| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Molecular Biology and Genetics |
Department of Cell Biology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0521 [M. P. M., S. P. A., M. W. S., S. L. W., R. W. G., E. S. K.], and Divisions of Developmental Biology and Pediatric Informatics, The Children’s Hospital Research Foundation, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229-3039 [B. J. A.]
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Underscoring its potency as an antiproliferative molecule, RB is targeted for functional inactivation at high frequency in human cancer (2 , 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) . Inactivation of RB occurs through a variety of means, including the bialleleic inactivation of the RB gene and sequestration via the oncoproteins of DNA tumor viruses (2 , 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22) . Alternatively, amplification of CDK4/cyclin D1 activity or loss of p16ink4a in cancer cells leads to deregulated RB phosphorylation/inactivation (2 , 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) . A common theme of these diverse mechanisms of inactivation is that they disrupt the ability of RB to assemble critical protein complexes.
RB interacts with numerous cellular proteins to assemble a transcriptional repressor module at promoters (2 , 8 , 23, 24, 25) . For example, RB associates with the E2F family of transcriptional regulators (23 , 26) . The E2F proteins (E2F1–6) bind to DNA as heterodimers with DP proteins (DP1 and DP2), and these complexes bind to similar DNA sequences. The majority of E2F family members (E2F1–5) have transactivation domains and can activate the expression of target genes when bound to DNA (25 , 26) . In general, E2F4 and E2F5 are thought to function largely in quiescence, whereas E2F1, E2F2, and E2F3 function during G1-S progression (25 , 26) . The binding of RB to these E2F complexes not only antagonizes the function of the E2F proteins in activating transcription but may also convert E2F binding activity to a repressor element on the promoter of specific genes (5 , 27, 28, 29) . However, the extent to which repression can occur on E2F-regulated genes has not been systematically documented. The mode of RB-mediated transcriptional repression appears to be promoter specific and is dependent on a variety of proteins that are recruited by RB to promoters (24 , 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37) . The significance of this repressive activity of RB was demonstrated in studies wherein specific disruption of RB-mediated transcriptional repression bypassed the antiproliferative action of RB (8 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 38 , 39) .
Despite the link between RB and transcriptional repression, the targets of RB action remain largely undescribed. Prior studies have identified a number of genes that are specifically up-regulated upon the ectopic expression of E2F1, E2F2, and E2F3. Initially, this was determined through sequence analysis of the promoter elements of known genes and elucidation of the functional effect of E2F overproduction on transcription (40, 41, 42, 43) . Subsequent microarray analyses have delineated a number of additional E2F-stimulated genes (44 , 50) . Whereas many of these targets are postulated to be influenced by RB, few genes have in fact been assessed for RB regulation (31 , 32 , 35 , 40 , 45, 46, 47) . Thus, although transcriptional repression is assumed to play an important role in RB-mediated tumor suppression, relatively few transcriptional targets have been identified.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Adenoviral Infections, Flow Cytometry, and Reporter Assays.
Cells were infected at a calculated multiplicity of infection of 50–100 (actual infection efficiency was 95–100% as determined by GFP immunofluorescence). Infected cells were harvested at 24 (A2-4 cells) or 36 (U2OS cells) h postinfection. Flow cytometry was carried out as described previously (6)
. Reporter assays were carried out as described previously (12
, 54) .
Array Analysis.
Total RNA was isolated from the cells and subjected to reverse transcription using random hexamers. Samples were then biotinylated and hybridized to the Affymetrix GeneChips RatU34A, U34B and U34C using the Affymetrix-recommended protocol (63
, 64)
. Affymetrix Micro Array Suite version 4.0 was used to scan and quantitate GeneChips using default scan settings. Intensity data were collected from each chip, and the results were analyzed using both Micro Array Suite and GeneSpring 4.0 (Silicon Genetics, Inc., Redwood City, CA).
RNA Sample Validation.
Before submission of RNA samples for analysis, protein extracts prepared from replicate plates of the corresponding cell cultures were analyzed for expected induction of RB and reduction of cyclin A using Western blots. RNA integrity was also verified for lack of degradation by formaldehyde gel electrophoresis and a Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 (with typical 28S:18S ratios = 2 ± 0.1).
Gene Annotation.
