4.6 Article

The human mucin MUC4 is transcriptionally regulated by caudal-related homeobox, hepatocyte nuclear factors, forkhead box A, and GATA endodermal transcription factors in epithelial cancer cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 282, 期 31, 页码 22638-22650

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M700905200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA52498] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The human gene MUC4 encodes a large transmembrane mucin that is developmentally regulated and expressed along the undifferfetal development. Immunohistochemical analysis of Muc4 expression inentiated pseudostratified epithelium, as early as 6.5 weeks during developing mouse lung and gastrointestinal tract showed a different spatio-temporal pattern of expression before and after cytodifferentiation. The molecular mechanisms governing MUC4 expression during development are, however, unknown. Hepatocyte nuclear factors (HNF), forkhead box A (FOXA), GATA, and caudal-related homeobox transcription factors (TFs) are known to control cell differentiation of gut endoderm derived-tissues during embryonic development. They also control the expression of cell- and tissue-specific genes and may thus control MUC4 expression. To test this hypothesis, we studied and deciphered the molecular mechanisms responsible for MUC4 transcriptional regulation by these TFs. Experiments using small interfering RNA, cell co-transfection, and site-directed mutagenesis indicated that MUC4 is regulated at the transcriptional level by CDX-1 and -2, HNF-1 alpha and -1 beta, FOXA1/A2, HNF-4 alpha and -4 gamma, and GATA-4, -5, and -6 factors in a cell- specific manner. Binding of TFs was assessed by chromatin immunoprecipitation, and gel-shift assays. Altogether, these results demonstrate that MUC4 is a target gene of endodermal TFs and thus point out an important role for these TFs in regulating MUC4 expression during epithelial differentiation during development, cancer, and repair.

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