4.7 Article

TGFβ and CCN2/CTGF mediate actin related gene expression by differential E2F1/CREB activation

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-525

关键词

TGF beta; CTGF/CCN2; Actin; CREB; E2F1

资金

  1. Science Foundation Ireland [SFI/06/IN.1/B114, SFI/RFP06/BIMF212]
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/K003364/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Public Health Agency [STL/3714/07] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: CCN2/CTGF is an established effector of TGF beta driven responses in diabetic nephropathy. We have identified an interaction between CCN2 and TGF beta leading to altered phenotypic differentiation and inhibited cellular migration. Here we determine the gene expression profile associated with this phenotype and define a transcriptional basis for differential actin related gene expression and cytoskeletal function. Results: From a panel of genes regulated by TGF beta and CCN2, we used co-inertia analysis to identify and then experimentally verify a subset of transcription factors, E2F1 and CREB, that regulate an expression fingerprint implicated in altered actin dynamics and cell hypertrophy. Importantly, actin related genes containing E2F1 and CREB binding sites, stratified by expression profile within the dataset. Further analysis of actin and cytoskeletal related genes from patients with diabetic nephropathy suggests recapitulation of this programme during the development of renal disease. The Rho family member Cdc42 was also found uniquely to be activated in cells treated with TGF beta and CCN2; Cdc42 interacting genes were differentially regulated in diabetic nephropathy. Conclusions: TGF beta and CCN2 attenuate CREB and augment E2F1 transcriptional activation with the likely effect of altering actin cytoskeletal and cell growth/hypertrophic gene activity with implications for cell dysfunction in diabetic kidney disease. The cytoskeletal regulator Cdc42 may play a role in this signalling response.

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

4.7
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