4.6 Article

An Active Role of the ΔN Isoform of p63 in Regulating Basal Keratin Genes K5 and K14 and Directing Epidermal Cell Fate

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 4, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005623

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01AR049238, R01 AR049238] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: One major defining characteristic of the basal keratinocytes of the stratified epithelium is the expression of the keratin genes K5 and K14. The temporal and spatial expression of these two genes is usually tightly and coordinately regulated at the transcriptional level. This ensures the obligate pairing of K5 and K14 proteins to generate an intermediate filament (IF) network that is essential for the structure and function of the proliferative keratinocytes. Our previous studies have shown that the basal-keratinocyte restricted transcription factor p63 is a direct regulator of K14 gene. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here we provide evidence that p63, specifically the Delta N isoform also regulates the expression of the K5 gene by binding to a conserved enhancer within the 59 upstream region. By using specific antibodies against Delta Np63, we show a concordance in the expression between basal keratins and Delta Np63 proteins but not the TAp63 isoforms during early embryonic skin development. We demonstrate, that contrary to a previous report, transgenic mice expressing Delta Np63 in lung epithelium exhibit squamous metaplasia with de novo induction of K5 and K14 as well as transdifferentiation to the epidermal cell lineage. Interestingly, the in vivo epidermal inductive properties of Delta Np63 do not require the C-terminal SAM domain. Finally, we show that Delta Np63 alone can restore the expression of the basal keratins and reinitiate the failed epidermal differentiation program in the skin of p63 null animals. Significance: Delta Np63 is a critical mediator of keratinocyte stratification program and directly regulates the basal keratin genes.

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