|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M011534200 on May 25, 2001
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 276, Issue 31, 29282-29291, August 3, 2001
Telomeric Protein Pin2/TRF1 as an Important ATM Target
in Response to Double Strand DNA Breaks*
Shuji
Kishi,
Xiao Zhen
Zhou,
Yael
Ziv ,
Christine
Khoo,
David E.
Hill§,
Yossi
Shiloh , and
Kun Ping
Lu¶
From the Cancer Biology Program, Division of Hematology/Oncology,
Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, the
Department of Human Genetics and Molecular Medicine,
Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel, and § Oncogene Research Products, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02142
Received for publication, December 21, 2000, and in revised form, May 16, 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
ATM mutations are
responsible for the genetic disease ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T).
ATM encodes a protein kinase that is activated by ionizing
radiation-induced double strand DNA breaks. Cells derived from A-T
patients show many abnormalities, including accelerated telomere loss
and hypersensitivity to ionizing radiation; they enter into mitosis and
apoptosis after DNA damage. Pin2 was originally identified as a protein
involved in G2/M regulation and is almost identical to
TRF1, a telomeric protein that negatively regulates telomere
elongation. Pin2 and TRF1, probably encoded by the same gene,
PIN2/TRF1, are regulated during the cell cycle.
Furthermore, up-regulation of Pin2 or TRF1 induces mitotic entry and
apoptosis, a phenotype similar to that of A-T cells after DNA damage.
These results suggest that ATM may regulate the function of Pin2/TRF1, but their exact relationship remains unknown. Here we show that Pin2/TRF1 coimmunoprecipitated with ATM, and its phosphorylation was
increased in an ATM-dependent manner by ionizing DNA
damage. Furthermore, activated ATM directly phosphorylated Pin2/TRF1
preferentially on the conserved Ser219-Gln site
in vitro and in vivo. The biological
significance of this phosphorylation is substantiated by functional
analyses of the phosphorylation site mutants. Although expression of
Pin2 and its mutants has no detectable effect on telomere length in transient transfection, a Pin2 mutant refractory to ATM phosphorylation on Ser219 potently induces mitotic entry and apoptosis and
increases radiation hypersensitivity of A-T cells. In contrast, Pin2
mutants mimicking ATM phosphorylation on Ser219 completely
fail to induce apoptosis and also reduce radiation hypersensitivity of
A-T cells. Interestingly, the phenotype of the
phosphorylation-mimicking mutants is the same as that which resulted
from inhibition of endogenous Pin2/TRF1 in A-T cells by its
dominant-negative mutants. These results demonstrate for the first time
that ATM interacts with and phosphorylates Pin2/TRF1 and suggest that
Pin2/TRF1 may be involved in the cellular response to double strand DNA breaks.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Mutations in the ATM gene are responsible for the rare
autosomal human recessive disorder ataxia-telangiectasia
(A-T),1 characterized by
progressive neurological degeneration, telangiectasia, growth
retardation, premature aging, immunodeficiency, mitotic checkpoint
defect, hypersensitivity to ionizing radiation, gonadal atrophy,
genomic instability, and predisposition to cancer (1). ATM
encodes a protein kinase that is activated by ionizing DNA damage and
is critical for maintaining genome stability, telomere maintenance, and
induction of cell cycle checkpoints by double strand DNA breaks (2-4).
ATM has been shown to bind and/or phosphorylate many key regulators,
including p53, -adaptin, c-Abl, Chk1-2, Brca1, and Nijmegen
breakage syndrome protein (5-15). Identification of these ATM target
proteins opens new avenues for understanding the physiological function
of ATM as well as for explaining the pleiotropic phenotypes associated
with ATM mutations in A-T patients and cells.
Double strand DNA breaks induced by ionizing irradiation activate ATM
and trigger multiple pathways to ensure that cells delay entry into
mitosis following DNA damage to repair the damaged DNA before cell
division. Many of these pathways ultimately lead to the inhibition of
cyclin B/Cdc2, a major protein kinase that regulates entry into mitosis
(7, 8, 16-22). However, in A-T cells, the ATM-dependent
mitotic checkpoint is disrupted, and cyclin B/Cdc2 cannot be kept in an
inactive state after DNA damage (22-24). Therefore, A-T cells are
hypersensitive to ionizing radiation; they fail to delay entry into
mitosis and instead are prone to enter into mitosis and then apoptosis
after irradiation (25-28).
Radiation hypersensitivity of A-T cells has been shown to correlate
with their telomere loss (25-28). There is compelling evidence supporting an important role for ATM in the regulation of telomere metabolism. Cells derived from humans and mice with a defective ATM gene show a prominent defect related to telomere
dysfunction (1, 29-32). These cells have an accelerated rate of
telomere loss and chromosome end-to-end associations and show premature senescence (25-28, 33, 34). Furthermore, ATM has recently been shown
to regulate the interaction between telomeres and the nuclear matrix
(35). In addition, the yeast ATM homologues TEL1 and MEC1 control
telomere length and the G2/M checkpoint; their mutations result in shortened telomeres, a G2/M checkpoint defect,
and genomic instability (36-38). Furthermore, TEL1 substitutes for ATM
in rescuing telomere shortening, radiation hypersensitivity, and the
G2/M checkpoint defect in A-T cells (39). These results
indicate that ATM plays a crucial role in regulating telomere length
and the DNA damage mitotic checkpoint. However, it is not fully clear how ATM is involved in coordinating these two events.
Telomeres are composed of repetitive DNA sequences of TTAGGG arrays
concealed by a complex of telomeric proteins that protect the ends from
exonucleolytic attack, fusion, and incomplete replication (40-42).
Compelling evidence suggests that telomere length is regulated by
telomeric DNA-binding proteins in yeast and mammalian cells (43-47).
In human cells, inhibition of one such protein, TRF1, by the
dominant-negative mutant increases telomere length, whereas overexpression of TRF1 accelerates telomere loss (47, 48). These
results indicate that TRF1 negatively regulates telomere maintenance.
In our genetic search for proteins that are able to suppress premature
mitotic entry induced by the mitotic kinase NIMA (never-in-mitosis A), we identified three proteins, Pin1-3, which are all
involved in mitotic regulation (49-51). Pin1 is a
phosphorylation-specific prolyl isomerase that regulates the
conformation of the phosphorylated Ser/Thr-Pro motifs present in a
defined subset of phosphoproteins (52-56). Pin2 is identical to TRF1
apart from an internal deletion of 20 amino acids and forms a homodimer
or heterodimer with TRF1 (50). In cells, Pin2 is 5-10-fold more
abundant than TRF1 (50), and Pin2 and TRF1 are probably two
alternatively spliced isoforms of the PIN2/TRF1 gene, as
suggested by Young et al. (57). For clarity, we will here
use TRF1 for the 20-amino acid-containing isoform and Pin2 for the
20-amino acid deletion isoform, as they were originally identified (48,
50), but refer to endogenous proteins as Pin2/TRF1 because it is still
difficult to physically and functionally separate these isoforms. Pin2
and TRF1 contain a structural motif similar to destruction boxes
present in mitotic cyclins, and their levels are regulated during the
cell cycle, with a striking increase in late G2 and M (50),
as is the case for mitotic cyclins (58). Furthermore, overexpression of
Pin2 induces mitotic entry and then apoptosis in cells containing short telomeres (59). These results suggest that Pin2/TRF1 may play a role in
the regulation of mitotic entry. However, little is known about the
regulation and function of Pin2/TRF1 in cell cycle checkpoints.
Here we show that Pin2/TRF1 formed stable complexes with ATM in cells.
Furthermore, following ionizing radiation, activated ATM phosphorylated
Pin2/TRF1 preferentially on Ser219 both in vitro
and in vivo. Significantly, like Pin2, Pin2S219A
induced mitotic entry and apoptosis and increased radiation
hypersensitivity of A-T cells. In contrast, Pin2S219D or
Pin2S219E completely failed to induce apoptosis and reduced
radiation hypersensitivity of A-T cells. Interestingly, these
phenotypes of phospho-mimicking Pin2 mutants were the same as those
that resulted from inhibition of endogenous Pin2/TRF1 in A-T cells by
dominant-negative mutants. These results suggest that phosphorylation
of Pin2 on Ser219 by ATM probably inhibits its function
after DNA damage.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Site-directed Mutagenesis and Recombinant Protein
Production--
The mutants of Pin2 were generated using
polymerase chain reaction mutagenesis procedures and confirmed
by sequencing. GST fusion proteins containing Pin2 and various mutants
were purified as described (50, 54).
