4.8 Article

The phosphorylation of the androgen receptor by TFIIH directs the ubiquitin/proteasome process

期刊

EMBO JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 468-479

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/emboj.2010.337

关键词

androgen receptor; E3 ligases; phosphorylation; proteasome; TFIIH

资金

  1. European Research Council
  2. French National Research Agency [ANR-05-PCOD-032-03, ANR-06-BLAN-0141-01, ANR-08-MIEN-02203, ANR-08GENOPAT042]
  3. Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer [3153]
  4. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale
  5. CDD INSERM
  6. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-06-BLAN-0141] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In response to hormonal stimuli, a cascade of hierarchical post-translational modifications of nuclear receptors are required for the correct expression of target genes. Here, we show that the transcription factor TFIIH, via its cdk7 kinase, phosphorylates the androgen receptor (AR) at position AR/S515. Strikingly, this phosphorylation is a key step for an accurate transactivation that includes the cyclic recruitment of the transcription machinery, the MDM2 E3 ligase, the subsequent ubiquitination of AR at the promoter of target genes and its degradation by the proteasome machinery. Impaired phosphorylation disrupts the transactivation, as observed in cells either over-expressing the non-phosphorylated AR/S515A, isolated from xeroderma pigmentosum patient (bearing a mutation in XPD subunit of TFIIH), or in which cdk7 kinase was silenced. Indeed, besides affecting the cyclic recruitment of the transcription machinery, the AR phosphorylation defect favourizes to the recruitment of the E3 ligase CHIP instead of MDM2, at the PSA promoter, that will further attract the proteasome machinery. These observations illustrate how the TFIIH phosphorylation might participate to the transactivation by regulating the nuclear receptors turnover. The EMBO Journal (2011) 30, 468-479. doi:10.1038/emboj.2010.337; Published online 14 December 2010

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

4.8
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