu; Alexander S Brodsky; Wei Li; Clifford A Meyer; Anna J Szary; Jerome Eeckhoute; Wenlin Shao; Eli V Hestermann; Timothy R Geistlinger; Edward A Fox; Pamela A Silver; Myles Brown
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 7.  Introduction to the E2F family: protein structure and gene regulation.

Authors:  J E Slansky; P J Farnham
Journal:  Curr Top Microbiol Immunol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.291

8.  The Myc negative autoregulation mechanism requires Myc-Max association and involves the c-myc P2 minimal promoter.

Authors:  L M Facchini; S Chen; W W Marhin; J N Lear; L Z Penn
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.272

9.  Release of cell cycle constraints in mouse melanocytes by overexpressed mutant E2F1E132, but not by deletion of p16INK4A or p21WAF1/CIP1.

Authors:  R Halaban; E Cheng; Y Zhang; C E Mandigo; M R Miglarese
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  1998-05-14       Impact factor: 9.867

10.  E2F-8: an E2F family member with a similar organization of DNA-binding domains to E2F-7.

Authors:  Nicola Logan; Anne Graham; Xuijie Zhao; Rebecca Fisher; Baidehi Maiti; Gustavo Leone; Nicholas B La Thangue
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2005-07-21       Impact factor: 9.867

View more
  80 in total

1.  Kinase suppressor of ras 1 (KSR1) regulates PGC1α and estrogen-related receptor α to promote oncogenic Ras-dependent anchorage-independent growth.

Authors:  Kurt W Fisher; Binita Das; Robert L Kortum; Oleg V Chaika; Robert E Lewis
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2011-04-25       Impact factor: 4.272

2.  Identification of E2F1 as an important transcription factor for the regulation of tapasin expression.

Authors:  Juergen Bukur; Felix Herrmann; Diana Handke; Christian Recktenwald; Barbara Seliger
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 5.157

3.  Rb/E2F regulates expression of neogenin during neuronal migration.

Authors:  Matthew G Andrusiak; Kelly A McClellan; Delphie Dugal-Tessier; Lisa M Julian; Sonia P Rodrigues; David S Park; Timothy E Kennedy; Ruth S Slack
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2010-11-08       Impact factor: 4.272

4.  The pro-death role of Cited2 in stroke is regulated by E2F1/4 transcription factors.

Authors:  Tianwen Huang; Yasmilde Rodríguez González; Dianbo Qu; En Huang; Farzaneh Safarpour; Eugene Wang; Alvin Joselin; Doo Soon Im; Steve M Callaghan; Wassamon Boonying; Lisa Julian; Sally L Dunwoodie; Ruth S Slack; David S Park
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2019-04-09       Impact factor: 5.157

5.  E2F1 controls germ cell apoptosis during the first wave of spermatogenesis.

Authors:  E Rotgers; M Nurmio; E Pietilä; S Cisneros-Montalvo; J Toppari
Journal:  Andrology       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.842

6.  The retinoblastoma tumor suppressor controls androgen signaling and human prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Ankur Sharma; Wen-Shuz Yeow; Adam Ertel; Ilsa Coleman; Nigel Clegg; Chellappagounder Thangavel; Colm Morrissey; Xiaotun Zhang; Clay E S Comstock; Agnieszka K Witkiewicz; Leonard Gomella; Erik S Knudsen; Peter S Nelson; Karen E Knudsen
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 14.808

7.  Cell-type selective chromatin remodeling defines the active subset of FOXA1-bound enhancers.

Authors:  Jérôme Eeckhoute; Mathieu Lupien; Clifford A Meyer; Michael P Verzi; Ramesh A Shivdasani; X Shirley Liu; Myles Brown
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 9.043

8.  RB1 deficiency in triple-negative breast cancer induces mitochondrial protein translation.

Authors:  Robert A Jones; Tyler J Robinson; Jeff C Liu; Mariusz Shrestha; Veronique Voisin; YoungJun Ju; Philip E D Chung; Giovanna Pellecchia; Victoria L Fell; SooIn Bae; Lakshmi Muthuswamy; Alessandro Datti; Sean E Egan; Zhe Jiang; Gustavo Leone; Gary D Bader; Aaron Schimmer; Eldad Zacksenhaus
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 14.808

9.  Multilayered chromatin analysis reveals E2f, Smad and Zfx as transcriptional regulators of histones.

Authors:  David Gokhman; Ilana Livyatan; Badi Sri Sailaja; Shai Melcer; Eran Meshorer
Journal:  Nat Struct Mol Biol       Date:  2012-12-09       Impact factor: 15.369

10.  Evidence that Igf2 down-regulation in postnatal tissues and up-regulation in malignancies is driven by transcription factor E2f3.

Authors:  Julian C Lui; Jeffrey Baron
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.