4.6 Article

The use of phage display technique for the isolation of androgen receptor interacting peptides with (F/W)XXL(F/W) and FXXLY new signature motifs

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 278, 期 26, 页码 23691-23698

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M211908200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK60948, DK60905] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early studies suggested that the signature motif, LXXLL, within steroid hormone receptor p160 coregulators may play important roles for the mediation of receptor-coregulator interaction. Interestingly, several androgen receptor (AR) coregulators, such as ARA70 and ARA55, may not use such a unique motif to mediate their coregulator activity. Here we apply the phage display technique to identify some new signature motifs, (F/W)XXL(F/W) and FXXLY (where F is phenylalanine, W is tryptophan, L is leucine, Y is tyrosine, and X is any amino acid) that can influence the interaction between AR and AR coregulators. Sequence analyses found that several AR coregulators, such as ARA70, ARA55, ARA54, and FHL2, contain FXXL(F/Y) motifs. Both glutathione S-transferase pull-down assays and transient transfection reporter assays demonstrate that these AR coregulators may use the FXXL(F/Y) motif to interact with AR and exert their AR coregulator activity. Exchanging the amino acid of Phe, Trp, or Tyr in this newly identified signature motif cluster may influence these peptides to interact with AR. The motif-containing peptides, as well as ARA70 or ARA54, may require selective flanking sequences for the better interaction with AR. In addition to influencing the AR transactivation, these motifs in AR-interacting peptides/proteins were also able to influence the AR N-/C-terminal interaction. Together, our data suggest that AR interacting peptides and/or AR coregulators may utilize the (F/W)XXL(F/W) and FXXLY motifs to mediate their interaction with AR and exert their influences on the AR transactivation.

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