ESTs presented on the Rat genome U34A, B, and C GeneChips by Affymetrix were based on the Rat UniGene Build #34 assembly and were subjected to reannotation using the National Center for Biotechnology Information BLAST and UniGene Build #93 database resources (November 2001), Known genes were based on those present in GenBank (Oct 12, 2001). Using these resources, the ESTs that were present in the 341 total implicated targets were subsequently collapsed into nonredundant genes.
Immunoblotting.
Equal protein was loaded in each lane, as verified by naphthal black staining and by immunoblotting against CDK4 or vimentin. Western blots were performed using the following commercial antibodies: (a) cyclin E, cyclin B1, RNR-M2, p16ink4a, p55CDC, cyclin A, CDK2, CDC2, CDK4, PLK1, MCM5, E2F2, MCM6, MCM7, PTTG, and PCNA (all from Santa Cruz Biotechnology); (b) Fen1, DNA polymerase 
, and DHFR (all from Transduction Laboratories); (c) HMG2 and EGR1 (both from Geneka); and (d) topoisomerase II
(Topogen). The following antibodies were gifts from the individuals indicated: (a) RB (Dr. Jean Wang); (b) vimentin (Dr. Wally Ip); (c) DNMT1 (Dr. Keith Robertson); and (d) thymidylate synthase (Dr. Masakazu Fukushima).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
, top panel, Lanes 1, 3, 5, and 7). However, when Dox was removed from the media, the ectopically expressed RB proteins were readily detectable (Fig. 1A
, top panel, Lanes 4, 6, and 8). In the case of 10-5 cells, the expressed WT protein was efficiently phosphorylated (Fig. 1A
, top panel, Lane 4). As such, it had minimal effect on the known downstream target, cyclin A (Fig. 1A
, bottom panel, compare Lanes 3 and 4). Additionally, induction of WT in 10-5 cells had limited influence on cell cycle distribution (Fig. 1B
, compare top and bottom panels). In fact, 10-5 cells readily proliferate in the absence of Dox (data not shown), consistent with prior observations that WT is a poor inhibitor of cell cycle progression. In contrast, A2-4 and A5-1 cells expressed PSM-RB upon Dox withdrawal (Fig. 1A
, top panel, Lanes 6 and 8), leading to the strong inhibition of cyclin A expression (Fig. 1A
, top panel, compare Lanes 5 and 6 with Lanes 7 and 8) and concomitant G1-S arrest (Fig. 1B
, compare top and bottom panels for each line). As expected, parental Rat-16 cells did not ectopically express RB (Fig. 1A
, top panel, Lanes 1 and 2), modify cyclin A expression (Fig. 1A
, bottom panel, Lanes 1 and 2), or change cell cycle profile (Fig. 1B)
in the absence of Dox. Therefore, whereas Rat-16 and 10-5 cells represent cell types with largely inactive RB, A5-1 and A2-4 cells serve as potent inducers of RB activity.
|
, compare Lanes 1 and 2). As a control for the regulation of these proteins in this cell line, the cells were infected with recombinant adenovirus encoding E2F2 (Fig. 1C
, Lane 3). As expected, ectopic expression of E2F2 led to the induction of both cyclin E and Cdc25a. In contrast, ectopic E2F2 expression had little effect on the levels of PCNA, DHFR, and cyclin A. Together, these results indicate that E2F2 targets are not necessarily consistent with those of RB-mediated attenuation; therefore, we undertook an unbiased approach to identify targets of the unphosphorylated actively repressing form of RB.
Target Genes of RB-mediated Arrest.
To identify additional targets of RB-mediated transcriptional control, Affymetrix GeneChip arrays were used that contain probe sets recognizing approximately 25,000 rat genes or UniGene-clustered ESTs. Each cell line (Rat-16, 10-5, A2-4, and A5-1) was cultured in the presence or absence of Dox. For each condition, two independent cultures were used, and each one was subjected to independent RNA isolation, labeling, and GeneChip hybridization. GeneChips were scanned and quantified using the algorithms implemented within Affymetrix Micro Array Suite 4.0 software. GeneSpring software was then used to impose a series of normalization and filtering criteria to identify a list of genes reproducibly responsive to PSM-RB. These analyses yielded 341 targets from the replicated experiments, which were reproducibly repressed at least 1.7-fold in both cell lines expressing PSM-RB.
