4.4 Article

A phospho-proteomic screen identifies substrates of the checkpoint kinase Chk1

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-8-r78

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [C6/A11226]
  2. European Community [FP7/2007-2013, HEALTH-F2-2010-259893]
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  5. University of Cambridge
  6. Swiss National Foundation
  7. Danish Council [10-085134]
  8. Cancer Research UK [11224] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research [PI Chunaram Choudhary] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The cell-cycle checkpoint kinase Chk1 is essential in mammalian cells due to its roles in controlling processes such as DNA replication, mitosis and DNA-damage responses. Despite its paramount importance, how Chk1 controls these functions remains unclear, mainly because very few Chk1 substrates have hitherto been identified. Results: Here, we combine a chemical genetics approach with high-resolution mass spectrometry to identify novel Chk1 substrates and their phosphorylation sites. The list of targets produced reveals the potential impact of Chk1 function not only on processes where Chk1 was already known to be involved, but also on other key cellular events such as transcription, RNA splicing and cell fate determination. In addition, we validate and explore the phosphorylation of transcriptional co-repressor KAP1 Ser473 as a novel DNA-damage-induced Chk1 site. Conclusions: By providing a substantial set of potential Chk1 substrates, we present opportunities for studying unanticipated functions for Chk1 in controlling a wide range of cellular processes. We also refine the Chk1 consensus sequence, facilitating the future prediction of Chk1 target sites. In addition, our identification of KAP1 Ser473 phosphorylation as a robust readout for Chk1 activity could be used to explore the in vivo effects of Chk1 inhibitors that are being developed for clinical evaluation.

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

4.4
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