4.8 Article

Regulation of the polycomb protein Ring1B by self-ubiquitination or by E6-AP may have implications to the pathogenesis of Angelman syndrome

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003108107

关键词

polycomb complexes; ubiquitin-proteasome system

资金

  1. Angelman Syndrome Foundation
  2. Dr. Miriam and Sheldon Adelson Foundation for Medical Research
  3. Israel Science Foundation
  4. German-Israeli Foundation for Research and Scientific Development
  5. European Union Network of Excellence Rubicon
  6. Foundation for Promotion of Research in the Technion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The polycomb repressive complex (PRC) 1 protein Ring1B is an ubiquitin ligase that modifies nucleosomal histone H2A, a modification which plays a critical role in regulation of gene expression. We have shown that self-ubiquitination of Ring1B generates multiply branched, noncanonical polyubiquitin chains that do not target the ligase for degradation, but rather stimulate its activity toward histone H2A. This finding implies that Ring1B is targeted by a heterologous E3. In this study, we identified E6-AP (E6-associated protein) as a ligase that targets Ring1B for canonical ubiquitination and subsequent degradation. We further demonstrated that both the self-ubiquitination of Ring1B and its modification by E6-AP target the same lysines, suggesting that the fate of Ring1B is tightly regulated (e.g., activation vs. degradation) by the type of chains and the ligase that catalyzes their formation. As expected, inactivation of E6-AP affects downstream effectors: Ring1B and ubiquitinated H2A levels are increased accompanied by repressed expression of HoxB9, a PRC1 target gene. Consistent with these findings, E6-AP knockout mice display an elevated level of Ring1B and ubiquitinated histone H2A in various tissues, including cerebellar Purkinje neurons, which may have implications to the pathogenesis of Angelman syndrome, a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by deficiency of E6-AP in the brain.

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

4.8
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