The graphic in Fig. 2A
shows the overall behavior of these targets (fully annotated data set is available online4
). The basal state of each gene and EST is depicted as a yellow bar. The repression of each target is visualized by the change in color from yellow toward blue, whereas activation is shown as a change from yellow toward red (see color bar). For the entire set of 341 targets, the average effect of WT (1.3-fold repression) was considerably more modest than that observed for PSM-RB (2.9-fold repression). Using clustering algorithms, the most prominent repression targets of RB (in all conditions studied) fall into two mathematically defined clusters containing a total of 251 genes/ESTs, which exhibit very similar behavior and are depicted together (Fig. 2B)
. In the graph shown (Fig. 2B)
, each line represents an individual gene or EST, with the change in RNA levels represented by the slope of the line. For these genes, the average repression achieved by the expression of WT (10-5 cells, +Dox versus -Dox) was 1.2-fold, whereas the average repression achieved through the expression of PSM-RB was 3.4-fold (A2-4 and A5-1 cells, +Dox versus -Dox). Analysis of the genes in these clusters showed a large fraction of targets involved in DNA replication, DNA repair, chromatin structure/transcription, and G2-M progression (Table 1)
. A number of these targets have recently been shown to be bound by endogenous E2F proteins (52
, 53) or induced by E2F overexpression (Refs. 44
, 50
, and 51
; genes/ESTs are summarized in Table 1
). However, this list represents the first unbiased analysis of RB-mediated repression and clearly defines a large number of new targets not previously linked to E2F.
|
|
, A5-1 cells were synchronized in S phase in the presence of Dox by the addition of APH to the media. In the continued presence of APH, Dox was then removed from half of the cultures to induce PSM-RB (Fig. 3A)
. We have previously used this approach to investigate signaling from RB in S-phase cells (54)
. Under these conditions, PSM-RB mediated transcriptional repression of an E2F reporter (Fig. 3B
, left panel) and led to the attenuation of cyclin A (Fig. 3B
, right panel, compare Lanes 1 and 2), verifying its activity in S phase. Interestingly, a small subset of the defined repression targets were dependent on cell cycle arrest (Fig. 3D)
. This subset was characterized by histone genes (histones H1 and H3) and the growth factor-inducible genes c-Jun and EGR-1. However, in the S-phase-synchronized cultures (A5-1 APH +Dox/–Dox), PSM-RB mediated repression of 94% of those targets identified as repressed in asynchronous cultures (Fig. 3C
, compare A5-1 +Dox/-Dox versus A5-1 APH +Dox/-Dox). Additionally, the average fold repression in S-phase-synchronized cells was similar to that observed in asynchronous cultures (Fig. 3C)
. Thus, the majority of the RB-mediated repression response was intrinsic to the action of RB and not merely a consequence of changes in cell cycle distribution.
|
, left panel). This arrest was accompanied by dephosphorylation of endogenous RB (data not shown) and attenuation of cyclin A expression (Fig. 3E
, right panel, compare Lanes 1 and 2). Therefore, p16ink4a expression is a viable means to prevent the phosphorylation of endogenous RB and monitor subsequent changes in gene expression. Infection with GFP-encoding adenovirus did not result in significant changes in gene expression, when compared with uninfected controls. As compared with cells expressing GFP-control, p16ink4a expression resulted in significant transcriptional repression (Fig. 3F)
. The repression targets of p16ink4a included 87% of those genes/ESTs repressed by PSM-RB (Fig. 3F
, compare A5-1 +Dox/-Dox versus A5-1 APH +Dox/-Dox). Thus, the repression targets elucidated by use of PSM-RB are indicative of the gene spectrum targeted through the activation of the endogenous RB.
Validation of RB Repression Targets.
Specific targets identified in these microarray screens were verified through analysis of protein levels, cell cycle position, and alternative cell systems. First, although the data described above have extensive utility in profiling RB-mediated transcriptional repression, the effect on cell cycle control downstream from RB would likely be represented by changes in protein levels as opposed to RNA. Therefore, we assessed the action of RB on a number of strong [cyclin A, ribonucleotide reductase M2 subunit (RRM2), MCM6, MCM7, DNA polymerase , topoisomerase II, PCNA, CDK2, p55CDC, cyclin B1, CDC2, Egr1, and HMG2] and relatively weak (Fen-1, DHFR, and cyclin E) repression targets at the level of protein expression. Cells cultured in the presence or absence of Dox for 24 h were harvested, and the levels of proteins were determined by immunoblotting. In Rat-16 cells, there were no significant changes in protein levels after the removal of Dox (Fig. 4A
, compare Lanes 1 and 2). Similarly, the expression of WT had little effect on the expression of target proteins (data not shown). However, for the majority of targets, activation of PSM-RB in the A5-1 cells resulted in a substantial reduction in their protein levels (Fig. 4A
, compare Lanes 3 and 4). Similar protein attenuation was observed in the A2-4 cell line (data not shown). Interestingly, proteins such as PCNA and CDK2 do not significantly change at the protein level, suggesting that the failure to change could reflect a relatively long half-life. Consistent with this idea, expression of PSM-RB for longer intervals (48–72 h) resulted in significant attenuation of both PCNA and CDK2 (data not shown). Cyclin E and DHFR, which exhibit a relatively weak response at the level of RNA (approximately 2-fold), showed no attenuation at the protein level. Together, these data support the observation that the diminution of specific target RNAs leads to meaningful changes in proteins.
