870 resultados para Feedback Repression
Resumo:
The corepressor complex Tup1-Ssn6 regulates many classes of genes in yeast including cell type specific, glucose repressible, and DNA damage inducible. Tup1 and Ssn6 are recruited to target promoters through their interactions with specific DNA binding proteins such as α2, Mig1, and Crt1. Most promoters that are repressed by this corepressor complex exhibit a high degree of nucleosomal organization. This chromatin domain occludes transcription factor access to the promoter element resulting in gene repression. Previous work indicated that Tup1 interacts with underacetylated isoforms of H3 and H4, and that mutation of these histones synergistically compromises repression. These studies predict that Tup1-hypoacetyalted histone interaction is important to the repression mechanism, and in vivo hyperacetylation might compromise the corepressors ability to repress target genes. ^ One way to alter histone acetylation levels in vivo is to alter the balance between histone acetyltransferases and histone deacetylases. To date five histone deacetylases (HDACs) have been identified in yeast Rpd3, Hos1, Hos2, Hos3 and Hda1. Deletion of single or double HDAC genes had little to no effect on Tup1-Ssn6 repression, but simultaneous deletion of three specific activities Rpd3, Hos1, and Hos2 abolished repression in vivo. Promoter regions of Tup1-Ssn6 target genes in these triple deacetylase mutant cells are dramatically hyperacetylated in both H3 and H4. Examination of bulk histone acetylation levels showed that this specific HDAC triple mutant combination (rpd3 hos1 hos2) caused a dramatic and concomitant hyperacetylation of both H3 and H4. The loss of repression in the rpd3 hos1 hos2 cells, but not in other mutants, is consistent with previous observations, which indicate that histones provide redundant functions in the repression mechanism and that high levels of acetylation are required to prevent Tup1 binding. Investigation into a potential direct interaction between the Tup1-Ssn6 corepressor complex and one or more HDAC activities showed that both Rpd3 and Hos2 interact with the corepressor complex in vivo. These findings indicate that Tup1-Ssn6 repression involves the recruitment of histone deacetylase activities to target promoters, where they locally deacetylate histone residues promoting Tup1-histone tail interaction to initiate and/or maintain the repressed state. ^
Resumo:
The paper develops a growth model in an overlapping generations framework of a financially repressed small open economy, and analyzes the effects of financial liberalization. The following observations are made: An increase (decrease) of interest rate (reserve requirements) reduces (increases) the steady-state stock of capital and the trade balance, but improves (deteriorates) the level of foreign exchange reserves. However, financial liberalization, in any form, is always welfare-improving. The paper, thus, advocates financial liberalization policies to be oriented towards reduction of reserve requirements rather than interest rate deregulation, if foreign reserve holding is not in a critical position.
Resumo:
The Tup1-Ssn6 complex regulates the expression of diverse classes of genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae including those regulated by mating type, DNA damage, glucose, and anaerobic stress. The complex is recruited to target genes by sequence-specific repressor proteins. Once recruited to particular promoters, it is not completely clear how it functions to block transcription. Repression probably occurs through interactions with both the basal transcriptional machinery and components of chromatin. Tup1 interactions with chromatin are strongly influenced by acetylation of histories H3 and H4. Tup1 binds to underacetylated histone tails and requires multiple histone deacetylases (HDACs) for its repressive functions. Like acetylation, histone methylation is involved in regulation of gene expression. The possible role of histone methylation in Tup1 repression is not known. Here we examined possible roles of histone methyltransferases in Tup1-Ssn6 functions. We found that like other genes, Tup1-Ssn6 target genes exhibit increases in the levels of histone H3 lysine 4 methylation upon activation. However, deletion of individual or multiple histone methyltransferases (HMTs) and other SET-domain containing genes has no apparent effect on Tup1-Ssn6 mediated repression of a number of well-defined targets. Interestingly, we discovered that Ssn6 interacts with Set2. Since deletion of SET2 does not affect Tup1-Ssn6 repression, Ssn6 may utilize Set2 in other contexts to regulate gene repression. In order examine if the two components of the Tup1-Ssn6 complex have independent functions in the cell, we identified genes differentially expressed in tup1Δ and ssn6Δ mutants using DNA microarrays. Our data indicate that ∼4% of genes in the cell are regulated by Ssn6 independently of Tup1. In addition, expression of genes regulated by Tup1-Ssn6 seems to be differently affected by deletion of Ssn6 and deletion of Tup1, which indicates that these components might have separate functions. Our data shed new light on the classical view of Tup1-Ssn6 functions, and indicate that Ssn6 might have repressive functions as well. ^
