4.6 Article

Induction of c-Myc expression suppresses insulin gene transcription by inhibiting NeuroD/BETA2-mediated transcriptional activation

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 277, 期 15, 页码 12998-13006

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M111148200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 35449] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insulin biosynthesis and secretion are critical for pancreatic beta-cell function, but both are impaired under diabetic conditions. We have found that hyperglycemia induces the expression of the basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor c-Myc in islets in several different diabetic models. To examine the possible implication of c-Myc in beta-cell dysfunction, c-Myc was overexpressed in isolated rat islets using adenovirus. Adenovirus-mediated c-Myc overexpression suppressed both insulin gene transcription and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. Insulin protein content, determined by immunostaining, was markedly decreased in c-Myc-overexpressing cells. In gel-shift assays c-Myc bound to the E-box in the insulin gene promoter region. Furthermore, in betaTC1, MIN6, and HIT-T15 cells and primary rat islets, wild type insulin gene promoter activity was dramatically decreased by c-Myc overexpression, whereas the activity of an E-box mutated insulin promoter was not affected. In HeLa and HepG2 cells c-Myc exerted a suppressive effect on the insulin promoter activity only in the presence of NeuroD/BETA2 but not PDX-1. Both c-Myc and NeuroD can bind the E-box element in the insulin promoter, but unlike NeuroD, the c-Myc transactivation domain lacked the ability to activate insulin gene expression. Additionally p300, a co-activator of NeuroD, did not function as a co-activator of c-Myc. In conclusion, increased expression of c-Myc in beta-cells suppresses the insulin gene transcription by inhibiting NeuroD-mediated transcriptional activation. This mechanism may explain some of the beta-cell dysfunction found in diabetes.

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