|
. Protein levels from the cells were then examined by immunoblotting (Fig. 4B
, Lanes 1 and 2). Consistent with the effects of RB on transcription in S phase, the attenuation of proteins was similar to that observed in asynchronous cells. These analyses confirmed that the target proteins were down-regulated by RB in a manner that was independent from changes in cell cycle phase.
Lastly, we verified that the effects of PSM-RB on targets observed in the Rat-1 cell systems were recapitulated by activation of endogenous RB in human cells. To activate the RB pathway in a human cell line, U2OS cells were either mock-infected or infected with p16ink4a-encoding adenovirus to inhibit the phosphorylation of RB. As predicted, p16ink4a overexpression led to the activation of endogenous RB (data not shown) and mediated cell cycle arrest, as observed via flow cytometry (Fig. 4C
, left panels). Under these conditions, attenuation of target proteins was observed, similar to the rat cells with PSM-RB induced (Fig. 4C
, right panel). Interestingly, some targets were more strikingly attenuated in the U2OS cells, such as PCNA. Together, these data confirm the targets of RB identified through the microarray analysis and verify their conservation in both human and rodent models.
Effect of E2F2 Overexpression on RB Repression Targets.
Because E2F complexes are believed to function as the principal transcriptional targeting system for RB, we assessed the effect of E2F2 overproduction on the behavior of RB targets. First, we investigated the extent to which ectopic E2F2 expression is able to reverse RB-mediated repression using a synthetic 3XE2F reporter construct (Fig. 4D)
. A5-1 cells harboring inducible expression of PSM-RB were either mock-infected or infected with GFP-encoding adenovirus or adenovirus encoding for E2F2 in the presence or absence of Dox. Infection with GFP adenovirus did not significantly influence E2F activity (Fig. 4D
, compare Mock +Dox and GFP +Dox). The PSM-RB-mediated repression was readily apparent in GFP-infected cells (Fig. 4D
, compare GFP +Dox and GFP -Dox bars). In the absence of PSM-RB, ectopic expression of E2F2 weakly stimulated 3XE2F promoter activity (compare GFP +Dox and E2F2 +Dox). E2F2 expression blocked the repression elicited by PSM-RB (compare GFP -Dox and E2F2 -Dox). Thus, the ectopic expression of E2F2 can quantitatively antagonize PSM-RB-mediated repression.
To examine the effect of E2F2 overexpression on PSM-RB-mediated cell cycle inhibition, we used flow cytometry. Ectopic expression of E2F2 had little effect on cell cycle distribution in the presence of Dox (Fig. 4E
, left panels, Mock +Dox versus E2F2 +Dox). In the absence of Dox, E2F2 expression overcomes the RB-mediated cell cycle block, allowing an accumulation of cells in S phase (Fig. 4E
, left panels, Mock -Dox versus E2F2 -Dox).