Resumo:
Osteosarcoma, a malignant bone tumor, rapidly destroys the cortical bone. We demonstrated that mouse K7M2 osteosarcoma cells were deficient in osterix (osx), a zinc finger-containing transcription factor required for osteoblasts differentiation and bone formation. These cells formed lytic tumors when injected into the tibia. The destruction of bone is mediated by osteoclasts in osteosarcoma. The less expression of osterix with osteolytic phenotype was also observed in more tumor cell lines. Replacement of osterix in K7M2 cells suppressed lytic bone destruction, inhibited tumor growth in vitro and in vivo, and suppressed lung metastasis in vivo and the migration of K7M2 to lung conditioned medium in vitro. By contrast, inhibiting osterix by vector-based small interfering RNA (siRNA) in two cell lines (Dunn and DLM8) that expressed high levels of osterix converted osteoblastic phenotype to lytic. Recognizing and binding of Receptor Activator of NF-κB (RANK) on osteoclast precursors by its ligand RANKL is the key osteoclastogenic event. Increased RANKL results in more osteoclast activity. We investigated whether K7M2-mediated bone destruction was secondary to an effect on RANKL. The conditioned medium from K7M2 could upregulate RANKL in normal osteoblast MC3T3, which might lead to more osteoclast formation. By contrast, the conditioned medium from K7M2 cells transfected with osx-expressing plasmid did not upregulate RANKL. Furthermore, Interleukin-1alpha (IL-1α) was significantly suppressed following osx transfection. IL-1α increased RANKL expression in MC3T3 cells, suggesting that osx may control RANKL via a mechanism involving IL-1α. Using a luciferase reporter assay, we demonstrated that osx downregulated IL-1α through a transcription-mediated mechanism. Following suppression of osterix in Dunn and DLM8 cells led to enhanced IL-1α promoter activity and protein production. Site-directed mutagenesis and Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) indicated that osterix downregulated IL-1α through a Sp1-binding site on the IL-1α promoter. These data suggest that osterix is involved in the lytic phenotype of osteosarcoma and that this is mediated via transcriptional repression of IL-1α. ^
Resumo:
The Drosophila Transformer-2 (Tra2) protein activates the splicing of doublesex and fruitless pre-mRNA and represses M1 intron splicing in its own RNA in male germline. The M1 retention is part of negative feedback mechanism that controls Tra2 protein synthesis. However it is not known how the M1 intron is repressed or why Tra2 activates splicing of some RNAs while repressing splicing in others. Here we show that Tra2 and SR protein Rbp1 function together to specifically repress M1 splicing in vitro through the same intronic silencer by binding independently to distinct sites. The role of Rbp1 in M1 repression in vivo was validated by the finding that increased expression of Rbp1 in S2 cells promotes M1 retention. Furthermore, Tra2 blocks prespliceosomal A complex formation, a step corresponding to U2 snRNP recruitment to the branchpoint. High levels of Tra2 repression require an upstream enhancer. Together, we propose that the complex formed by Tra2 and Rbp1 on the silencer achieves splicing repression by blocking the recognition of the branchpoint or antagonizing enhancer function. ^ In addition, both splicing regulatory activities of Tra2 are essential developmental events, doublesex splicing is the key for Drosophila sex determination in the soma, while M1 retention occurs in the male germline and is necessary for spermatogenesis. However, active Tra2 is expressed ubiquitously. So another issue we have studied is how Tra2 accomplishes negative and positive splicing regulation in a tissue-specific fashion. Surprisingly, we found that nuclear extract from somatically-derived S2 cells support M1 repression in vitro. This led us to hypothesize that no germline specific factor is required and that high levels of Tra2 expression in the male germline is sufficient to trigger M1 retention. To test it, I examined whether increased expression of Tra2 could promote M1 retention in cells outside male germline. My results show that increased Tra2 expression promotes M1 retention in somatically-derived S2 cells as well as in the somatic tissues of living flies. These results show that somatic tissues are capable of supporting M1 repression but do not normally do so because the low levels of Tra2 do not trigger negative feedback regulation. ^
Resumo:
Most studies of p53 function have focused on genes transactivated by p53. It is less widely appreciated that p53 can repress target genes to affect a particular cellular response. There is evidence that repression is important for p53-induced apoptosis and cell cycle arrest. It is less clear if repression is important for other p53 functions. A comprehensive knowledge of the genes repressed by p53 and the cellular processes they affect is currently lacking. We used an expression profiling strategy to identify p53-responsive genes following adenoviral p53 gene transfer (Ad-p53) in PC3 prostate cancer cells. A total of 111 genes represented on the Affymetrix U133A microarray were repressed more than two fold (p ≤ 0.05) by p53. An objective assessment of array data quality was carried out using RT-PCR of 20 randomly selected genes. We estimate a confirmation rate of >95.5% for the complete data set. Functional over-representation analysis was used to identify cellular processes potentially affected by p53-mediated repression. Cell cycle regulatory genes exhibited significant enrichment (p ≤ 5E-28) within the repressed targets. Several of these genes are repressed in a p53-dependent manner following DNA damage, but preceding cell cycle arrest. These findings identify novel p53-repressed targets and indicate that p53-induced cell cycle arrest is a function of not only the transactivation of cell cycle inhibitors (e.g., p21), but also the repression of targets that act at each phase of the cell cycle. The mechanism of repression of this set of p53 targets was investigated. Most of the repressed genes identified here do not harbor consensus p53 DNA binding sites but do contain binding sites for E2F transcription factors. We demonstrate a role for E2F/RB repressor complexes in our system. Importantly, p53 is found at the promoter of CDC25A. CDC25A protein is rapidly degraded in response to DNA damage. Our group has demonstrated for the first time that CDC25A is also repressed at the transcript level by p53. This work has important implications for understanding the DNA damage cell cycle checkpoint response and the link between E2F/RB complexes and p53 in the repression of target genes. ^
Resumo:
Survivin (BIRC5) is a member of the Inhibitor of Apoptosis (IAP) gene family and functions as a chromosomal passenger protein as well as a mediator of cell survival. Survivin is widely expressed during embryonic development then becomes transcriptionally silent in most highly differentiated adult tissues. It is also overexpressed in virtually every type of tumor. The survivin promoter contains a canonical CpG island that has been described as epigenetically regulated by DNA methylation. We observed that survivin is overexpressed in high grade, poorly differentiated endometrial tumors, and we hypothesized that DNA hypomethylation could explain this expression pattern. Surprisingly, methylation specific PCR and bisulfite pyrosequencing analysis showed that survivin was hypermethylated in endometrial tumors and that this hypermethylation correlated with increased survivin expression. We proposed that methylation could activate survivin expression by inhibit the binding of a transcriptional repressor. ^ The tumor suppressor protein p53 is a well documented transcriptional repressor of survivin and examination of the survivin promoter showed that the p53 binding site contains 3 CpG sites which often become methylated in endometrial tumors. To determine if methylation regulates survivin expression, we treated HCT116 cells with decitabine, a demethylation agent, and observed that survivin transcript and protein levels were significantly repressed following demethylation in a p53 dependent manner. Subsequent binding studies confirmed that DNA methylation inhibited the binding of p53 protein to its binding site in the survivin promoter. ^ We are the first to report this novel mechanism of epigenetic regulation of survivin. We also conducted microarray analysis which showed that many other cancer relevant genes may also be regulated in this manner. While demethylation agents are traditionally thought to inhibit cancer cell growth by reactivating tumor suppressors, our results indicate that an additional important mechanism is to decrease the expression of oncogenes. ^
Resumo:
Objective: In this secondary data analysis, three statistical methodologies were implemented to handle cases with missing data in a motivational interviewing and feedback study. The aim was to evaluate the impact that these methodologies have on the data analysis. ^ Methods: We first evaluated whether the assumption of missing completely at random held for this study. We then proceeded to conduct a secondary data analysis using a mixed linear model to handle missing data with three methodologies (a) complete case analysis, (b) multiple imputation with explicit model containing outcome variables, time, and the interaction of time and treatment, and (c) multiple imputation with explicit model containing outcome variables, time, the interaction of time and treatment, and additional covariates (e.g., age, gender, smoke, years in school, marital status, housing, race/ethnicity, and if participants play on athletic team). Several comparisons were conducted including the following ones: 1) the motivation interviewing with feedback group (MIF) vs. the assessment only group (AO), the motivation interviewing group (MIO) vs. AO, and the intervention of the feedback only group (FBO) vs. AO, 2) MIF vs. FBO, and 3) MIF vs. MIO.