4.8 Article

DNA G-quadruplex structures: more than simple roadblocks to transcription?

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 15, 页码 8419-8431

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkab609

关键词

-

资金

  1. BBSRC [BB/R011605/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/S023518/1]
  3. NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre scholarship [EP/S023518/1]
  4. Leverhulme Trust, Leverhulme Cellular Bionics scholarship [EP/S023518/1]
  5. Imperial College London
  6. Imperial College DTP scholarship - Chemistry Department
  7. BBSRC [BB/R011605/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between G-quadruplex (G4) secondary structures in gene promoters and gene expression regulation has been studied for over 20 years. While originally thought to act as transcriptional repressors, recent research has challenged this simplistic model by suggesting that G4 formation can alter gene expression at various levels, serving as key regulatory elements disrupting epigenetic marks and chromatin architecture.
It has been >20 years since the formation of G-quadruplex (G4) secondary structures in gene promoters was first linked to the regulation of gene expression. Since then, the development of small molecules to selectively target G4s and their cellular application have contributed to an improved understanding of how G4s regulate transcription. One model that arose from this work placed these non-canonical DNA structures as repressors of transcription by preventing polymerase processivity. Although a considerable number of studies have recently provided sufficient evidence to reconsider this simplistic model, there is still a misrepresentation of G4s as transcriptional roadblocks. In this review, we will challenge this model depicting G4s as simple 'off switches' for gene expression by articulating how their formation has the potential to alter gene expression at many different levels, acting as a key regulatory element perturbing the nature of epigenetic marks and chromatin architecture.

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