4.8 Review

DNA binding by polycomb-group proteins: searching for the link to CpG islands

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 4813-4839

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkac290

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Government RTP Scholarship
  2. Monash Graduate Excellence Scholarship
  3. Sylvia and Charles Viertel Senior Medical Research Fellowship
  4. Australian Research Council [DP190103407]
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1162921, APP1184637, APP2011767]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polycomb group proteins contribute to the targeting of PRCs to chromatin through DNA-binding activities, but the specific mechanisms of CpG island targeting cannot be fully explained by DNA sequence alone.
Polycomb group proteins predominantly exist in polycomb repressive complexes (PRCs) that cooperate to maintain the repressed state of thousands of cell-type-specific genes. Targeting PRCs to the correct sites in chromatin is essential for their function. However, the mechanisms by which PRCs are recruited to their target genes in mammals are multifactorial and complex. Here we review DNA binding by polycomb group proteins. There is strong evidence that the DNA-binding subunits of PRCs and their DNA-binding activities are required for chromatin binding and CpG targeting in cells. In vitro, CpG-specific binding was observed for truncated proteins externally to the context of their PRCs. Yet, the mere DNA sequence cannot fully explain the subset of CpG islands that are targeted by PRCs in any given cell type. At this time we find very little structural and biophysical evidence to support a model where sequence-specific DNA-binding activity is required or sufficient for the targeting of CpG-dinucleotide sequences by polycomb group proteins while they are within the context of their respective PRCs, either PRC1 or PRC2. We discuss the current knowledge and open questions on how the DNA-binding activities of polycomb group proteins facilitate the targeting of PRCs to chromatin.

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