Transient Transfection, Immunoprecipitation, and Immunoblotting
Analysis--
cDNAs encoding Pin2, TRF1, and its various mutants
with an NH2-terminal HA epitope tag were subcloned
into the pUHD expression vector and then transfected into tTA-1 HeLa
cells or ATM-negative A-T22IJE-T cells using the Superfect reagents
(Qiagen) as described (50, 60, 61). In the case of A-T22JE-T cells, tTA
expression vector was used for cotransfection as described (62). The
expression of the transgenes was determined by immunoblotting analysis
using anti-HA antibody (12CA5). For coimmunoprecipitation, cells were lysed in lysis buffer I (50 mM Hepes, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5% Triton X-100, 1 mM EDTA, 2.5 mM EGTA, 100 mM NaF, 1 mM
Na3VO4, 2 µg/ml aprotinin, 5 µg/ml
leupeptin, 1 mM dithiothreitol, and 1 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride), followed by immunoprecipitation with
anti-Pin2/TRF1 antibody (5804), preimmune sera, anti-ATM antibody
(Ab-3/ATM-6), or anti-c-Abl antibody (Ab-3) as described (50). For the
detection of the endogenous protein interaction with anti-ATM
antibodies, nuclear extracts were used for immunoprecipitation as
described (63). We used cell lysates that were five times more than
those in inputs, and we only loaded half of the immunoprecipitates to
the gel for Western blotting with the appropriate antibodies.
In Vitro Binding Assay for ATM and Pin2--
To detect binding
of ATM and 35S-Pin2 in vitro, the cDNA
encoding Pin2, Pin21-316, and
Pin2317-419 were cloned into pcDNA3 (Invitrogen) and
subjected to in vitro transcription and translation
(Promega) in the presence of [35S]Met. Translated
proteins were incubated for 12 h at 4 °C in 500 µl of buffer
II (50 mM Hepes, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 2.5 mM EGTA, 100 mM NaF, 1 mM Na3VO4, 2 µg/ml aprotinin, 5 µg/ml leupeptin, 1 mM dithiothreitol, and 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride) with ATM that was
immunoprecipitated from equal amounts of lysates prepared from HeLa or
A-T22IJE-T cells. After being washed three times with buffer II plus
0.25% Triton X-100, precipitated proteins were visualized by
SDS-containing gels, followed by autoradiography and immunoblotting
analysis with anti-ATM antibodies. To detect the interaction between
GST-Pin2 proteins and ATM, ATM that was immunoprecipitated from equal
amounts of HeLa lysates was mixed with GST-Pin2 and its mutants. After
incubation for 12 h at 4 °C in 500 µl of buffer II with
protein A beads, complexes of beads were washed three times with buffer
II plus 0.25% Triton X-100, and precipitated proteins were visualized
by SDS-containing gels, followed by immunoblotting analysis with
anti-GST and anti-ATM antibodies, respectively.
In Vivo and in Vitro Phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 by
ATM--
For the detection of in vivo phosphorylation of
Pin2/TRF1, HeLa cells were labeled overnight with
[32P]orthophosphate (54), and Pin2/TRF1 was
immunoprecipitated with anti-Pin2/TRF1 antibodies, followed by
SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and phospho-amino acid analysis
as described (50, 64). For examining Pin2/TRF1 phosphorylation after
irradiation, cells were irradiated and labeled with 32P for
1-4 h as described (65). For transient expression of ATM, pcDNA3
vectors containing wild-type FLAG-ATM or its kinase-dead mutant were
transfected to 293T cells, and expressed proteins were
immunoprecipitated using M2 antibody, followed by Pin2 phosphorylation as described (7, 8). Briefly, cells were lysed by freezing and thawing
in buffer III (50 mM Hepes, pH 7.5, 150 mM
NaCl, 0.2% dodecyl maltoside, 1 mM EDTA, 2.5 mM EGTA, 50 mM NaF, 1 mM
NaVO4, 2 µg/ml aprotinin, 5 µg/ml leupeptin, 1 mM dithiothreitol, and 1 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride). ATM was then
immunoprecipitated with anti-ATM polyclonal antibody (Ab-3). Immune
complexes were washed twice with buffer III, once with a buffer
containing 100 mM Tris, pH 7.5, and 0.5 M LiCl,
and twice with a kinase buffer (50 mM Hepes, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM MnCl2, 10 mM MgCl2, 10% glycerol, 50 mM NaF,
100 µM NaVO4, 2 µg/ml aprotinin, 5 µg/ml leupeptin, 1 mM dithiothreitol, and 1 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride). 1 µg of GST-Pin2 or its mutant
proteins and 5 µM [ -32P]ATP were added;
the reaction mixtures were incubated at 30 °C for 30 min; and the
reaction products were visualized by SDS-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis and autoradiography.
Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization and Flow
Cytometry--
Combinatorial immunostaining and telomere fluorescence
in situ hybridization was carried out as described (66).
Cells grown on coverslips were washed once in Tris-buffered saline and
incubated in 3.7% formaldehyde in Tris-buffered saline for 10 min at
room temperature. The cells were then permeabilized and blocked with Tris-buffered saline containing 2% normal goat serum and 0.4% Triton
X-100 for 30 min. Transfected HA-Pin2 and its mutants were first
immunostained with the anti-HA (12CA5) antibody and with TRITC-conjugated mouse secondary antibodies. After
immonostaining, the cells were fixed again under the same
conditions as the first time. These prepared cells were then
denatured in a hybridization mixture containing 70% deionized
formamide, 20 mM Tris, pH 7.0, 1% bovine serum albumin,
and 10 nM fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled peptide
nucleic acid telomere repeat probe (PerSeptive Biosystems, Framingham, MA) for 10 min at 80 °C. A hybridization was performed for 12 h at room temperature. Finally, DNA was counterstained with
0.5 µg/ml 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, and preparations were
mounted in antifade solution (Vectashield, Vector Laboratories). For
the preparation of samples for flow cytometric analysis, cells were
harvested by trypsinization, and suspended cells were fixed and stained
as described above. Flow cytometric analysis was performed by
FACScanTM (Becton Dickinson). Transfected cells were gated
by FL2 channel, and the intensity of telomere fluorescence was
determined by FL1 channel as described (67, 68).
 |
RESULTS |
Pin2/TRF1 Coimmunoprecipitates with ATM in Cells--
To examine
whether ATM is involved in the regulation of Pin2/TRF1, we first
determined whether Pin2/TRF1 interacts with ATM. A construct expressing
HA-Pin2 was transfected into HeLa cells and then subjected to
coimmunoprecipitations as described (50). Consistent with earlier
reports (5, 6), ATM coimmunoprecipitated with c-Abl (Fig.
1). Interestingly, HA-Pin2 was also
detected both in anti-ATM and anti-c-Abl immunoprecipitates.
Conversely, antibodies (anti-Pin2/TRF1) recognizing both Pin2 and TRF1
also immunoprecipitated ATM and c-Abl, although pre-immune sera did not
(Fig. 1). These results indicate that expressed Pin2
coimmunoprecipitates with ATM and c-Abl.

View larger version (66K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Interaction between ATM and ectopically
expressed HA-Pin2. Coimmunoprecipitation of expressed Pin2 with
ATM and also with c-Abl via ATM. An HA-Pin2 expression construct was
transfected into HeLa cells (ATM+) and A-T22IJE-T cells (ATM ),
followed by immunoprecipitation (IP) with the indicated
antibodies. Immunoprecipitates were separated on SDS gels and subjected
to immunoblotting analysis (IB) with the proper antibodies.
An aliquot of each lysate taken prior to immunoprecipitation was also
separated on the same gels to show similar amounts of each protein
present in lysates.
|
|
To rule out the possibility that the observed coimmunoprecipitations
were due to the cross-reactivity of the antibodies and to determine
whether ATM was needed for Pin2 to associate with c-Abl, we performed
the same experiments in an A-T cell line, A-T22IJE-T (61). A-T22IJE-T
cells were originally derived from primary A-T fibroblasts (69), which
harbor a homozygous frameshift mutation at codon 762 of the
ATM gene and contain no ATM protein, because the truncated
protein is not stable (61, 70, 71). Although Pin2 and c-Abl were
expressed in A-T22IJE-T cells at levels similar to those in HeLa cells,
neither anti-ATM nor anti-Abl antibodies were able to immunoprecipitate
Pin2 in A-T22IJE-T cells. Furthermore, anti-Pin2/TRF1 antibodies did
not immunoprecipitate c-Abl. A similar interaction between ATM and the
TRF1 isoform was also observed (Fig.
2A). Two COOH-terminal
truncation mutants were used to approximately map the domain in
Pin2 that interacts with ATM. ATM coimmunoprecipitated with mutants
that were truncated up to residue 316 (Fig. 2A), suggesting
that the interacting domain may be located at the
NH2-terminal 316 amino acids of Pin2. To further confirm
the binding domain, Pin2 was divided into the NH2-terminal
Pin21-316 and the COOH-terminal Pin2317-419,
and the mutant proteins were produced and labeled with 35S
by in vitro transcription/translation. When the labeled
proteins were incubated with anti-ATM immunoprecipitates prepared from HeLa cells, both full-length Pin2 and its NH2-terminal
Pin21-316, but not the COOH-terminal
Pin2317-419, were precipitated by anti-ATM antibodies
(Fig. 2B). Furthermore, the binding was not observed with
anti-ATM immunoprecipitates from ATM-negative A-T22IJE-T cells (Fig.