^ Results: We first evaluated the patterns of missingness in this study, which indicated that about 13% of participants showed monotone missing patterns, and about 3.5% showed non-monotone missing patterns. Then we evaluated the assumption of missing completely at random by Little's missing completely at random (MCAR) test, in which the Chi-Square test statistic was 167.8 with 125 degrees of freedom, and its associated p-value was p=0.006, which indicated that the data could not be assumed to be missing completely at random. After that, we compared if the three different strategies reached the same results. For the comparison between MIF and AO as well as the comparison between MIF and FBO, only the multiple imputation with additional covariates by uncongenial and congenial models reached different results. For the comparison between MIF and MIO, all the methodologies for handling missing values obtained different results. ^ Discussions: The study indicated that, first, missingness was crucial in this study. Second, to understand the assumptions of the model was important since we could not identify if the data were missing at random or missing not at random. Therefore, future researches should focus on exploring more sensitivity analyses under missing not at random assumption.^
Resumo:
Recent developments in federal policy have prompted the creation of state evaluation frameworks for principals and teachers that hold educators accountable for effective practices and student outcomes. These changes have created a demand for formative evaluation instruments that reflect current accountability pressures and can be used by schools to focus school improvement and leadership development efforts. The Comprehensive Assessment of Leadership for Learning (CALL) is a next generation, 360-degree on-line assessment and feedback system that reflect best practices in feedback design. Some unique characteristics of CALL include a focus on: leadership distributed throughout the school rather than as carried out by an individual leader; assessment of leadership tasks rather than perceptions of leadership practice; a focus on larger complex systems of middle and high school; and transparency of assessment design. This paper describes research contributing to the design and validation of the CALL survey instrument.
Resumo:
The neu oncogene encodes a growth factor receptor-like protein, p185, with an intrinsic tyrosine kinase activity. A single point mutation, an A to T transversion resulting in an amino acid substitution from valine to glutamic acid, in the transmembrane domain of the rat neu gene was found to be responsible for the transforming and tumorigenic phenotype of the cells that carry it. In contrast, the human proto-neu oncogene is frequently amplified in tumors and cell lines derived from tumors and the human neu gene overexpression/amplification in breast and ovarian cancers is known to correlate with poor patient prognosis. Examples of the human neu gene overexpression in the absence of gene amplification have been observed, which may suggest the significant role of the transcriptional and/or post-transcriptional control of the neu gene in the oncogenic process. However, little is known about the transcriptional mechanisms which regulate the neu gene expression. In this study, three examples are presented to demonstrate the positive and negative control of the neu gene expression.^ First, by using band shift assays and methylation interference analyses, I have identified a specific protein-binding sequence, AAGATAAAACC ($-$466 to $-$456), that binds a specific trans-acting factor termed RVF (for EcoRV factor on the neu promoter). The RVF-binding site is required for maximum transcriptional activity of the rat neu promoter. This same sequence is also found in the corresponding regions of both human and mouse neu promoters. Furthermore, this sequence can enhance the CAT activity driven by a minimum promoter of the thymidine kinase gene in an orientation-independent manner, and thus it behaves as an enhancer. In addition, Southwestern (DNA-protein) blot analysis using the RVF-binding site as a probe points to a 60-kDa polypeptide as a potential candidate for RVF.^ Second, it has been reported that the E3 region of adenovirus 5 induces down-regulation of epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor through endocytosis. I found that the human neu gene product, p185, (an EGF receptor-related protein) is also down-regulated by adenovirus 5, but via a different mechanism. I demonstrate that the adenovirus E1a gene is responsible for the repression of the human neu gene at the transcriptional level.^ Third, a differential expression of the neu gene has been found in two cell model systems: between the mouse fibroblast Swiss-Webster 3T3 (SW3T3) and its variant NR-6 cells; and between the mouse liver tumor cell line, Hep1-a, and the mouse pancreas tumor cell line, 266-6. Both NR-6 and 266-6 cell lines are not able to express the neu gene product, p185. I demonstrate that, in both cases, the transcriptional repression of the neu gene may account for the lack of the p185 expression in these two cell lines. ^
Resumo:
The potential effects of the E1A gene products on the promoter activities of neu were investigated. Transcription of the neu oncogene was found to be strongly repressed by the E1A gene products and this requires that conserved region 2 of the E1A proteins. The target for E1A repression was localized within a 140 base pair (bp) DNA fragment in the upstream region of the neu promoter. To further study if this transcriptional repression of neu by E1A can inhibit the transforming ability of the neu transformed cells, the E1A gene was introduced into the neu oncogene transformed B104-1-1 cells and developed B-E1A cell lines that express E1A proteins. These B-E1A stable transfectants have reduced transforming activity compared to the parental B104-1-1 cell line and we conclude that E1A can suppress the transformed phenotypes of the neu oncogene transformed cells via transcriptional repression of neu.^ To study the effects of E1A on metastasis, we first introduced the mutation-activated rat neu oncogene into 3T3 cells and showed that both the neu oncogene transformed NIH3T3 cells and Swiss Webster 3T3 cells exhibited metastatic properties in vitro and in vivo, while their parental 3T3 cells did not. Additionally, the neu-specific monoclonal antibody 7.16.4, which can down regulate neu-encoded p185 protein, effectively reduced the metastatic properties induced by neu. To investigate if E1A can reduce the metastatic potential of neu-transformed cells, we also compared the metastatic properties of B-E1A cell lines and B104-1-1 cell. B-E1A cell lines showed reduced invasiveness and lung colonization than the parental neu transformed B104-1-1 cells. We conclude that E1A gene products also have inhibitory effect on the metastatic phenotypes of the neu oncogene transformed cells.^ The product of human retinoblastoma (RB) susceptibility gene has been shown to complex with E1A gene products and is speculated to regulate gene expression. We therefore investigated in E1A-RB interaction might be involved in the regulation of neu oncogene expression. We found that the RB gene product can decrease the E1A-mediated repression of neu oncogene and the E1A binding region of the RB protein is required for the derepression function. ^
Resumo:
HER-2/neu is a receptor tyrosine kinase highly homologous with epidermal growth factor receptor. Overexpression and/or amplification of HER-2/neu has been implicated in the genesis of a number of human cancers, especially breast and ovarian cancers. Transcriptional upregulation has been shown to contribute significantly to the overexpression of this gene. Studies on the transcriptional regulation of HER-2/neu gene are important for understanding the mechanism of cell transformation and developing the therapeutic strategies to block HER-2/neu-mediated cancers. PEA3 is a DNA binding transcriptional factor and its consensus sequence exists on the HER-2/neu promoter. To examine the role of PEA3 in HER-2/neu expression and cell transformation, we transfected PEA3 into the human breast and ovarian cancer cells that overexpress HER-2/neu and showed that PEA3 dramatically represses HER-2/neu transcription. PEA3 suppresses the oncogenic neu-mediated transformation in mouse fibroblast NIH 3T3 cells. Expression of PEA3 selectively blocks the growth of human cancer cells that overexpress HER-2/neu and inhibits their colony formation. It does not occur in the cancer cells expressing basal level of HER-2/neu. Further studies in the orthotopic ovarian cancer model demonstrated that expression of PEA3 preferentially inhibits growth and tumor development of human cancer cells that overexpress HER-2/neu, the tumor-bearing mice survived significantly longer if treated by injection of the PEA3-liposome complex intraperitoneally. Immunoblotting and immunohistochemical analysis of the tumor tissues indicated that PEA3 mediates the tumor suppression activity through targeting HER-2/neu-p185. Thus, PEA3 is a negative regulator of HER-2/neu gene expression and functions as a tumor suppressor gene in the HER-2/neu-overexpressing human cancer cells.^ The molecular mechanisms of PEA3 mediated transcriptional repression were investigated. PEA3 binds specifically at the PEA3 site on HER-2/neu promoter and this promoter-binding is required for the PEA3 mediated transcriptional repression. Mutation of the PEA3 binding site on HER-2/neu promoter causes decreased transcriptional activity, indicating that the PEA3 binding site is an enhancer-like element in the HER-2/neu-overexpressing cells. We therefore hypothesized that in the HER-2/neu-overexpressing cells, PEA3 competes with a transactivator for binding to the PEA3 site, preventing the putative factor from activating the transcription of HER-2/neu. This hypothesis was supported by the data which demonstrate that PEA3 competes with another nuclear protein for binding to the HER-2/neu promoter in vitro, and expression of a truncated protein which encodes the DNA binding domain of PEA3 is sufficient to repress HER-2/neu transcription in the HER-2/neu-overexpressing human cancer cells. ^
Resumo:
Studies on the transcriptional regulation of serum amyloid A1 (SAA1) gene, a liver specific acute-phase gene, identified a regulatory element in its promoter that functioned to repress (SAA1) gene transcription in nonliver cells. This silencer element interacts with a nuclear protein that is detectable in HeLa cells, fibroblasts and placental tissues but not in liver or liver-derived cells. As the expression pattern of this repressor is consistent with its potential regulatory role in repressing SAA1 expression, and that many other liver gene promoters also contain this repressor binding site, we sought to investigate whether this repressor may have a broader functional role in repressing liver genes. ^ We have utilized protein purification, cell culture, transient and stable gene transfection, and molecular biology approaches to identify this protein and investigate its possible function in the regulation of (SAA1) and other liver genes. Analyses of amino acid sequence of the purified nuclear protein, and western blot and gel shift studies identified the repressor as transcription factor AP-2 or AP-2-like protein. Using transient transfection of DNA into cultured cells, we demonstrate that AP-2 can indeed function as a repressor to inhibit transcription of SAA1 gene promoter. This conclusion is supported by the following experimental results: (1) overexpression of AP-2 in hepatoma cells inhibits conditioned medium (CM)-induced expression of SAA1 promoter; (2) binding of AP-2 to the SAA1 promoter is required for AP-2 repression function; (3) one mechanism by which AP-2 inhibits SAA1 may be by antagonizing the activation function of the strong transactivator NFκB; (4) mutation of AP-2 binding sites results in derepression of SAM promoter in HeLa cells; and (5) inhibition of endogenous AP-2 activity by a dominant-negative mutant abolishes AP-2's inhibitory effect on SAM promoter in HeLa cells. In addition to the SAM promoter, AP-2 also can bind to the promoter regions of six other liver genes tested, suggesting that it may have a broad functional role in restricting the expression of many liver genes in nonliver cells. Consistent with this notion, ectopic expression of AP-2 also represses CM-mediated activation of human third component of complement 3 promoter. Finally, in AP-2-expressing stable hepatoma cell lines, AP-2 inhibits not only the expression of endogenous SAA, but also the expression of several other endogenous liver genes including albumin, α-fetoprotein. ^ Our findings that AP-2 has the ability to repress the expression of liver genes in nonliver cells opens a new avenue of investigation of negative regulation of gene transcription, and should improve our understanding of tissue-specific expression of liver genes. In summary, our data provide evidence suggesting a novel role of AP-2 as a repressor, inhibiting the expression of liver genes in nonliver cells. Thus, the tissue-specific expression of AP-2 may constitute an important mechanism contributing to the liver-specific expression of liver genes. ^
Resumo:
Exploiting the full potential of telemedical systems means using platform based solutions: data are recovered from biomedical sensors, hospital information systems, care-givers, as well as patients themselves, and are processed and redistributed in an either centralized or, more probably, decentralized way. The integration of all these different devices, and interfaces, as well as the automated analysis and representation of all the pieces of information are current key challenges in telemedicine. Mobile phone technology has just begun to offer great opportunities of using this diverse information for guiding, warning, and educating patients, thus increasing their autonomy and adherence to their prescriptions. However, most of these existing mobile solutions are not based on platform systems and therefore represent limited, isolated applications. This article depicts how telemedical systems, based on integrated health data platforms, can maximize prescription adherence in chronic patients through mobile feedback. The application described here has been developed in an EU-funded R&D project called METABO, dedicated to patients with type 1 or type 2 Diabetes Mellitus