THE NCoR CO-REPRESSOR INTERACTS WITH THE KAISO TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR THROUGH A MECHANISM DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF BCL6 INTERACTION

K. I. Balagurov; Балагуров К. И.; P. G. Georgiev; Георгиев П. Г.; A. N. Bonchuk; Бончук А. Н.

doi:10.31857/S2686738922600777

THE NCoR CO-REPRESSOR INTERACTS WITH THE KAISO TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR THROUGH A MECHANISM DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF BCL6 INTERACTION

Авторлар: Balagurov K.¹, Georgiev P.¹, Bonchuk A.¹
Мекемелер:
1. Institute of Gene Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Шығарылым: Том 508, № 1 (2023)
Беттер: 91-94
Бөлім: Articles
URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2686-7389/article/view/135684
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S2686738922600777
EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MPYLIL
ID: 135684

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Ашық рұқсат
Рұқсат жабық

Рұқсат берілді
Рұқсат жабық

Тек жазылушылар үшін

Аннотация
Авторлар туралы
Әдебиет тізімі
Қосымша файлдар
Статистика

Аннотация

The vertebrate transcription factor Kaiso binds specifically to methylated DNA sequences using C2H2-type zinc fingers. In addition to C2H2-domains, the BTB/POZ domain, which forms homodimers, is located at the N-terminus of Kaiso. Kaiso, like several other well-studied BTB/POZ proteins, including BCL6, interacts with the NCoR (nuclear co-repressor) protein, which determines the landing of transcriptional repressive complexes on chromatin. Using the yeast two-hybrid system, we have shown that the N-terminal domain of NCoR interacts with the C-terminal zinc fingers of Kaiso, and not with its BTB/POZ domain, as previously assumed. The results obtained demonstrate that NCoR interacts with various transcription factor domains, which can increase the efficiency of attracting NCoR-dependent repressor complexes to regulatory regions of the genome.

Негізгі сөздер

co-repressors, zinc-finger proteins, C2H2-domains, transcription factors, transcriptional repression

Әдебиет тізімі

Prokhortchouk A., Hendrich B., Jorgensen H., et al. // Genes and Development. 2001. V. 15,13. P. 1613–1618.
Yoon H., Chan D., Reynolds A., et al. // Molecular Cell. 2003. V. 12,3. P. 723–734.
Mottis A., Mouchiroud L., Auwerx J. // Genes and Development. 2013. V. 27,8. P. 819–835.
Yu J., Li Y., Ishizuka T., et al. // EMBO Journal. 2003. V. 22,13. P. 3403–3410.
Guenther M.G., Barak O., Lazar M. A. // Molecular and Cellular biology. 2001. V. 21,18. P. 6091–6101.
Horlein A.J., Naar A.M., Heinzel T., et al. // Nature. 1995. V. 377. P. 397–404.
Park D.M., Li J., Okamoto H., et al. // Cell Cycle. 2007. V. 6,4. P. 467–470.
Ahmad K., Melnick A., Lax S., et al. // Molecular Cell. 2003. V. 12,6. P. 1551–1564.
Bilic I., Koesters C., Unger B., et al. // Nature Immunology. 2006. V. 7,4. P. 392–400.
Huynh K.D., Bardwell V.J. // Oncogene. 1998. V. 17. P. 2473–2484.
Zacharchenko T., Wright S. // IUCrJ. 2021. V. 8. P. 154–160.
Buck-Koehntop B.A., Stanfield R.L., Ekiert D.C., et al. // PNAS. 2012. V. 109,38. P. 15229–15234.
Jumper J., Evans R., Pritzel A., et al. // Nature. 2021. V. 596,7873. P. 583–589.