2B), demonstrating that anti-ATM does not nonspecifically
precipitate Pin2. Finally, we performed in vitro binding
experiments using ATM immunoprecipitates and GST-Pin2 or its mutants.
Pin2 and three different COOH-terminal truncation mutants,
Pin21-320, Pin21-230, and
Pin21-205, were generated and purified as GST fusion
proteins, followed by incubation with ATM immunoprecipitated from
HeLa cells. All these three mutants, but not the control GST, bound to
ATM. Together, these results indicate that the NH2-terminal
half of the Pin2 molecule specifically interacts with ATM.

View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Identification of the ATM-interacting domain
in Pin2. A, interaction of ATM with TRF1 or Pin2
truncation mutants. HeLa cells were transfected with HA-TRF1 or HA-Pin2
truncation mutant constructs. Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated
using anti-ATM antibodies, followed by immunoblotting analysis with
anti-ATM antibodies or anti-HA antibody (12CA5). Note that slightly
more TRF1 than Pin2 was coimmunoprecipitated by anti-ATM antibodies,
which is probably due to the fact that more TRF1 protein was expressed
in cells. B, interaction of ATM with the
NH2-terminal, but not the COOH-terminal, domain of Pin2.
Pin2 and the Pin2 NH2-terminal (Pin21-316) and
COOH-terminal (Pin2317-419) mutants were synthesized by
in vitro transcription and translation in the presence of
[35S]Met. The labeled proteins were incubated with ATM
that was immunoprecipitated from equal amounts of lysates prepared from
HeLa or A-T22IJE-T cells. After washing, the bound proteins were
subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, followed by
autoradiography (bottom panel) or immunoblotting analysis
with anti-ATM antibodies (top panel). Lanes 1,
4, and 7, Pin2; lanes 2, 5,
and 8, Pin21-316; lanes 3,
6, and 9, Pin2317-419. C,
interaction of ATM with the NH2-terminal half of Pin2. Pin2
and its COOH-terminal truncation mutants were expressed and purified as
GST fusion proteins and then incubated with ATM that was
immunoprecipitated from equal amounts of HeLa lysates. After washing,
the bound proteins were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis, followed by immunoblotting analysis with anti-ATM
antibodies (top panel) or anti-GST antibodies (bottom
panels). Lanes 1 and 6, GST; lanes
2 and 7, Pin2; lanes 3 and 8,
Pin21-320; lanes 4 and 9,
Pin21-230; lanes 5 and 10,
Pin21-205. IB, immunoblotting analysis;
IP, immunoprecipitation.
|
|
To examine whether ATM associated with endogenous Pin2/TRF1, we
performed coimmunoprecipitation experiments in non-transfected ATM-positive cells (HeLa cells) and A-T cells (A-T22IJE-T) using anti-ATM or -Pin2/TRF1 antibodies. As shown in Fig.
3A, anti-Pin2/TRF1 antibodies,
but not their pre-immune sera, coimmunoprecipitated ATM. Conversely,
anti-ATM antibodies, but not pre-immune sera, coimmunoprecipitated
Pin2/TRF1 in HeLa cells, but not in A-T22IJE-T cells (Fig.
3B and data not shown). These results indicate that Pin2/TRF1 and ATM coimmunoprecipitation occurs in ATM-positive cells
but not in ATM-negative cells. To rule out the possibility that the
failure of anti-ATM antibodies to immunoprecipitate Pin2/TRF1 in
A-T22IJE-T cells is due to genetic factors other than the lack of ATM
in these cells, we transfected an ATM expression vector or its control
vector into A-T22IJE-T cells as described (61). After selection with
G418, multiple cell lines that were stably transfected with ATM
(A-T-ATMs) or with the control vector (A-T-Vs) were obtained, as
confirmed by immunoblotting analysis with anti-ATM antibodies (Fig.
3B). ATM, but not the vector, restored the
coimmunoprecipitation between Pin2/TRF1 and ATM in A-T cells (Fig.
3B). Because Pin2/TRF1 levels were similar in these
ATM-negative cells, these results indicate that anti-ATM antibodies do
not nonspecifically precipitate Pin2/TRF1. As compared with amounts of
Pin2/TRF1 and ATM proteins present in total lysates, about 10-15% of
ATM coimmunoprecipitated with Pin2/TRF1 (Fig. 3). These results
demonstrate that a fraction of ATM interacts with Pin2/TRF1 in
cells.

View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Coimmunoprecipitation of ATM with endogenous
Pin2/TRF1. A, coimmunoprecipitation of ATM with
Pin2/TRF1. Cell lysates from HeLa cells were immunoprecipitated with
anti-Pin2/TRF1 antibodies or preimmune sera, followed by immunoblotting
analysis (IB) with anti-ATM antibodies or
anti-Pin2/TRF1 antibodies. B, coimmunoprecipitation of
Pin2/TRF1 with ATM. A construct expressing full-length ATM or an empty
vector was stably transfected into A-T22IJE-T cells. Cell lysates from
these stable cells and HeLa cells were immunoprecipitated with anti-ATM
antibodies, followed by immunoblotting analysis with anti-ATM
(top panel) or anti-Pin2/TRF1 antibodies (middle
panel). Pin2/TRF1 was present at similar levels in all cells, as
shown in the bottom panel. HeLa, an ATM-positive cell line;
A-T22IJE-T, an ATM-negative parent cell line; A-T-ATM5.1, a
representative A-T22IJE-T-derived cell line that stably expressed ATM;
A-T-V1, a representative A-T22IJE-T-derived cell line that was stably
transfected with the control vector.
|
|
DNA Damage Increases Phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 in an
ATM-dependent Manner in Vivo--
Because Pin2/TRF1
interacts with ATM, a kinase activated by ionizing radiation, Pin2/TRF1
may be a substrate for ATM. To test this possibility, we first asked
whether Pin2/TRF1 is phosphorylated in the cell and, if so, whether its
phosphorylation is increased upon ionizing radiation. When HeLa cells
were subjected to irradiation and labeled with
[32P]orthophosphate, phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 was
significantly increased (Fig.
4A), indicating that ionizing
radiation increases Pin2/TRF1 phosphorylation in vivo. To
determine whether ATM is required for irradiation-induced
phosphorylation in vivo, we repeated the same experiments in
A-T-ATM5.1 (ATM-positive) and A-T-V1 (ATM-negative) cells. Although
Pin2/TRF1 was still phosphorylated at low levels in A-T-V1 cells, its
phosphorylation was not increased after irradiation (Fig.
4B), suggesting that Pin2/TRF1 can be phosphorylated by other protein kinase(s) that are not activated by irradiation. Importantly, phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 was significantly increased after irradiation in A-T-ATM5.1 (Fig. 4B), as is the case in
HeLa cells (Fig. 4A). These results demonstrate that
ionizing radiation increases phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 in an
ATM-dependent manner in vivo.

View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 by ATM in
vivo and in vitro. A and
B, induction of Pin2/TRF1 phosphorylation by ionizing
radiation (IR) in an ATM-dependent
manner. HeLa cells (A) or A-T-V1 and A-T-ATM5.1 cells
(B) were irradiated with -rays (+) or
mock-irradiated ( ) and then labeled with
[32P]orthophosphate. Pin2/TRF1 was immunoprecipitated and
separated on SDS-containing gels, followed by autoradiography or by
immunoblot with anti-Pin2/TRF1 antibodies. C,
phosphorylation of Pin2 by ATM in vitro. ATM was
immunoprecipitated from equal amounts of total proteins in various cell
lines and visualized by immunoblotting with anti-ATM antibodies
(top panel). The ATM immunoprecipitates were used to
phosphorylate GST-Pin21-320 and
GST-Pin21-230. Phosphorylation was quantified with a
phosphorimaging device and normalized to phosphorylation of
GST-Pin2/TRF11-320 by ATM obtained from untreated C3ABR
cells. C3ABR, a normal lymphoblastoid cell line; C3ABR+NCS, C3ABR cells
treated with NCS; G361, a melanoma cell line overexpressing ATM; L6, an
ATM-negative lymphoblastoid cell line. D, direct
phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 and p53 by ATM. Left panels,
ATM was immunoprecipitated from G361 cells using anti-ATM antibodies
and subjected to immunoblotting analysis with the same antibodies
(top panel) or to kinase assay using
GST-Pin21-300 as a substrate in the presence
(+) or absence ( ) of 0.5 µM
wortmannin (bottom panel). Middle and right
panels, FLAG epitope tagged wild-type (WT) and
kinase-dead (KD) ATM expression constructs were expressed in
293T cells and then immunoprecipitated using the M2 antibody
specifically against the FLAG tag, followed by immunoblotting analysis
using anti-ATM antibodies (top panels) or by kinase assays
using GST-Pin21-300 or p53 as a substrate (bottom
panels). IB, immunoblotting analysis; IP,
immunoprecipitation.
|
|
Activated ATM Directly Phosphorylates Pin2 Preferentially on
Ser219 in Vitro and in Vivo--
We next asked whether ATM
is directly responsible for the phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 following
ionizing radiation. To address this question, we needed to determine
whether ATM can directly phosphorylate Pin2/TRF1. ATM belongs to a
family of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-related and
wortmannin-sensitive protein kinases, which phosphorylate proteins
preferentially on an SQ motif (Fig.
