4.8 Article

p63 uses a switch-like mechanism to set the threshold for induction of apoptosis

期刊

NATURE CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 1078-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41589-020-0600-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG [DO 545/18-1]
  2. Centre for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance (BMRZ)
  3. Cluster of Excellence Frankfurt (Macromolecular Complexes)
  4. German Chemical Industry
  5. Max Planck Society
  6. EU Horizon2020 project LSFM4LIFE [668350-2]
  7. ZonMw-BMBF [114027003]
  8. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  9. Canadian Foundation for Innovation
  10. Genome Canada through the Ontario Genomics Institute
  11. GlaxoSmithKline
  12. Karolinska Institute
  13. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  14. Ontario Innovation Trust
  15. Ontario Ministry for Research and Innovation
  16. Merck Co.
  17. Novartis Research Foundation
  18. Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems
  19. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  20. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The p53 homolog TAp63 alpha is the transcriptional key regulator of genome integrity in oocytes. After DNA damage, TAp63 alpha is activated by multistep phosphorylation involving multiple phosphorylation events by the kinase CK1, which triggers the transition from a dimeric and inactive conformation to an open and active tetramer that initiates apoptosis. By measuring activation kinetics in ovaries and single-site phosphorylation kinetics in vitro with peptides and full-length protein, we show that TAp63 alpha phosphorylation follows a biphasic behavior. Although the first two CK1 phosphorylation events are fast, the third one, which constitutes the decisive step to form the active conformation, is slow. Structure determination of CK1 in complex with differently phosphorylated peptides reveals the structural mechanism for the difference in the kinetic behavior based on an unusual CK1/TAp63 alpha substrate interaction in which the product of one phosphorylation step acts as an inhibitor for the following one.

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