Analysis of RB repression targets under conditions of mock infection showed that cyclin A, topoisomerase II, p55CDC, RRM2, thymidylate synthase, and cyclin B1 were all down-regulated by expression of PSM-RB (Fig. 4E
, right panel, compare Lanes 1 and 2). However, these same targets were not significantly stimulated by the overexpression of E2F2 (Fig. 4E
, right panel, compare Lanes 1 and 3). In contrast, expression of E2F2 did block the RB-mediated attenuation of these proteins (Fig. 4E
, right panel, compare Lanes 1 and 2 versus Lanes 3 and 4). Thus, E2F2 overproduction serves to disrupt RB-mediated repression, but only in the case of specific targets (e.g., cyclin E, see Fig. 1C
) does it induce their expression.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Typically, the action of RB is elicited in response to physiological stresses (2) . The PSM-RB alleles used provide an important tool for specifically focusing on targets of RB in isolation; however, it is equally important to determine whether they reflect the action of the endogenous RB. To assess the role of endogenous RB, we used p16ink4a, which, by virtue of inhibiting CDK activity, causes the accumulation of dephosphorylated RB (1) . Analyses of genes regulated by p16ink4a were largely consistent with those of genes regulated by the action of PSM-RB. These results lend further support to the idea that the transcriptional repression program elicited by p16ink4a is mediated through RB. Additionally, they suggest that these same targets will be repressed in response to environmental signals (e.g., DNA damage that elicits RB activation).
RB-mediated transcriptional repression is complicated, with multiple factors cooperating for transcriptional repression on specific promoters. For example, repression of cyclin A is dependent on SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling, whereas other forms of transcriptional repression are dependent on histone deacetylases or polycomb repressor components (31 , 32 , 35 , 36) . The relatively small list of RB transcriptional targets has stymied efforts to analyze the contributions of different corepressors. Thus, by elucidating the targets, we are now in the position to delineate those activities (i.e., SWI/SNF, HDAC, and so forth) responsible for the observed transcriptional repression effects. Additionally, because loss of SWI/SNF disrupts RB-mediated cell cycle inhibition components (31 , 32) , we can begin to decipher the functional significance of targets by analyzing the effect of this lesion on specific targets.
Whether RB interacts directly with the promoters of all of the targets identified in this study remains undetermined. Specific promoters have been shown to be occupied by RB during p16ink4a-mediated cell cycle arrest (35)
, and these were identified in our screen. Moreover, members of a subset of targets identified herein have been shown through chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis to harbor E2F complexes on their promoters (Refs. 52
and 53
; summarized in Table 1
). Given the documented interaction between E2F and RB, it is highly likely that RB is capable of directly binding the regulatory regions of these E2F-associated genes. Analysis of the remaining RB target promoter regions is the focus of current study. Regardless of the nature of transcriptional repression (i.e., direct or indirect), these data provide powerful insight into the transcriptional and thus biological consequence of RB activation.
E2F as a Target of RB.
RB assembles repressor complexes to actively repress promoters containing E2F sites (8
, 24
, 28
, 30, 31, 32
, 36
, 37)
. The importance of this activity of RB has been demonstrated in several ways. First, ectopic overexpression of E2F proteins was shown to overcome RB-mediated cell cycle arrest (39
, 58
, 59) . Additionally, using mutants of E2F that specifically displace the endogenous proteins from promoters, it was shown that disruption of repression was sufficient to overcome RB-dependent arrest (8
, 38)
. These results have led to the hypotheses that genes activated via the ectopic expression of E2F proteins are universally repressed by RB and that RB repression targets are activated by E2F. The results shown here argue against simple antagonism in relation to RB/E2F in several ways. First, some of the genes up-regulated by the overexpression of E2F proteins are not appreciably attenuated by PSM-RB. For example, ectopic expression of E2F1 or E2F2 stimulates the expression of cyclin E RNA by 14.4- and 22.3-fold, respectively (44)
, whereas PSM-RB only represses cyclin E by 2.1-fold. This dichotomy is also observed at the level of protein, where ectopic expression of E2F2 results in significant augmentation of cyclin E protein levels, whereas PSM-RB does not influence the level of cyclin E protein (Fig. 1C)
. Second, there are a large number of RB targets that are only weakly activated by the ectopic expression of E2F proteins. For example, Ki-67, cyclin A2, Cdc2, and MCM-7 are repressed efficiently by PSM-RB (12.4-, 7.5-, 4.2-, and 6.3-fold, respectively) but stimulated weakly by E2F1 (2.2-, 2.2-, 1.9-, and 1.9-fold, respectively) or E2F2 (2.7-, 2.7-, 2.2-, and 2.4-fold, respectively) overexpression (44)
. Interestingly, in studies where ectopic expression of E2F1 and E2F2 (44)
or E2F1 and E2F3 (51)
was studied side by side, the magnitude of target gene activation was similar between the different E2F-family members used. Thus, although induction by E2F family members tends to be similar in degree, there are differences between the relative induction by E2F proteins and repression by RB.
