4.6 Article

Phosphorylation of IRF-3 on Ser 339 generates a hyperactive form of IRF-3 through regulation of dimerization and CBP association

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 82, 期 8, 页码 3984-3996

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02526-07

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The I kappa B kinase-related kinases, TBK1 and IKKi, were recently shown to be responsible for the C-terminal phosphorylation of IRF-3. However, the identity of the phosphoacceptor site(s) targeted by these two kinases remains unclear. Using a biological assay based on the IRF-3-mediated production of antiviral cytokines, we demonstrate here that all Ser/Thr clusters of IRF-3 are required for its optimal transactivation capacity. In vitro kinase assays using full-length His-IRF-3 as a substrate combined with mass spectrometry analysis revealed that serine 402 and serine 396 are directly targeted by TBK1. Analysis of Ser/Thr-to-Ala mutants revealed that the S396A mutation, located in cluster II, abolished IRF-3 homodimerization, CBP association, and nuclear accumulation. However, production of antiviral cytokines was still present in IRF-3 S396A-expressing cells. Interestingly, mutation of serine 339, which is involved in IRF-3 stability, also abrogated CBP association and dimerization without affecting gene transactivation as long as serine 396 remained available for phosphorylation. Complementation of IRF-3-knockout mouse embryonic fibroblasts also revealed a compensatory mechanism of serine 339 and serine 396 in the ability of IRF-3 to induce expression of the interferon-stimulated genes ISG56 and ISG54. These data lead us to reconsider the current model of IRF-3 activation. We propose that conventional biochemical assays used to measure IRF-3 activation are not sensitive enough to detect the small fraction of IRF-3 needed to elicit a biological response. Importantly, our study establishes a molecular link between the role of serine 339 in IRF-3 homodimerization, CBP association, and its destabilization.

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

4.6
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