4.6 Article

Identification of two types of GGAA-microsatellites and their roles in EWS/FLI binding and gene regulation in Ewing sarcoma

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186275

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA140394, R01 CA183776, F30 CA21058]
  2. High Performance Computing Facility at the Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ewing sarcoma is a bone malignancy of children and young adults, frequently harboring the EWS/FLI chromosomal translocation. The resulting fusion protein is an aberrant transcription factor that uses highly repetitive GGAA-containing elements (microsatellites) to activate and repress thousands of target genes mediating oncogenesis. However, the mechanisms of EWS/FLI interaction with microsatellites and regulation of target gene expression is not clearly understood. Here, we profile genome-wide protein binding and gene expression. Using a combination of unbiased genome-wide computational and experimental analysis, we define GGAA-microsatellites in a Ewing sarcoma context. We identify two distinct classes of GGAA-microsatellites and demonstrate that EWS/FLI responsiveness is dependent on microsatellite length. At close range promoter-like microsatellites, EWS/FLI binding and subsequent target gene activation is highly dependent on number of GGAA-motifs. Enhancer-like microsatellites demonstrate length-dependent EWS/FLI binding, but minimal correlation for activated and none for repressed targets. Our data suggest EWS/FLI binds to promoter-like and enhancer-like microsatellites to mediate activation and repression of target genes through different regulatory mechanisms. Such characterization contributes valuable insight to EWS/FLI transcription factor biology and clarifies the role of GGAA-microsatellites on a global genomic scale. This may provide unique perspective on the role of non-coding DNA in cancer susceptibility and therapeutic development.

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

4.6
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