To further delineate the role of E2F in RB-mediated transcriptional repression, ectopic expression of E2F2 was used to antagonize RB signaling. Interestingly, E2F2 overexpression stimulated the expression of cdc25A and cyclin E protein but had little influence on stimulating the accumulation of other proteins (cyclin A, p55CDC, RNR-M2, cyclin B1, and topoisomerase II) in the absence of PSM-RB. These results suggest that under normal growth conditions, there is potentially little effect of E2F2 overproduction, and perhaps only under conditions where pocket proteins are active (e.g., during quiescence) are these targets clearly apparent. This idea would explain the relatively disparate sets of target genes identified between E2F1, E2F2, or E2F3 overexpression in proliferating cells (50)
versus those that are stimulated with E2F from quiescence (44
, 51)
. In general, the targets of RB identified in our screen fall into this latter category, suggesting that much of the observed stimulation due to E2F overexpression is due to derepression. Consistent with this view, we show that E2F2 overproduction can uncouple RB-mediated target attenuation (Fig. 4E)
. Together, these results show that there are inherent differences of specific targets for the relative role of RB repression versus E2F activation.
RB Targets and Cell Cycle Control.
Once activated/dephosphorylated, RB can inhibit G1 and S-phase progression. The finding that RB functions to down-regulate a large number of DNA replication factors is consistent with its role in the inhibition of DNA replication. Because the encoded proteins are important participants in cell cycle progression, we sought to determine whether the activation of RB actually attenuated the target proteins. Immunoblot analysis of several of the replication protein targets confirmed that they were down-regulated at the level of protein (Fig. 4A)
. Furthermore, attenuation of these proteins occurred in concert with cell cycle inhibition. Thus, loss of these proteins could participate in the observed blockage of replication. Ongoing studies are determining the functional role of these targets in RB-mediated replication control.
The targeting of proteins involved in DNA repair and G2-M control also suggests that RB could participate in the inhibition of those processes. This would be of interest given the role of RB in DNA damage checkpoint regulation (12 , 60, 61, 62) . Consistent with the role of RB in this form of G2-M control, it has been reported that RB is required for the maintenance of the DNA damage-induced G2-M checkpoint that is facilitated by down-regulation of cyclin B1 (a target identified in our screen; Ref. 62 ).
In summary, the data presented here provide a clear outline of RB action in the cessation of proliferation. Our unbiased screen revealed transcriptional targets of RB that were independent of cell cycle position and validated to the level of protein in both rat and human cells. Whereas a subset of targets is shared with known E2F-regulated genes, many novel targets were identified linking RB to additional layers of cell cycle and checkpoint control. Moreover, our results draw significant distinctions between RB repression and E2F activation, illustrating that the relative contributions to transcriptional control cannot be attributed to simple antagonism. Together, these data reveal the complex nature of RB/E2F signaling and identify functional targets that contribute to RB biological activity.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 Supported by funding to E. S. K. and B. J. A. from the NIEHS-Comparative Mouse Genomic Center (Grant U01-E511308) and Center for Environmental Genetics (Grant P30-ES06096). 
2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Vontz Center for Molecular Studies, Department of Cell Biology, 3125 Eden Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0521. Phone: (513) 558-8885; Fax: (513) 558-4454; E-mail: erik.knudsen{at}uc.edu
3 The abbreviations used are: CDK, cyclin-dependent kinase; GFP, green fluorescent protein; EST, expressed sequence tag; Dox, doxycycline; DHFR, dihydrofolate reductase; PCNA, proliferating cell nuclear antigen; APH, aphidicolin; WT, wild-type large pocket RB.