5A) (5-13). Consistent with
this idea, endogenous Pin2/TRF1 was phosphorylated mainly on Ser
residues in vivo (Fig. 5B). Although Pin2/TRF1
contains three SQ sequences (Ser219-Gln,
Ser274-Gln, and Ser346-Gln), only one SQ
sequence (Ser219-Gln) is conserved in all known vertebrate
homologues, even in the mouse TRF1 that shares only 67% identity to
the human counterpart (Fig. 5A) (48, 50, 72, 73).
Significantly, this SQ is not conserved in human TRF2 (Fig.
5A), a closely related but functionally distinct telomeric
protein (74). This analysis suggests that Ser219-Gln might
be a potential phosphorylation site of ATM. To test this possibility,
fragments spanning the NH2-terminal 230 or 320 residues of
Pin2, containing one or two of the SQ sequences, respectively, were
produced as GST fusion proteins, GST-Pin21-230 and
GST-Pin21-320, and used as a substrate for ATM.
Both proteins were readily phosphorylated to a similar extent (Fig.
4C). These results are consistent with the idea that
Ser219 is preferentially phosphorylated by ATM kinase,
whereas Ser274 is probably not phosphorylated by ATM.

View larger version (59K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Phosphorylation of Pin2 by activated ATM
preferentially on Ser219 in vitro and
in vivo. A, alignment of selected
known ATM phosphorylation sites and a potential ATM phosphorylation
site in Pin2/TRF1 and its related proteins. Only one SQ in Pin2/TRF1,
Ser219-Gln, is conserved in all known Pin2/TRF1 homologues
but not in TRF2, a distinct telomeric protein. B, Ser
phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 in vivo. In vivo
32P-labeled Pin2/TRF1 was immunoprecipitated and separated
on SDS-containing gels, followed by phospho-amino acid analysis on TLC
plates together with phospho-amino acid standards as indicated.
C, phosphorylation of Pin2 preferentially on
Ser219 by NCS-activated ATM. After G361 cells were treated
either with 50 ng/ml NCS or control buffer for 2 h, ATM protein
was immunoprecipitated to phosphorylate GST-Pin21-320
(Pin2) or its S219A mutant (Pin2S219A). Phosphorylation was
quantified from two independent experiments and normalized to that from
mock-treated cells. D, phosphorylation of Pin2
preferentially on Ser219 by irradiation-activated ATM.
After HeLa cells were irradiated with 5 Gray of -rays
(+) or mock-irradiated ( ), ATM protein was
immunoprecipitated to phosphorylate wild-type or mutant
GST-Pin21-320. Data are representative of four independent
experiments. E, abolishing Pin2 phosphorylation by the S219A
mutation in vivo. HeLa cells were transfected with an
HA-Pin2 or HA-Pin2S219A expression vector and irradiated
with -rays (+) or mock-irradiated ( ),
followed by labeling with [32P]orthophosphate. HA-Pin2
was immunoprecipitated with anti-HA antibody and separated on
SDS-containing gels, followed either by autoradiography (left
panel) or by immunoblot with the same antibody (right
panel). IR, ionizing radiation.
|
|
To confirm that phosphorylation of Pin2 by ATM immunoprecipitates is
indeed due to ATM kinase, we used the following five different
criteria, which had previously been used to validate phosphorylation of
various proteins by ATM (7-9). First, Pin2 was phosphorylated in
vitro by ATM immunoprecipitated from ATM-positive cells (C3ABR,
G361, and HeLa) but not from ATM-negative cells (L6) (Fig.
4C) (7). Second, the extent of Pin2 phosphorylation in
vitro correlated with the amounts of ATM present in the cells (7).
The increased level of ATM protein isolated from an ATM-overexpressing melanoma cell line, G361, led to an increased level of Pin2
phosphorylation relative to that seen with ATM isolated from a low
ATM-expressing normal lymphoblastoid cell line, C3ABR (Fig.
4C). Third, treatment of cells with a radiomimetic drug,
neocarzinostatin (NCS), or ionizing radiation has been previously shown
to activate ATM kinase activity 2-3-fold, although neither of the
treatments affects levels of ATM protein (7, 8). Accordingly, when
three different cell lines, C3ABR, G361, and HeLa, were treated with
NCS (Figs. 4C and 5C) or irradiated (Fig.
5D), ATM kinase activity toward Pin2 was increased
2-3-fold. Fourth, Pin2 phosphorylation by ATM immunoprecipitates was
strongly inhibited by wortmannin (Fig. 4D), a
phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor that has been shown to inhibit
ATM kinase (7, 9). Finally, to rule out the possibility that Pin2
phosphorylation by ATM immunoprecipitates is due to contaminating or
associated kinases, we used transfected cells with wild-type FLAG-ATM
and its kinase-dead point mutant, followed by isolating the expressed
proteins using M2 monoclonal antibody as described previously (8).
Although the expressed wild-type ATM was able to phosphorylate Pin2 or
p53 (Fig. 4D), its kinase-dead mutant had little activity
toward Pin2 or p53, even though the mutant protein was expressed and
immunoprecipitated (Fig. 4D). This result indicates that,
like p53 phosphorylation, Pin2 phosphorylation is intrinsic to the ATM
protein. These results provide strong evidence that ATM specifically
phosphorylates Pin2 and suggest that activation of ATM by DNA
damage is critical for Pin2 phosphorylation.
After demonstrating that ATM directly phosphorylates Pin2 in
vitro, we examined whether Ser219 in Pin2 is indeed
phosphorylated by ATM by replacing Ser219 with Ala in
Pin21-320. The mutant protein could still be weakly
phosphorylated by ATM immunoprecipitates (Fig. 5, C-E),
suggesting that ATM may phosphorylate other sites in vitro.
However, the extent of phosphorylation in the mutant protein was
reproducibly reduced slightly, as compared with that of the wild-type
protein (Fig. 5, C and D). Furthermore, this
difference became much more dramatic when DNA damage-activated ATM was
used (Fig. 5, C-E). Although ionizing radiation or NCS treatment increased ATM kinase activity to Pin21-320 about
2-3-fold, there was no increase in phosphorylation of the mutant
Pin2S219A protein (Fig. 5, C and D).
To examine whether Ser219 in Pin2 is also phosphorylated by
ATM in vivo, wild-type and S219A mutant Pin2 were
transfected into HeLa cells and labeled with 32P, followed
by ionizing radiation. As shown in Fig. 5E, irradiation increased phosphorylation of wild-type Pin2 but did not significantly affect phosphorylation of the mutant Pin2S219A, although
both proteins were expressed at similar levels. Taken together, the
above results indicate that although Pin2 may be phosphorylated on
other sites, Ser219 is the preferential phosphorylation
site by ATM following ionizing DNA damage both in vivo and
in vitro.
Pin2 Phosphorylation Site Mutants or Dominant-negative Mutants
Partially Complement Radiation Hypersensitivity of A-T
Cells--
Given that ATM interacts with and phosphorylates Pin2 on
Ser219, we examined whether this phosphorylation has any
biological significance, affecting the function of Pin2, the phenotype
of A-T cells, or both. We have previously demonstrated that Pin2/TRF1 levels are significantly increased at the G2/M transition
and that overexpression of Pin2/TRF1 triggers mitotic entry and
then apoptosis (53, 59). Interestingly, this Pin2-induced phenotype is
similar to that of A-T cells after ionizing radiation (25-28, 59).
These results suggest that phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 by ATM upon
irradiation may be a mechanism to prevent Pin2 from inducing abnormal
mitotic entry and apoptosis, thereby reducing the radiation sensitivity.
To test this possibility, we first examined whether Ser219
phosphorylation affects the ability of Pin2 to induce mitotic entry and
apoptosis by substituting Ser219 either with the
non-phosphorylatable residue Ala or with Glu or Asp, which might mimic
phosphorylation on Ser219. The mutant Pin2 proteins were
expressed in cells at levels similar to that of the wild-type protein,
interacted with ATM, formed dimers, and localized at telomeres in the
cells (Fig. 7A and data not shown). Because long term
expression of TRF1 has been shown to cause telomere shortening (47), we
first examined whether expression of Pin2 and its Ser219
mutants affects telomere length in transient transfection before apoptosis induction. Because the experiments were performed in transient transfection, with the transfection efficiency being about
20-40%, this made it difficult to determine telomere length by
genomic Southern blotting analysis. To overcome this difficulty, we
used two different but complementary methods to detect telomere length
in transiently transfected cells. One method is to measure telomere
length by flow cytometry, and the other is to measure telomere length
by fluorescence microscopy after fluorescence in situ
hybridization of telomere repeats; both methods have been successfully
used to estimate telomere length in cells (67, 68, 75). To optimize the
conditions, we used HeLa cells and HeLa 1.2.11, which have the same
genetic background but have telomere lengths of 1-3 and 15-40
kilobases, respectively, as determined by genomic Southern
analysis (59, 76). As shown in Fig.
6A, HeLa 1.2.11 cells had
almost 10 times longer telomeres than those in HeLa cells, as measured
by the fluorescence intensity of telomeric fluorescence in
situ hybridization, which validates the assays. Therefore, we
doubly stained the cells that had been transiently transfected with
HA-Pin2 and its mutants with the anti-HA antibody and the fluorescence
telomeric probe and measured telomere length of HA-positive cells by
flow cytometry and by fluorescence microscopy. As shown in Fig. 6,
B and C, there was no detectable difference in
nontransfected control cells and those expressing Pin2 or its mutants
in both assays. These results indicate that Pin2 and Ser219
mutants have little effect on telomere length during transient expression, which is consistent with the previous findings that it
takes many population doublings to detect the effect of Pin2/TRF1 on
telomere length (47).

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Pin2 and Ser219
phosphorylation site mutants have no effect on telomere length in
transient transfection. A, telomere length in HeLa and
HeLa1.2.11 cells. Cells were stained with fluorescence telomeric DNA
probe and then subjected to flow cytometrical analysis. B
and C, the effect of Pin2 and its mutants on telomere
length. HeLa cells were transfected with the control vector or vector
expressing HA-Pin2 or its Ser219 mutants as indicated for
20-24 h. Cells were fixed and doubly stained with the anti-HA antibody
and fluorescence telomeric DNA probe, followed by flow cytometrical
analysis (B) and fluorescence microscopy.
|
|
However, we observed strikingly different phenotypes induced by Pin2
and its mutants. As shown earlier (59), Pin2 was more potent in
inducing mitotic entry and apoptosis in A-T-V1 cells stably transfected
with the control vector than in HeLa cells or A-T-ATM 5.1 cells stably
expressing ATM (Fig. 7, B-D).
Importantly, although Pin2S219A potently induced apoptosis,
Pin2S219D and Pin2S219E were completely
inactive both in ATM-positive cells and in ATM-negative cells (Fig. 7,
B-D). These results indicate that the substitutions of
Ser219 with the phosphoserine-mimicking residues completely
abolish the ability of Pin2 to induce mitotic entry and apoptosis.

View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Effects of Ser219 phosphorylation
site mutations on the ability of Pin2 to induce mitotic entry and
apoptosis. A-D, the effect on the ability of
Pin2 to induce apoptosis. HeLa (A and B), A-T-V1
(C), and A-T-ATM5.1 (D) cells were transfected
with vectors expressing GFP-Pin2 or its mutants or with a GFP vector,
fixed at 30 h after transfection, and stained with
4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole; then the percentage of apoptotic
cells was counted. Results represent averages of three
experiments. A shows levels of expressed proteins, as
determined by immunoblotting analysis.
|
|
We then examined whether Pin2 phosphorylation site mutants affect
radiation hypersensitivity of A-T cells. A-T22IJE-T cells were
transfected with various GFP-Pin2 mutants and then irradiated; we then
examined the apoptotic phenotype of the transfected cells. As
shown previously (59, 61, 77), the apoptosis rate was increased 5-fold
from 80 to 42% after irradiation in vector-transfected cells (Fig.
8A). However, if A-T22IJE-T
cells were transfected with GFP-Pin2S219A, the apoptosis
rate was high in the absence of irradiation and was slightly higher
after irradiation (Fig. 8A). In contrast, if the cells were
transfected with GFP-Pin2S219D or
GFP-Pin2S219E, the apoptosis rate decreased down to 20%.
These results indicate that both Pin2S219D and
GFP-Pin2S219E decrease radiation hypersensitivity of A-T
cells. To further confirm this observation and to examine whether the
protective effect of phosphorylation-mimicking mutants is due to the
loss of ATM, we examined the effects of Ser219 mutants on
cell survival after irradiation using A-T-V1 and A-T-ATM 5.1 cells. To
identify the transfected cells, different Pin2 constructs were
cotransfected with a LacZ reporter construct. Cells were fixed at
various times after irradiation and stained with LacZ, followed by
counting surviving transfected cells as described (59). Consistent with
other reports (61, 77), A-T-V1 cells showed the typical radiation
hypersensitivity, and this phenotype was rescued by expression of ATM,
as shown in A-T-ATM 5.1 cells (Fig. 8, B and C).
Interestingly, whereas Pin2 and Pin2S219A increased,
Pin2S219D decreased radiation hypersensitivity of A-T-V1
cells (Fig. 8B). Furthermore, when Pin2S219D was
transfected into A-T-ATM 5.1, there was no such protective effect on
radiation sensitivity (Fig. 8C), indicating that the protective effect of Pin2S219D on A-T cells is due to the
loss of ATM. These results show that the Pin2 mutant refractory to ATM
phosphorylation on Ser219 and the Pin2 mutants mimicking
ATM phosphorylation have opposite effects, increasing and decreasing
radiation hypersensitivity of A-T cells, respectively. We concluded
that phosphorylation of Pin2 on Ser219 may inhibit its
function.

View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Reversal of radiation hypersensitivity of A-T
cells either by phosphorylation-mimicking Pin2 mutants or
dominant-negative Pin2 mutants. A, effects on
radiation-induced apoptosis. A-T22IJE-T cells were transfected with
control vector or various GFP-Pin2 mutant constructs for 16-18 h and
irradiated (+) or mock-treated ( ). Cells were
harvested 12 h later and stained with
4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole; then the percentage of cells with
apoptotic phenotype in transfected cells was counted.
B and C, effects on cell survival after
irradiation. A-T22IJE-T cells stably transfected with the control
vector (B, A-T-V1) or the ATM construct (C,
A-T-ATM5.1) were cotransfected with different Pin2 mutants or control
vector and the reporter LacZ construct for 12 h and then
irradiated. Cells were harvested at various times after irradiation and
stained for LacZ expression; then the number of surviving blue
cells was counted.
|
|
To confirm that inhibition of Pin2/TRF1 reduces radiation
hypersensitivity of A-T cells, we used dominant-negative Pin2 mutants to inhibit the function of endogenous Pin2/TRF1. Because Pin2/TRF1 functions as a dimer via its NH2-terminal dimerization
domain, COOH-terminal truncation Pin2 mutants act as dominant-negative mutants by forming heterodimers with the endogenous protein and preventing endogenous Pin2/TRF1 from performing its normal functions (47, 50). When two different dominant-negative Pin2/TRF1 mutants, Pin21-372 and Pin21-316, were transfected
into cells, neither of the mutants induced apoptosis in ATM-positive or
-negative cells (Fig. 7, B-D), although mutant proteins
were expressed at levels similar to those of wild-type protein (Fig.
7A). Furthermore, the dominant-negative Pin2 mutants reduced
radiation-induced apoptosis and increased cell survival of A-T cells
after irradiation (Fig. 8, A and B). Importantly, if A-T cells stably expressed ATM, Pin21-316 had little
effect on their radiation sensitivity, as shown in A-T-ATM 5.1 cells
(Fig. 8C). Interestingly, all the phenotypes of the
dominant-negative Pin2 mutants were the same as those induced by
phosphorylation-mimicking Pin2 mutants (Figs. 7 and 8). These results support the notion that phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 by ATM
following DNA damage may inhibit its function and contribute to the
cellular response to DNA damage.
 |
DISCUSSION |
The following results support the conclusion that Pin2/TRF1 is an
important downstream substrate for ATM following DNA damage. First,
endogenous ATM specifically interacts with the NH2-terminal half of Pin2/TRF1 and forms stable complexes with both ectopically expressed and endogenous Pin2/TRF1 in cells (Figs. 1-3). Second, ionizing DNA damage induces phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 in an ATM-dependent manner (Fig. 4). Third, ATM activated by DNA
damage directly phosphorylates Pin2/TRF1 preferentially on
Ser219 both in vitro and in vivo
(Fig. 5). Fourth, the biological significance of this phosphorylation
is substantiated by functional analyses of the phosphorylation site
mutants. Although expression of Pin2 and Ser219 mutants has
no detectable effect on telomere length under the conditions used (Fig.
6), Pin2S219A, a mutant refractory to ATM phosphorylation
on Ser219, potently induces mitotic entry and apoptosis and
increases radiation hypersensitivity of A-T cells (Figs. 7 and 8). In
contrast, Pin2S219D or Pin2S219E, mutants
potentially mimicking ATM phosphorylation on Ser219,
completely fails to induce apoptosis and also reduces radiation hypersensitivity of A-T cells (Figs. 7 and 8). Fifth, the phenotype of
Pin2S219D is the same as that we see when endogenous
Pin2/TRF1 in A-T cells is inhibited by dominant-negative Pin2/TRF1
mutants (Figs. 7 and 8), suggesting that phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1
on Ser219 by ATM probably inhibits its function after DNA
damage. Finally, neither Pin2S219D nor the
dominant-negative Pin2 mutant has any protective effect on radiation
sensitivity if ATM is reexpressed in A-T cells (Fig. 8), indicating
that the protective effects are due to the loss of ATM. These results
indicate that ATM binds and phosphorylates Pin2/TRF1 and probably
negatively regulates its function in DNA damage response.
The notion that Pin2/TRF1 is involved in the ATM-dependent
DNA damage response is consistent with the expression pattern and function of Pin2/TRF1 during the cell cycle, which is tightly regulated. Pin2/TRF1 contains a motif related to the destruction box
that mediates degradation of many mitotic proteins, including cyclin B
(50, 58). Furthermore, the levels of Pin2/TRF1 are increased at the
G2/M transition, followed by degradation as cells exit from
mitosis. Our previous study indicates that overexpression of Pin2/TRF1
promotes mitotic entry and apoptosis (59). The current investigation
has further shown that inhibition of Pin2/TRF1 either by the
dominant-negative Pin2 mutant or the Pin2 mutants mimicking ATM
phosphorylation significantly reduces radiation hypersensitivity of A-T
cells, preventing A-T cells from entering mitosis and apoptosis after
DNA damage. In contrast, the Pin2 mutant refractory to ATM
phosphorylation on Ser219 potently induces mitotic entry
and apoptosis and increases radiation hypersensitivity of A-T cells.
These results indicate that the level and function of Pin2/TRF1 are
tightly regulated during the cell cycle, reaching their maximum at
the G2/M transition.
Our findings that Pin2/TRF1 is an important downstream substrate for
ATM can help explain some phenotypes associated with ATM mutations. A-T
cells have two closely correlated and prominent defects, radiation
hypersensitivity and telomere loss (25-28). Because inhibition of
Pin2/TRF1 reduces radiation hypersensitivity, the lack of ATM to
suppress Pin2/TRF1 in A-T cells contributes to radiation
hypersensitivity of A-T cells (1, 61, 77). Because up-regulation of
Pin2/TRF1 accelerates telomere shortening (47), the lack of ATM to
suppress the Pin2/TRF1 function in A-T cells may also contribute to
accelerated telomere loss (25-28). If Pin2/TRF1 would indeed regulate
both radiation response and telomere length, this would provide an
explanation for why radiation hypersensitivity is correlated with
telomere loss in A-T cells (25-28). In addition, because Pin2/TRF1
mediates the interaction between telomeres and the nuclear matrix
(78), our results are also consistent with the findings that ATM is
able to regulate the interactions between telomeres and the nuclear
matrix (35).
In summary, we have demonstrated for the first time the interaction
between ATM kinase and the telomeric protein Pin2/TRF1. ATM
coimmunoprecipitated with Pin2/TRF1 in cells and, upon irradiation, phosphorylated Pin2/TRF1 preferentially on the only conserved Ser219-Gln site. Significantly, like Pin2,
Pin2S219A potently induced mitotic entry and apoptosis
and increased radiation hypersensitivity of A-T cells. In contrast,
Pin2S219D or Pin2S219E completely failed to
induce apoptosis and also reduced radiation hypersensitivity of A-T
cells. Because the phenotype of phosphorylation-mimicking Pin2 mutants
is the same as that which resulted from inhibition of endogenous
Pin2/TRF1 by dominant-negative mutants, phosphorylation of Pin2/TRF1 by
ATM probably inhibits its function in the DNA damage response.
Therefore, Pin2/TRF1 is an important ATM substrate in response to
double strain DNA breaks. Further studies on how Pin2/TRF1 is involved
in the DNA damage response will help understand the physiological and
pathological functions of ATM and elucidate the molecular mechanisms of
cellular responses to DNA damage.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank T. Hunter, L. Cantley, J. Wang, S. Lee, B. Abraham, and B. Neel for constructive discussions, G. Rathbun
and M. Shen for involvement at the initial stage of the study, and M. Kastan, S. Lee, M. Lavin, and N. Horikoshi for providing reagents.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by National Institutes of
Health Grants NS31763 (to Y. S.) and GM56230 and GM58556 (to
K. P. L.).The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
¶
A Pew Scholar and a Lymphoma and Leukemia Society Scholar. To
whom correspondence should be addressed: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, HIM 1047, 330 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02215. Tel.: 617-667-4143; Fax: 617-667-0610; E-mail:
klu@Caregroup.Harvard.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, May 25, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M011534200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
A-T, ataxia-telangiectasia;
GST, glutathione S-transferase;
HA, hemagglutinin;
NCS, neocarzinostatin.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Savitsky, K.,
Bar, S. A.,
Gilad, S.,
Rotman, G.,
Ziv, Y.,
Vanagaite, L.,
Tagle, D. A.,
Smith, S.,
Uziel, T.,
Sfez, S.,
Ashkenazi, M.,
Pecker, I.,
Frydman, M.,
Harnik, R.,
Patanijali, S. R.,
Simmons, A.,
Clines, G. A.,
Sartiel, A.,
Gatti, R. A.,
Chessa, L.,
Sanal, O.,
Lavin, M. F.,
Jasper, N. G. J.,
Taylor, A. M. R.,
Arlett, C. F.,
Miki, T.,
Weissman, S. M.,
Lovett, M.,
Collin, F. C.,
and Shiloh, Y.
(1995)
Science
268,
1749-1753
|
| 2.
|
Zakian, V. A.
(1995)
Cell
82,
685-687
|
| 3.
|
Lavin, M. F.,
and Shiloh, Y.
(1997)
Annu. Rev. Immunol.
15,
177-202
|
| 4.
|
Wang, J. Y.
(1998)
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
10,
240-247
|
| 5.
|
Shafman, T.,
Khanna, K. K.,
Kedar, P.,
Spring, K.,
Kozlov, S.,
Yen, T.,
Hobson, K.,
Gatei, M.,
Zhang, N.,
Watters, D.,
Egerton, M.,
Shiloh, Y.,
Kharbanda, S.,
Kufe, D.,
and Lavin, M. F.
(1997)
Nature
387,
520-523
|
| 6.
|
Baskaran, R.,
Wood, L. D.,
Whitaker, L. L.,
Canman, C. E.,
Morgan, S. E.,
Xu, Y.,
Barlow, C.,
Baltimore, D.,
Wynshaw-Boris, A.,
Kastan, M. B.,
and Wang, J. Y.
(1997)
Nature
387,
516-519
|
| 7.
|
Banin, S.,
Moyal, L.,
Shieh, S.,
Taya, Y.,
Anderson, C. W.,
Chessa, L.,
Smorodinsky, N. I.,
Prives, C.,
Reiss, Y.,
Shiloh, Y.,
and Ziv, Y.
(1998)
Science
281,
1674-1677
|
| 8.
|
Canman, C. E.,
Lim, D. S.,
Cimprich, K. A.,
Taya, Y.,
Tamai, K.,
Sakaguchi, K.,
Appella, E.,
Kastan, M. B.,
and Siliciano, J. D.
(1998)
Science
281,
1677-1679
|
| 9.
|
Sarkaria, J. N.,
Tibbetts, R. S.,
Busby, E. C.,
Kennedy, A. P.,
Hill, D. E.,
and Abraham, R. T.
(1998)
Cancer Res.
58,
4375-4382
|
| 10.
|
Khanna, K. K.,
Keating, K. E.,
Kozlov, S.,
Scott, S.,
Gatei, M.,
Hobson, K.,
Taya, Y.,
Gabrielli, B.,
Chan, D.,
Lees-Miller, S. P.,
and Lavin, M. F.
(1998)
Nat. Genet.
20,
398-400
|
| 11.
|
Matsuoka, S.,
Huang, M.,
and Elledge, S. J.
(1998)
Science
282,
1893-1897
|
| 12.
|
Cortez, D.,
Wang, Y.,
Qin, J.,
and Elledge, S. J.
(1999)
Science
286,
1162-1166
|
| 13.
|
Kim, S. T.,
Lim, D. S.,
Canman, C. E.,
and Kastan, M. B.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
37538-37543
|
| 14.
|
Wu, X.,
Ranganathan, V.,
Weisman, D. S.,
Heine, W. F.,
Ciccone, D. N.,
O'Neill, T. B.,
Crick, K. E.,
Pierce, K. A.,
Lane, W. S.,
Rathbun, G.,
Livingston, D. M.,
and Weaver, D. T.
(2000)
Nature
405,
477-482
|
| 15.
|
Zhao, S.,
Weng, Y. C.,
Yuan, S. S.,
Lin, Y. T.,
Hsu, H. C.,
Lin, S. C.,
Gerbino, E.,
Song, M. H.,
Zdzienicka, M. Z.,
Gatti, R. A.,
Shay, J. W.,
Ziv, Y.,
Shiloh, Y.,
and Lee, E. Y.
(2000)
Nature
405,
473-477
|
| 16.
|
Peng, C. Y.,
Graves, P. R.,
Thoma, R. S.,
Wu, Z.,
Shaw, A. S.,
and Piwnica-Worms, H.
(1997)
Science
277,
1501-1505
|
| 17.
|
Sanchez, Y.,
Wong, C.,
Thoma, R. S.,
Richman, R.,
Wu, Z.,
Piwnica-Worms, H.,
and Elledge, S. J.
(1997)
Science
277,
1497-1501
|
| 18.
|
Furnari, B.,
Rhind, N.,
and Russell, P.
(1997)
Science
277,
1495-1497
|
| 19.
|
O'Connell, M. J.,
Raleigh, J. M.,
Verkade, H. M.,
and Nurse, P.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
545-554
|
| 20.
|
Zeng, Y.,
Forbes, K. C.,
Wu, Z.,
Moreno, S.,
Piwnica-Worms, H.,
and Enoch, T.
(1998)
Nature
395,
507-510
|
| 21.
|
Bunz, F.,
Dutriaux, A.,
Lengauer, C.,
Waldman, T.,
Zhou, S.,
Brown, J. P.,
Sedivy, J. M.,
Kinzler, K. W.,
and Vogelstein, B.
(1998)
Science
282,
1497-1501
|
| 22.
|
Rotman, G.,
and Shiloh, Y.
(1999)
Oncogene
18,
6135-6144
|
| 23.
|
Paules, R. S.,
Levedakou, E. N.,
Wilson, S. J.,
Innes, C. L.,
Rhodes, N.,
Tlsty, T. D.,
Galloway, D. A.,
Donehower, L. A.,
Tainsky, M. A.,
and Kaufmann, W. K.
(1995)
Cancer Res.
55,
1763-1773
|
| 24.
|
Beamish, H.,
Williams, R.,
Chen, P.,
and Lavin, M. F.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
20486-20493
|
| 25.
|
Pandita, T. K.,
Pathak, S.,
and Geard, C. R.
(1995)
Cytogenet. Cell Genet.
71,
86-93
|
| 26.
|
Xia, S. J.,
Shammas, M. A.,
and Shmookler, R. J.
(1996)
Mutat. Res.
364,
1-11
|
| 27.
|
Metcalfe, J. A.,
Parkhill, J.,
Campbell, L.,
Stacey, M.,
Biggs, P.,
Byrd, P. J.,
and Taylor, A. M.
(1996)
Nat. Genet.
13,
350-353
|
| 28.
|
Smilenov, L. B.,
Morgan, S. E.,
Mellado, W.,
Sawant, S. G.,
Kastan, M. B.,
and Pandita, T. K.
(1997)
Oncogene
15,
2659-2665
|
| 29.
|
Barlow, C.,
Hirotsune, S.,
Paylor, R.,
Liyanage, M.,
Eckhaus, M.,
Collins, F.,
Shiloh, Y.,
Crawley, J. N.,
Ried, T.,
Tagle, D.,
and Wynshaw, B. A.
(1996)
Cell
86,
159-171
|
| 30.
|
Xu, Y.,
Ashley, T.,
Brainerd, E. E.,
Bronson, R. T.,
Meyn, M. S.,
and Baltimore, D.
(1996)
Genes Dev.
10,
2411-2422
|
| 31.
|
Xu, Y.,
and Baltimore, D.
(1996)
Genes Dev.
10,
2401-2410
|
| 32.
|
Elson, A.,
Wang, Y.,
Daugherty, C. J.,
Morton, C. C.,
Zhou, F.,
Campos-Torres, J.,
and Leder, P.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
13084-13089
|
| 33.
|
Rudolph, N. S.,
and Latt, S. A.
(1989)
Mutat. Res.
211,
31-41
|
| 34.
|
Beamish, H.,
Khanna, K. K.,
and Lavin, M. F.
(1994)
Radiat. Res.
138,
S130-S133
|
| 35.
|
Smilenov, L. B.,
Dhar, S.,
and Pandita, T. K.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
6963-6971
|
| 36.
|
Greenwell, P. W.,
Kronmal, S. L.,
Porter, S. E.,
Gassenhuber, J.,
Obermaier, B.,
and Petes, T. D.
(1995)
Cell
82,
823-829
|
| 37.
|
Morrow, D. M.,
Tagle, D. A.,
Shiloh, Y.,
Collins, F. S.,
and Hieter, P.
(1995)
Cell
82,
831-840
|
| 38.
|
Sanchez, Y.,
Desany, B. A.,
Jones, W. J.,
Liu, Q.,
Wang, B.,
and Elledge, S. J.
(1996)
Science
271,
357-360
|
| 39.
|
Fritz, E.,
Friedl, A. A.,
Zwacka, R. M.,
Eckardt-Schupp, F.,
and Meyn, M. S.
(2000)
Mol. Biol. Cell
11,
2605-2616
|
| 40.
|
Zakian, V. A.
(1995)
Science
270,
1601-1607
|
| 41.
|
Greider, C. W.,
and Blackburn, E. H.
(1996)
Sci. Am.
274,
92-97
|
| 42.
|
Lundblad, V.
(2000)
Mutat. Res.
451,
227-240
|
| 43.
|
McEachern, M. J.,
and Blackburn, E. H.
(1995)
Nature
376,
403-409
|
| 44.
|
Krauskopf, A.,
and Blackburn, E. H.
(1996)
Nature
383,
354-357
|
| 45.
|
Marcand, S.,
Gilson, E.,
and Shore, D.
(1997)
Science
275,
986-990
|
| 46.
|
Cooper, J. P.,
Nimmo, E. R.,
Allshire, R. C.,
and Cech, T. R.
(1997)
Nature
385,
744-747
|
| 47.
|
van Steensel, B.,
and de Lange, T.
(1997)
Nature
385,
740-743
|
| 48.
|
Chong, L.,
Van, S. B.,
Broccoli, D.,
Erdjument, B. H.,
Hanish, J.,
Tempst, P.,
and de Lange, T.
(1995)
Science
270,
1663-1667
|
| 49.
|
Lu, K. P.,
Hanes, S. D.,
and Hunter, T.
(1996)
Nature
380,
544-547
|
| 50.
|
Shen, M.,
Haggblom, C.,
Vogt, M.,
Hunter, T.,
and Lu, K. P.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
13618-13623
|
| 51.
|
Lu, K. P.
(2000)
Prog. Cell Cycle Res.
4,
83-96
|
| 52.
|
Yaffe, M. B.,
Schutkowski, M.,
Shen, M.,
Zhou, X. Z.,
Stukenberg, P. T.,
Rahfeld, J.,
Xu, J.,
Kuang, J.,
Kirschner, M. W.,
Fischer, G.,
Cantley, L. C.,
and Lu, K. P.
(1997)
Science
278,
1957-1960
|
| 53.
|
Shen, M.,
Stukenberg, P. T.,
Kirschner, M. W.,
and Lu, K. P.
(1998)
Genes Dev.
12,
706-720
|
| 54.
|
Lu, P. J.,
Zhou, X. Z.,
Shen, M.,
and Lu, K. P.
(1999)
Science
283,
1325-1328
|
| 55.
|
Lu, P. J.,
Wulf, G.,
Zhou, X. Z.,
Davies, P.,
and Lu, K. P.
(1999)
Nature
399,
784-788
|
| 56.
|
Zhou, X. Z.,
Kops, O.,
Werner, A.,
Lu, P. J.,
Shen, M.,
Stoller, G.,
Küllertz, G.,
Stark, M.,
Fischer, G.,
and Lu, K. P.
(2000)
Mol. Cell
6,
873-883
|
| 57.
|
Young, A. C.,
Chavez, M.,
Giambernardi, T. A.,
Mattern, V.,
McGill, J. R.,
Harris, J. M.,
Sarosdy, M. F.,
Patel, P.,
and Sakaguchi, A. Y.
(1997)
Somatic Cell Mol. Genet.
23,
275-286
|
| 58.
|
King, R. W.,
Deshaies, R. J.,
Peters, J. M.,
and Kirschner, M. W.
(1996)
Science
274,
1652-1659
|
| 59.
|
Kishi, S.,
Wulf, G.,
Nakamura, M.,
and Lu, K. P.
(2001)
Oncogene
20,
1497-1508
|
| 60.
|
Lu, K. P.,
and Hunter, T.
(1995)
Cell
81,
413-424
|
| 61.
|
Ziv, Y.,
Bar-Shira, A.,
Pecker, I.,
Russell, P.,
Jorgensen, T. J.,
Tsarfati, I.,
and Shiloh, Y.
(1997)
Oncogene
15,
159-167
|
| 62.
|
Eldredge, E. R.,
Chiao, P. J.,
and Lu, K. P.
(1995)
Methods Enzymol.
254,
481-491
|
| 63.
|
Andrews, N. C.,
and Faller, D. V.
(1991)
Nucleic Acids Res.
19,
2499
|
| 64.
|
Boyle, W. J.,
van der Geer, P.,
and Hunter, T.
(1991)
Methods Enzymol.
201,
110-152
|
| 65.
|
Liu, V. F.,
and Weaver, D. T.
(1993)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13,
7222-7231
|
| 66.
|
Scherthan, H.,
Weich, S.,
Schwegler, H.,
Heyting, C.,
Harle, M.,
and Cremer, T.
(1996)
J. Cell Biol.
134,
1109-1125
|
| 67.
|
Rufer, N.,
Dragowska, W.,
Thornbury, G.,
Roosnek, E.,
and Lansdorp, P. M.
(1998)
Nat. Biotechnol.
16,
743-747
|
| 68.
|
Hultdin, M.,
Gronlund, E.,
Norrback, K.,
Eriksson-Lindstrom, E.,
Just, T.,
and Roos, G.
(1998)
Nucleic Acids Res.
26,
3651-3656
|
| 69.
|
Ziv, Y.,
Jaspers, N. G.,
Etkin, S.,
Danieli, T.,
Trakhtenbrot, L.,
Amiel, A.,
Ravia, Y.,
and Shiloh, Y.
(1989)
Cancer Res.
49,
2495-2501
|
| 70.
|
Gilad, S.,
Khosravi, R.,
Shkedy, D.,
Uziel, T.,
Ziv, Y.,
Savitsky, K.,
Rotman, G.,
Smith, S.,
Chessa, L.,
Jorgensen, T. J.,
Harnik, R.,
Frydman, M.,
Sanal, O.,
Portnoi, S.,
Goldwicz, Z.,
Jaspers, N. G.,
Gatti, R. A.,
Lenoir, G.,
Lavin, M. F.,
Tatsumi, K.,
Wegner, R. D.,
Shiloh, Y.,
and Bar-Shira, A.
(1996)
Hum. Mol. Genet.
5,
433-439
|
| 71.
|
Lakin, N. D.,
Weber, P.,
Stankovic, T.,
Rottinghaus, S. T.,
Taylor, A. M.,
and Jackson, S. P.
(1996)
Oncogene
13,
2707-2716
|
| 72.
|
Broccoli, D.,
Chong, L.,
Oelmann, S.,
Fernald, A. A.,
Marziliano, N.,
van Steensel, B.,
Kipling, D.,
le Beau, M. M.,
and de Lange, T.
(1997)
Hum. Mol. Genet.
6,
69-76
|
| 73.
|
Smilenov, L. B.,
Mellado, W.,
Rao, P. H.,
Sawant, S. G.,
Umbricht, C. B.,
Sukumar, S.,
and Pandita, T. K.
(1998)
Oncogene
17,
2137-2142
|
| 74.
|
van Steensel, B.,
Smogorzewska, A.,
and de Lange, T.
(1998)
Cell
92,
401-413
|
| 75.
|
Henderson, S.,
Allsopp, R.,
Spector, D.,
Wang, S. S.,
and Harley, C.
(1996)
J. Cell Biol.
134,
1-12
|
| 76.
|
Ishibashi, T.,
and Lippard, S. J.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
4219-4223
|
| 77.
|
Morgan, S. E.,
Lovly, C.,
Pandita, T. K.,
Shiloh, Y.,
and Kastan, M. B.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
2020-2029
|
| 78.
|
Luderus, M. E.,
van Steensel, B.,
Chong, L.,
Sibon, O. C.,
Cremers, F. F.,
and de Lange, T.
(1996)
J. Cell Biol.
135,
867-881
|
Copyright © 2001 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Huda, H. Tanaka, M. S. Mendonca, and D. Gilley
DNA Damage-Induced Phosphorylation of TRF2 Is Required for the Fast Pathway of DNA Double-Strand Break Repair
Mol. Cell. Biol.,
July 1, 2009;
29(13):
3597 - 3604.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. Cooley, K. M. Baird, V. Faure, T. Wenner, J. L. Stewart, S. Modino, P. Slijepcevic, C. J. Farr, and C. G. Morrison
Trf1 Is Not Required for Proliferation or Functional Telomere Maintenance in Chicken DT40 Cells
Mol. Biol. Cell,
May 15, 2009;
20(10):
2563 - 2571.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Y. R. Her and I. K. Chung
Ubiquitin Ligase RLIM Modulates Telomere Length Homeostasis through a Proteolysis of TRF1
J. Biol. Chem.,
March 27, 2009;
284(13):
8557 - 8566.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Z.-Q. Wu, X. Yang, G. Weber, and X. Liu
Plk1 Phosphorylation of TRF1 Is Essential for Its Binding to Telomeres
J. Biol. Chem.,
September 12, 2008;
283(37):
25503 - 25513.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. P. Longhese
DNA damage response at functional and dysfunctional telomeres
Genes & Dev.,
January 15, 2008;
22(2):
125 - 140.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. G. Hwang and M. H. Cho
Arabidopsis thaliana telomeric DNA-binding protein 1 is required for telomere length homeostasis and its Myb-extension domain stabilizes plant telomeric DNA binding
Nucleic Acids Res.,
February 28, 2007;
35(4):
1333 - 1342.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Y. J. Chiang, M.-L. Nguyen, S. Gurunathan, P. Kaminker, L. Tessarollo, J. Campisi, and R. J. Hodes
Generation and characterization of telomere length maintenance in tankyrase 2-deficient mice.
Mol. Cell. Biol.,
March 1, 2006;
26(6):
2037 - 2043.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. H. Lee, K. Perrem, J. W. Harper, K. P. Lu, and X. Z. Zhou
The F-box Protein FBX4 Targets PIN2/TRF1 for Ubiquitin-mediated Degradation and Regulates Telomere Maintenance
J. Biol. Chem.,
January 13, 2006;
281(2):
759 - 768.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Tanaka, M. S. Mendonca, P. S. Bradshaw, D. J. Hoelz, L. H. Malkas, M. S. Meyn, and D. Gilley
DNA damage-induced phosphorylation of the human telomere-associated protein TRF2
PNAS,
October 25, 2005;
102(43):
15539 - 15544.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. Vespa, M. Couvillion, E. Spangler, and D. E. Shippen
ATM and ATR make distinct contributions to chromosome end protection and the maintenance of telomeric DNA in Arabidopsis
Genes & Dev.,
September 15, 2005;
19(18):
2111 - 2115.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Li, J. Crothers, C. M. Haqq, and E. H. Blackburn
Cellular and Gene Expression Responses Involved in the Rapid Growth Inhibition of Human Cancer Cells by RNA Interference-mediated Depletion of Telomerase RNA
J. Biol. Chem.,
June 24, 2005;
280(25):
23709 - 23717.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Fernandes, Y. Sun, S. Chen, P. Paul, R. J. Shaw, L. C. Cantley, and B. D. Price
DNA Damage-induced Association of ATM with Its Target Proteins Requires a Protein Interaction Domain in the N Terminus of ATM
J. Biol. Chem.,
April 15, 2005;
280(15):
15158 - 15164.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Z.-S. Ye, J. R. Donigian, M. van Overbeek, D. Loayza, Y. Luo, A. N. Krutchinsky, B. T. Chait, and T. de Lange
TIN2 Binds TRF1 and TRF2 Simultaneously and Stabilizes the TRF2 Complex on Telomeres
J. Biol. Chem.,
November 5, 2004;
279(45):
47264 - 47271.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Y. J. Chiang, S.-H. Kim, L. Tessarollo, J. Campisi, and R. J. Hodes
Telomere-Associated Protein TIN2 Is Essential for Early Embryonic Development through a Telomerase-Independent Pathway
Mol. Cell. Biol.,
August 1, 2004;
24(15):
6631 - 6634.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Okabe, A. Eguchi, R. Wadhwa, R. Rakwal, R. Tsukinoki, T. Hayakawa, and M. Nakanishi
Limited capacity of the nuclear matrix to bind telomere repeat binding factor TRF1 may restrict the proliferation of mortal human fibroblasts
Hum. Mol. Genet.,
February 1, 2004;
13(3):
285 - 293.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Karlseder, L. Kachatrian, H. Takai, K. Mercer, S. Hingorani, T. Jacks, and T. de Lange
Targeted Deletion Reveals an Essential Function for the Telomere Length Regulator Trf1
Mol. Cell. Biol.,
September 15, 2003;
23(18):
6533 - 6541.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. M. Nakamura, B. A. Moser, and P. Russell
Telomere Binding of Checkpoint Sensor and DNA Repair Proteins Contributes to Maintenance of Functional Fission Yeast Telomeres
Genetics,
August 1, 2002;
161(4):
1437 - 1452.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. Marcotte and E. Wang
Replicative Senescence Revisited
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.,
July 1, 2002;
57(7):
B257 - 269.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Kishi and K. P. Lu
A Critical Role for Pin2/TRF1 in ATM-dependent Regulation. INHIBITION OF Pin2/TRF1 FUNCTION COMPLEMENTS TELOMERE SHORTENING, RADIOSENSITIVITY, AND THE G2/M CHECKPOINT DEFECT OF ATAXIA-TELANGIECTASIA CELLS
J. Biol. Chem.,
February 22, 2002;
277(9):
7420 - 7429.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|