Received 5/24/02. Accepted 9/20/02.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. R. Stengel, C. Thangavel, D. A. Solomon, S. P. Angus, Y. Zheng, and E. S. Knudsen Retinoblastoma/p107/p130 Pocket Proteins: PROTEIN DYNAMICS AND INTERACTIONS WITH TARGET GENE PROMOTERS J. Biol. Chem., July 17, 2009; 284(29): 19265 - 19271. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. A. Zagorski, E. S. Knudsen, and M. F. Reed Retinoblastoma Deficiency Increases Chemosensitivity in Lung Cancer Cancer Res., September 1, 2007; 67(17): 8264 - 8273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Teissier, Y. Ben Khalifa, M. Mori, P. Pautier, C. Desaintes, and F. Thierry A New E6/P63 Pathway, Together with a Strong E7/E2F Mitotic Pathway, Modulates the Transcriptome in Cervical Cancer Cells J. Virol., September 1, 2007; 81(17): 9368 - 9376. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Yung, J. L. Walker, J. M. Roberts, and R. K. Assoian A Skp2 autoinduction loop and restriction point control J. Cell Biol., August 27, 2007; 178(5): 741 - 747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. V. Srinivasan, C. N. Mayhew, S. Schwemberger, W. Zagorski, and E. S. Knudsen RB Loss Promotes Aberrant Ploidy by Deregulating Levels and Activity of DNA Replication Factors J. Biol. Chem., August 17, 2007; 282(33): 23867 - 23877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Sharma, C. E.S. Comstock, E. S. Knudsen, K. H. Cao, J. K. Hess-Wilson, L. M. Morey, J. Barrera, and K. E. Knudsen Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor Status Is a Critical Determinant of Therapeutic Response in Prostate Cancer Cells Cancer Res., July 1, 2007; 67(13): 6192 - 6203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Villanueva, Y. Yung, J. L. Walker, and R. K. Assoian ERK Activity and G1 Phase Progression: Identifying Dispensable Versus Essential Activities and Primary Versus Secondary Targets Mol. Biol. Cell, April 1, 2007; 18(4): 1457 - 1463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Kothapalli, L. Zhao, E. A. Hawthorne, Y. Cheng, E. Lee, E. Pure, and R. K. Assoian Hyaluronan and CD44 antagonize mitogen-dependent cyclin D1 expression in mesenchymal cells J. Cell Biol., February 12, 2007; 176(4): 535 - 544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Cayrol, C. Lacroix, C. Mathe, V. Ecochard, M. Ceribelli, E. Loreau, V. Lazar, P. Dessen, R. Mantovani, L. Aguilar, et al. The THAP-zinc finger protein THAP1 regulates endothelial cell proliferation through modulation of pRB/E2F cell-cycle target genes Blood, January 15, 2007; 109(2): 584 - 594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. F. Reed, W. A. Zagorski, J. A. Howington, J. T. Zilfou, and E. S. Knudsen Inhibition of retinoblastoma tumor suppressor activity by RNA interference in lung cancer lines. Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2006; 82(1): 249 - 253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. S. Knudsen and K. E. Knudsen Retinoblastoma tumor suppressor: where cancer meets the cell cycle. Experimental Biology and Medicine, July 1, 2006; 231(7): 1271 - 1281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.-Q. An, H. M. Folarin, N. Compitello, J. Roth, S. L. Gerson, K. R. McCrae, F. D. Fakhari, D. P. Dittmer, and R. Renne Long-Term-Infected Telomerase-Immortalized Endothelial Cells: a Model for Kaposi's Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus Latency In Vitro and In Vivo. J. Virol., May 1, 2006; 80(10): 4833 - 4846. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Chen, X. Huang, D. Halicka, S. Brodsky, A. Avram, J. Eskander, N. A. Bloomgarden, Z. Darzynkiewicz, and M. S. Goligorsky Contribution of p16INK4a and p21CIP1 pathways to induction of premature senescence of human endothelial cells: permissive role of p53 Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, April 1, 2006; 290(4): H1575 - H1586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. J. Miller, F. Rangwala, J. Williams, P. Ackerman, S. Kong, A. G. Jegga, S. Kaiser, B. J. Aronow, S. Frahm, L. Kluwe, et al. Large-scale molecular comparison of human schwann cells to malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor cell lines and tissues. Cancer Res., March 1, 2006; 66(5): 2584 - 2591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Melcon, S. Kozlov, D. A. Cutler, T. Sullivan, L. Hernandez, P. Zhao, S. Mitchell, G. Nader, M. Bakay, J. N. Rottman, et al. Loss of emerin at the nuclear envelope disrupts the Rb1/E2F and MyoD pathways during muscle regeneration Hum. Mol. Genet., February 15, 2006; 15(4): 637 - 651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P.-L. Chen, F. Liu, S. Cai, X. Lin, A. Li, Y. Chen, B. Gu, E. Y.-H. P. Lee, and W.-H. Lee Inactivation of CtIP Leads to Early Embryonic Lethality Mediated by G1 Restraint and to Tumorigenesis by Haploid Insufficiency Mol. Cell. Biol., May 1, 2005; 25(9): 3535 - 3542. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. T. McCabe, J. N. Davis, and M. L. Day Regulation of DNA Methyltransferase 1 by the pRb/E2F1 Pathway Cancer Res., May 1, 2005; 65(9): 3624 - 3632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. W. Jackson, M. K. Agarwal, J. Yang, P. Bruss, T. Uchiumi, M. L. Agarwal, G. R. Stark, and W. R. Taylor, p130/p107/p105Rb-dependent transcriptional repression during DNA-damage-induced cell-cycle exit at G2 J. Cell Sci., May 1, 2005; 118(9): 1821 - 1832. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. E. Bosco and E. S. Knudsen Differential role of RB in response to UV and IR damage Nucleic Acids Res., March 14, 2005; 33(5): 1581 - 1592. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.-Q. An, N. Compitello, E. Horwitz, M. Sramkoski, E. S. Knudsen, and R. Renne The Latency-associated Nuclear Antigen of Kaposi's Sarcoma-associated Herpesvirus Modulates Cellular Gene Expression and Protects Lymphoid Cells from p16 INK4A-induced Cell Cycle Arrest J. Biol. Chem., February 4, 2005; 280(5): 3862 - 3874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. W. Fry, P. J. Harvey, P. R. Keller, W. L. Elliott, M. Meade, E. Trachet, M. Albassam, X. Zheng, W. R. Leopold, N. K. Pryer, et al. Specific inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 by PD 0332991 and associated antitumor activity in human tumor xenografts Mol. Cancer Ther., November 1, 2004; 3(11): 1427 - 1438. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. A. Koroleva, M. Tomlinson, P. Parinyapong, L. Sakvarelidze, D. Leader, P. Shaw, and J. H. Doonan CycD1, a Putative G1 Cyclin from Antirrhinum majus, Accelerates the Cell Cycle in Cultured Tobacco BY-2 Cells by Enhancing Both G1/S Entry and Progression through S and G2 Phases PLANT CELL, September 1, 2004; 16(9): 2364 - 2379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Markey, H. Siddiqui, and E. S. Knudsen Geminin Is Targeted for Repression by the Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor Pathway through Intragenic E2F Sites J. Biol. Chem., July 9, 2004; 279(28): 29255 - 29262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. W. Gunawardena, H. Siddiqui, D. A. Solomon, C. N. Mayhew, J. Held, S. P. Angus, and E. S. Knudsen Hierarchical Requirement of SWI/SNF in Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor-mediated Repression of Plk1 J. Biol. Chem., July 9, 2004; 279(28): 29278 - 29285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. P. Angus, C. N. Mayhew, D. A. Solomon, W. A. Braden, M. P. Markey, Y. Okuno, M. C. Cardoso, D. M. Gilbert, and E. S. Knudsen RB Reversibly Inhibits DNA Replication via Two Temporally Distinct Mechanisms Mol. Cell. Biol., June 15, 2004; 24(12): 5404 - 5420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Thierry, M. A. Benotmane, C. Demeret, M. Mori, S. Teissier, and C. Desaintes A Genomic Approach Reveals a Novel Mitotic Pathway in Papillomavirus Carcinogenesis Cancer Res., February 1, 2004; 64(3): 895 - 903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. E. Bosco, C. N. Mayhew, R. F. Hennigan, J. Sage, T. Jacks, and E. S. Knudsen RB signaling prevents replication-dependent DNA double-strand breaks following genotoxic insult Nucleic Acids Res., January 2, 2004; 32(1): 25 - 34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Vernell, K. Helin, and H. Muller Identification of Target Genes of the p16INK4A-pRB-E2F Pathway J. Biol. Chem., November 14, 2003; 278(46): 46124 - 46137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Siddiqui, D. A. Solomon, R. W. Gunawardena, Y. Wang, and E. S. Knudsen Histone Deacetylation of RB-Responsive Promoters: Requisite for Specific Gene Repression but Dispensable for Cell Cycle Inhibition Mol. Cell. Biol., November 1, 2003; 23(21): 7719 - 7731. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Lohr, C. Moritz, A. Contente, and M. Dobbelstein p21/CDKN1A Mediates Negative Regulation of Transcription by p53 J. Biol. Chem., August 29, 2003; 278(35): 32507 - 32516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. S. Fay, E. Large, M. Han, and M. Darland lin-35/Rb and ubc-18, an E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme, function redundantly to control pharyngeal morphogenesis in C. elegans Development, July 15, 2003; 130(14): 3319 - 3330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |
