![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 276, Issue 31, 29299-29306, August 3, 2001
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Department of Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry, and Microbiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0524
Received for publication, April 24, 2001
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Lung Krüppel-like factor
(LKLF/Krüppel-like factor 2), a member of the Krüppel-like
factor family of transcription factors, is expressed predominately in
the lungs, with low levels of expression in other organs such as heart,
spleen, skeletal muscle, and testis. LKLF is essential during pulmonary
development and single-positive T-cell development and is indispensable
during mouse embryogenesis. In this study, we performed a series of
experiments to define the activation domain of LKLF as a means to
further advance the understanding of the molecular mechanisms
underlying transcriptional regulation by this transcription factor.
Using deletion analysis, it is shown that LKLF contains a
transcriptional activation domain as well as a strong autoinhibitory
subdomain. The inhibitory subdomain is able to independently suppress
transcriptional activation of other strong activators such as viral
protein 16, VP16. This occurs either when the inhibitory domain
is fused directly to VP16 or when the inhibitory domain is
independently bound to DNA by GAL4 DNA-binding domain independent of
the VP16 activator. Overexpression of the LKLF autoinhibitory domain
alone potentiates transactivation by wild type LKLF, suggesting that
the inhibitory domain binds a cofactor that prevents LKLF from
transactivating. A yeast-two hybrid screen identified WWP1, an E3
ubiquitin ligase that binds specifically to the LKLF inhibitory domain
but not to other transcription factors. In mammalian cells, WWP1
functions as a cofactor by binding LKLF and suppressing
transactivation. These data demonstrate that LKLF contains
multiple domains that either potentiate or inhibit the ability of this
factor to function as an activator of transcription; moreover,
regulation of LKLF transactivation is attenuated by an E3 ubiquitin
ligase, WWP1.
Lung Krüppel-like factor
(LKLF/KLF2)1 is a member of a
multigene family of transcription factors called the KLF family.
LKLF is expressed predominantly in fetal and adult lungs, with
limited expression in other organs (1, 2). Analysis of chimeric mice
derived from LKLF Targeted disruption of LKLF through gene targeting in embryonic stem
cells results in embryonic lethality (6, 7). LKLF homozygous null mice
die in utero between 12.5 and 14.5 days of gestation due to
severe hemorrhage. Defects in the blood vessel morphology, an
abnormally thin tunica media, endothelial cell necrosis, and decreased
deposition of the extracellular matrix surrounding the vessels
collectively contribute to hemorrhage in
LKLF LKLF was initially described as a lung-specific transcription factor
(1). However, it is now clear that LKLF plays a pivotal role in blood
vessel formation and T-cell activation in addition to pulmonary
development. A unifying theme in these apparently diverse roles is that
LKLF is essential for late stages of development but is not required
for the initial steps. Despite the large amount of information about
the biological role of LKLF, no specific target gene(s) or mechanisms
of LKLF regulation have yet been identified. Determination of the
molecular mechanisms that underlie LKLF function as a regulator of
transcriptional pathways is paramount in providing additional insight
into its roles in pulmonary function, maintenance of single-positive T
cells, and embryogenesis.
One approach to deciphering the molecular mechanisms of
transcriptional activation by this factor is to study its functional domains. Transcription factors are commonly composed of two distinct separable domains, an activation domain and a DNA-binding domain. Recent studies of two Krüppel-like factors, the erythroid
(EKLF/KLF1) and gut-enriched (GKLF/EZF/KLF4) Krüppel-like
factors, demonstrate that for transcriptional activation, only a small
subdomain of the activation domain is required (8-10). This is in
contrast to intestinal-enriched Krüppel-like factor, which
requires the entire activation domain (11). LKLF, EKLF, and GKLF
comprise a subfamily in the KLF family. All these transcription factors contain an inhibitory subdomain located adjacent to the zinc fingers (8-10). Deletion of the inhibitory subdomains in EKLF and GKLF allows
these factors to function as more potent activators of transcription.
Despite the similarity in size, function, and physical location of
these inhibitory subdomains, no obvious conservation in the amino acid
sequence has been detected. Thus, activation domains are beginning to
emerge as complex multifunctional domains with discrete subdomains that
are likely involved in the regulation of transcription factors. By
studying the biochemical attributes and configurations of the
activation domains present in transcriptional activators we can
better understand the mechanisms governing gene regulation and,
ultimately, the role of tissue-specific transcriptional activators.
Our current studies demonstrate that LKLF contains a modular activation
domain that can be separated into inhibitory and transactivating subdomains. The inhibitory domain of LKLF binds specifically to an E3
ubiquitin ligase that is able to attenuate transactivation by LKLF. The
interactions between these two proteins likely represent one method by
which this transcription factor is regulated.
Plasmid Constructs--
Full-length LKLF cDNA fragment was
subcloned into expression vector pM (12) that contained the coding
region of the GAL4 DNA-binding domain (DBD) to create a fusion protein
between GAL4 DBD and LKLF. Six GAL4-LKLF mutants (GAL4-LKLF 1-267,
GAL4-LKLF 1-257, GAL4-LKLF 1-141, GAL4-LKLF 1-110, GAL4-LKLF 1-88,
and GAL4-LKLF 1-57) were then created by serial deletions utilizing
the restriction enzyme site (BssHI, NotI,
RsrII, XbaIII, SacII, and
BstXI, respectively) in the coding region of LKLF and a
restriction site in the polylinker. After deletion of the 3' end of
LKLF cDNA, the staggered ends generated from the restriction
digests were blunted with T4 polymerase before ligation. Stop codons in
the vector prevented any read through. Three additional LKLF internal
deletion mutants (GAL4-LKLF
Six additional LKLF-GAL4 DNA-binding domain expression constructs
were created to produce fusion proteins that contained the GAL4 DBD on
the carboxyl terminus rather than the amino terminus of the LKLF
activation domain (LKLF 1-57-GAL4, LKLF 1-88-GAL4, LKLF 1-110-GAL4,
LKLF 1-141-GAL4, LKLF 1-257-GAL4, and LKLF 1-267-GAL4). Each of
these constructs was created utilizing an internal restriction site
(listed above) joined to PCR amplification of the GAL4 DBD (5'-NNC-TCT-CCA-TGG-GAT-TGG-ACA-TGA-AGC-TAC-TGT-CTT-CT-3',
5'-NNA-TCC-CCG-CGG-ACA-TGA-AGC-TAC-TGT-CTT-CT-3', 5'-NNC-ACG-GCC-GCA-TGA-AGC-TAC-TGT-CTT-CT-3',
5'-NNC-ACG-GAC-CGA-TGA-AGC-TAC-TGT-CTT-CT-3', 5'-NNA-AAC-GCG-GCC-GCA-TGA-AGC-TAC-TGT-CTT-CT-3',
5'-NNA-AGC-GCG-CCA-TGA-AGC-TAC-TGT-CTT-CT-3', and
5'-NNN-AAG-CTT- TTA-CGA-TAC-AGT-CAA-CTG-TC-3').
LKLF inhibitory domain fused to the GAL4 DBD (GAL4-LKLF111-267)
and deletion mutations of the inhibitory domain (GAL4-LKLF111-200, GAL4-LKLF111-150, GAL4-LKLF150-200, GAL4-LKLF150-267, and
GAL4-LKLF200-267) were created by PCR amplification
(5'-NNN-GGA-TCC-TTC-CTC-CTT-GCG-CCT-3', 5'-NNN-GGA- TCC-GCC-CCA-GGA-GCG-ACA-3',
5'-NNN-GGA-TCC-GGC-GCC- CTC-GAG-CTT-3',
5'-NNN-AAG-CTT-GCT-GGG-GCC-GGG-ACC-3',
5'-NNN-AAG-CTT-GGC-GGC-GCG-CTT-GCG-3', 5'-NNN-AAG-CTT-GGC-GCC-CTC-GAG-CTT-3', and
5'-NNN-GGA-TCC-AGC-TTC-GGC-GGT-3'). Lex A-VP16-LKLF 111-267 was
created by the addition of ApaI restriction sites to each
cDNA coding for LKLF amino acids 111-267 by PCR amplification
(5'-NNN-TGG-GCC-CCC-CTC-CTT-GCG-CCT-CCC-3' and
5'-GGG-GGC-CCA-GGC-GGC-GCG-CTT-CCG-GGG-3'). This region was cloned into
the ApaI of site Lex A-VP16 expression vector and was
confirmed by sequence analysis.
Full-length WWP1 and E6AP were kindly provided by Drs. Emery Bresnick
and Allen Weissman, respectively. An expression plasmid for
carboxyl-terminal hemagglutin (HA) LKLF was generated by PCR.
Transfections and Chloramphenicol Acetyltransferase (CAT)
Assays--
Monkey kidney fibroblasts (COS) or mouse lung adenoma
(LA4) cells were plated at a density of 1 × 105
cells/35-mm tissue culture dish. The following day, cells were transfected by Fugene 6 (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) with 0.25 µg
of reporter HS2 Western Blot Analysis--
LKLF-GAL4 fusion protein and deletion
mutants were transfected into COS cells for 48 h as
described above. Cells were lysed with Laemmli buffer (0.0625 M Tris, pH 6.8, 2% SDS, 6 M urea, 0.150 M dithiothreitol, and 0.005% bromophenol blue), and
each sample was separated by electrophoresis on a 9%
SDS-polyacrylamide gel. After electrophoresis, the proteins were
transferred to Hybond-P (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) polyvinylidene
difluoride transfer membrane. After blocking, 0.1 µg/ml rabbit
polyclonal antibody raised against GAL4 DBD protein or Lex A DBD (Santa
Cruz Biotechnology) was incubated with the membrane. The secondary
antibody, horseradish peroxidase-conjugated goat anti-rabbit (Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech), was used at a 1:10,000 dilution. Protein-antibody
interaction was visualized by chemiluminescence detection using the ECL
Western blotting analysis system (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech).
Yeast Two-hybrid Plasmid Constructs--
The inhibitory domains
of LKLF (aa 111-267) and EKLF (aa 197-292) were cloned by PCR in
frame to the GAL4 DBD in pAS-1-CYH2. Likewise, full-length LKLF and
EKLF were also subcloned into the pAS-1-CYH2 yeast vector. The GAL4
DBD-GATA 5 (aa 133-265) and GAL4 DBD-GATA 6 (aa 208-351) constructs
were gifts from Jeff Molkentin. The library consisted of rat lung
cDNA fused to the activation domain of GAL4 in the pGAD10 vector
(CLONTECH).
Yeast Strain and Two-hybrid Screen--
A yeast two-hybrid
screen was conducted with the inhibitory domain (aa 111-267) of LKLF
fused to Gal4 DBD following the manufacturer's protocols
(CLONTECH) except where noted. The
Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain AH109 (14) (MATa, trp1-901,
leu2-3, 112, ura3-52, his3-200, gal4
The pGAD10 plasmid was recovered from the triple positive
(His+, Ade+, and Mel1+) clones by
growing in leucine-deficient liquid synthetic dropout media for 48 h. Yeast were collected from 1 ml of liquid culture by centrifugation
at 10,000 × g for 1 min. The supernatant was decanted,
and the cell pellet was resuspended in the residual media in the
microcentrifuge tube by vortexing. Next, 50 units of lyticase was added
to the yeast, and the cells were digested for 2 h at 37 °C. The
remaining plasmid isolation was conducted following the standard Qiagen
miniprep protocol for Escherichia coli. Isolation of the
yeast plasmid DNA contains a mixture of pAS-1-CYH2 and pGAD10 vectors,
and the use of HB101 E. coli, a Leu-2-deficient strain,
allows the selection of the pAS-1-CYH2 vector from the pGAD10 vector.
Isolated plasmids were transformed into HB101 E. coli and
grown on M9 leucine-deficient selection medium with ampicillin.
Isolated pGAD10 vector was then subjected to double-stranded nucleotide
sequence analysis (Applied Biosystems). To eliminate the possibility
that the interaction between WWP1 was fortuitous, an interaction
between WWP1 and other transcription factors was examined. GAL4-WWP1
was co-transformed with pAS-1-CYH alone or with pAS-1-CYH containing
cDNA for the inhibitory domain of EKLF, full-length EKLF, GATA 5, or GATA 6. In addition, WWP1 was also transformed by itself.
Immunoprecipitation of LKLF-HA and WWP1-FLAG--
LKLF tagged
with the HA epitope and WWP1 tagged with the FLAG epitope were
transiently transfected into COS cells as described above. After
co-transfection with WWP1 and LKLF, the cells were lysed with a
hypotonic buffer containing Nonidet P-40. The cell lysates were split
and incubated with either a polyclonal antibody against the HA antigen
(Santa Cruz Biotechnology) or preimmune serum. The protein-antibody
complex was then precipitated by the addition of protein G-Sepharose
(Zymed Laboratories Inc.). After washing the absorbed
beads in co-immunoprecipitation buffer, the precipitants were
fractionated by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and transferred
to Immobilon-P membrane (Millipore). Finally, Western blot analysis
using a monoclonal antibody (M2) against the FLAG antigen (Sigma) fused
to WWP1 was used to evaluate the association of the two proteins during
the precipitation.
LKLF Contains Transcriptional Activation and Autoinhibitory
Domains--
Previous studies have indicated that some members of the
Krüppel-like family of transcription factors consist of multiple domains that function in transcriptional activation, inhibition of
activation, protein-protein interaction, DNA binding, and
transcriptional repression (8-10, 15). To identify the functional
domains of LKLF, a series of plasmids containing various portions of
LKLF cDNA joined to the DBD of yeast transcription factor GAL4 were constructed (Fig. 1, A and
D). Because GAL4 fusion proteins are of yeast origin, they
have the advantage of little or no background interference in mammalian
cells. In addition, GAL4 DBD directs proteins to the nucleus,
alleviating the concern that deletion mutants might disrupt the natural
nuclear localization signal of a protein. Both serial deletions and
internal deletions were created and assayed for the ability to
transactivate pG5-CAT, a reporter construct containing five
GAL4-binding sites in front of the E1b minimal promoter (Fig. 1,
A and D). Full-length LKLF (aa1-354) fused to
the GAL4 DBD transactivated the reporter gene only modestly. However,
because additional portions of the carboxyl terminus of LKLF were
deleted, transcriptional activation increased. Removal of amino acids
111-354 resulted in a 25-fold increase in transcriptional activation
(Fig. 1B). Further deletions of the activation domain
resulted in a slight attenuation in transactivation. Equivalent results
are observed when these experiments are conducted in a mouse lung
adenoma cell line (LA4) expressing endogenous LKLF (data not shown).
Western blot analysis of cell lysates was performed to demonstrate that
the full-length protein and each mutant protein were made in the cell,
ruling out the possibility that the inability of LKLF or LKLF deletion
mutants to transactivate was the result of the protein not being
synthesized. (Fig. 1C).
Amino acids 1-110 are able to function as a potent activator of
transcription and transactivate significantly better than full-length
LKLF, suggesting that an inhibitory domain is present outside
this region of the protein. To determine whether the inhibitory domain
is contained within the Cys2-His2 zinc fingers,
internal deletion constructs were engineered that maintained this
protein feature (Fig. 1D). The activity of the activating
subdomain (aa 1-110) to enhance reporter gene expression is unaffected
by the presence of the zinc fingers. This demonstrates that the zinc fingers do not contain the inhibitory subdomain (Fig. 1E)
and further localizes this regulatory region to amino acids 111-267. A
Western blot analysis once again demonstrated the presence of full-length LKLF and each mutant protein in the cells (Fig.
1F).
Whereas the natural DNA-binding domain of LKLF is located on the
carboxyl terminus of the activation domain, the GAL4 DNA binding domain
was attached to the amino-terminal portion. To rule out any positional
effects from this configuration, additional LKLF deletion constructs
were engineered to contain the GAL4 DBD on the carboxyl terminus of the
activation domain. These deletion constructs were assayed for the
ability to activate transcription from a reporter gene. In agreement
with the above-mentioned results, removal of amino acids 111-267
increased transcriptional activation, although the total fold
activation is slightly lower. Collectively, these data demonstrate that
LKLF contains a potent transactivation domain in the first 110 amino
acids. In addition, LKLF contains a region between amino acids 111-267
that is responsible for suppressing transactivation and represents a
regulatory region in the protein.
LKLF Inhibitory Domain Is Modular and Capable of Preventing
Transcriptional Activation by VP16--
Deletion of amino acids
111-267 from LKLF allows this factor to function as a stronger
activator of transcription, suggesting that this region functions as a
regulator of transcriptional activation. To reinforce the deletion
analysis and provide a positive assay for this function, we show that
this LKLF inhibitory domain can also directly suppress other
transactivators. LKLF inhibitory domain was fused to the heterologous
protein Lex A-VP16 (Lex A-VP16-LKLF 111-267) and compared with
unmodified Lex A-VP16 for the ability to transactivate a reporter gene.
The LKLF inhibitory domain almost completely suppressed transactivation
by VP16 (Fig. 2A). Western blot analysis confirmed that both Lex A-VP16 and Lex A-VP16-LKLF 111-267 proteins were being made in the cell (Fig. 2B).
These results indicate that the LKLF inhibitory domain is not only
capable of inhibiting transactivation by a strong transcriptional
activator such as VP16 but is a modular protein region that can
function independent of other regions of LKLF.
LKLF Inhibitory Domain Is Independently Capable of Inhibiting
Transactivation through Intermolecular Interactions--
The ability
of the inhibitory domain to suppress transactivation may occur through
an intramolecular or intermolecular mechanism. To examine the
possibility that the LKLF inhibitory domain functions through an
intermolecular mechanism, several chimeric proteins were generated that
consist of the GAL4 DNA-binding domain fused to various regions of
LKLF. The ability of these GAL4 fusion proteins to modulate
transcriptional activation by the heterologous protein Lex A-VP16 when
both factors are simultaneously bound to the promoter region was
examined. In all, three GAL4-LKLF heterologous proteins were generated
with either the inhibitory domain (GAL4-LKLF 111-267), the activation
domain (GAL4-LKLF 1-110), or both domains (GAL4-LKLF 1-267) fused to
the GAL4 DBD. Each of the three GAL4-LKLF chimeric proteins or the
control GAL4 DBD alone was examined for the ability to modulate
transactivation of Lex A-VP16. For these studies we utilized an
artificial CAT reporter system in which five GAL4-binding sites are
present adjacent to eight Lex A-binding sites (L8G5-CAT) (Fig.
3A) (13). In this system, Lex
A-VP16 and a GAL4 DBD fusion protein are able to bind and occupy their
respective response elements simultaneously. As expected, GAL4 DBD
bound to the promoter in the absence of Lex A-VP16 but was unable to
transactivate the CAT reporter gene, demonstrating that GAL4 DBD by
itself does not have any transactivating capabilities (Fig.
3B). The addition of Lex A-VP16 even in the presence of GAL4
DBD resulted in strong transactivation (Fig. 3B). When GAL4
DBD was replaced with GAL4 DBD fused to LKLF inhibitory domain,
transactivation by Lex A-VP16 was attenuated 6-fold (Fig.
3B). This demonstrates that the LKLF inhibitory domain is
able to regulate transactivation by an intermolecular mechanism.
Furthermore, the inhibition of the Lex A-VP16 transactivation by the
inhibitory domains cannot be attributed to steric hindrance or to a
physical block of transactivation. This is demonstrated with the
analysis of Lex A-VP16 activation in the presence of GAL4 DBD fused to
the LKLF activation domain (GAL4-LKLF 1-110). In this situation,
transactivation was potentiated rather than suppressed (Fig.
3B). A similar result is observed when both domains are
fused to GAL4 DBD, although, as one might expect, the potentiation was
not as high as that of activator alone (Fig. 3B). Each of the GAL4 DBD fusion proteins and GAL4 DBD fused to VP16 was also tested
for the ability to transactivate in the absence of Lex A-VP16.
Essentially, this recapitulates the data from the earlier experiment
but also demonstrates that the inhibitory domain had no transactivation
potential associated with it (Fig. 3B). In addition, the
LKLF activation domain and VP16 are able to transactivate the reporter
gene with comparable efficiency (Fig. 3B).
In addition, the three GAL4-LKLF fusion constructs were tested
for the ability to inhibit Lex A-VP16 when the GAL4 binding sites are
absent from the promoter (L8-CAT) (Fig. 3C). In this situation, Lex A-VP 16 was able to occupy the promoter; however, because the GAL4-binding sites are absent, the GAL4 DBD fusion protein
was unable to bind the promoter. Neither GAL4 DBD alone nor any of the
three GAL4 fusion proteins are able to modulate Lex A-VP16 when not
bound to the promoter (Fig. 3D). This indicates that
there is not a physical interaction that would allow the Lex A-VP16
protein to recruit the GAL4-LKLF fusion proteins to the promoter. Taken
together; these data demonstrate that the LKLF inhibitory domain is
able to suppress transactivation through an intermolecular mechanism.
Amino Acids 111-267 Represent the Minimal Functional Inhibitory
Domain--
Protein interactions often occur through small stretches
of amino acids. For example, carboxyl-terminal-binding protein 2 binds
to a Pro-Val-Asp-Leu-Thr motif in basic Krüppel-like factor (KLF3) (16). In an attempt to define the minimal functional region of
the LKLF autoinhibitory domain, a series of amino- and carboxyl-terminal deletions of the autoinhibitory domain were fused to
GAL4 DBD, producing chimeric proteins. Six unique chimeric proteins
(LKLF 111-200, LKLF 111-150, LKLF 150-200, LKLF 150-267, LKLF
200-267, and LKLF 111-267 fused to the GAL4 DBD) were tested for the ability to repress Lex A-VP16 as described above using the
L8G5-CAT promoter (Fig. 4A).
The full-length inhibitory domain (aa 111-267) inhibited
transactivation most efficiently (Fig. 4B). Deletions from
either the carboxyl end or the amino end of the inhibitory domain still
inhibit transactivation of Lex A-VP16, but these truncated regions did
not attenuate transactivation as effectively as the full-length
inhibitory domain (Fig. 4B). This suggests that both ends of
the inhibitory domain are involved in the inhibition. Moreover, when a
midregion of the inhibitory domain (aa 150-200) is fused to GAL4 DBD,
no inhibition was observed. In addition, no inhibition was observed by
any of the fusion proteins when the GAL4-binding sites are absent from
the promoter (L8-CAT) (data not shown). Therefore, amino acids 111-267
of LKLF represent the minimal region within the LKLF transactivation
domain essential for its autoinhibition.
Overexpression of the Inhibitory Region of LKLF Enhances
Transcriptional Activation by LKLF--
The ability of the LKLF
inhibitory region to repress transcription by an intermolecular
mechanism suggests an interaction with a co-repressor capable of
suppressing transactivation. In such a case the inhibitory region may
act as a docking site for a co-repressor. According to this hypothesis,
one would predict that the co-repressor should be titrated away by
overexpression of the inhibitory domain alone. As shown in Fig.
5, although LKLF can function as a weak
activator of transcription, overexpression of GAL4-LKLF 111-267
increased the activation of the reporter gene in a
dose-dependent manner (Fig. 5). These results are
consistent with the LKLF inhibitory domain serving as an interactive
site for a co-repressor protein that regulates the transactivation function of this transcription factor.
WWP1, an E3 Ubiquitin Ligase, Binds LKLF Inhibitory
Domain--
Our data suggest that a cofactor binds to LKLF to suppress
its ability to transactivate. Therefore, to isolate such a putative cofactor, which might bind to the inhibitory domain of LKLF and regulate its ability to transactivate, a yeast two-hybrid screen was
conducted. A rat lung cDNA library (CLONTECH)
was used in conjunction with the LKLF inhibitory domain fused to
GAL4-DBD during this screen.
The two clones that exhibited the strongest interaction both coded for
the WW domains of an E3 ubiquitin ligase, WWP1 (17, 18). The
interaction with this protein was considerably stronger than that of
the other clones, as indicated by the enhanced growth in the presence
of 3-amino 1,2,4-triazole (3-AT) when compared with the other
clones. In addition to interacting with the LKLF inhibitory domain,
WWP1 interacts with GAL4 DBD-LKLF (aa 1-354) but does not interact
with five control baits, GATA 5, GATA 6, EKLF inhibitory domain (aa
195-354) (8), full-length EKLF, and GAL4 DBD (Fig.
6), demonstrating specificity between
LKLF and WWP1. No interactions were observed between a second member of
the Krüppel-like factor family, EKLF, or members of a second zinc
finger family, the GATA family of transcription factors. To verify by
an independent method that LKLF and WWP1 associate, co-immunoprecipitation of epitope-tagged proteins and Western analysis
were conducted with mammalian cells. Equal amounts of LKLF
tagged with the HA epitope (LKLF-HA) and FLAG-tagged WWP1 (WWP1-FLAG)
were co-expressed in COS cells. As controls, we analyzed cells
expressing LKLF-HA, WWP1-FLAG, or empty vector. LKLF was immunoprecipitated with anti-HA antibody from whole cell extracts or
with preimmune serum as a negative control and examined by immunoblotting with anti-FLAG antibody to detect the presence of WWP1.
Indeed, WWP1 associated with LKLF in mammalian cells, as demonstrated
by co-immunoprecipitation (Fig. 6D). As expected, WWP1 was not precipitated when preimmune serum was substituted for
anti-HA antibody or when LKLF was not co-expressed with WWP1 (Fig. 6E). The inhibitory domain of LKLF associates with the
WW domains of WWP1 in yeast and mammalian cells.
WWP1 Suppresses LKLF-mediated Transactivation--
To establish a
functional consequence of the association between LKLF and WWP1, we
examined the ability of LKLF to transactivate in the presence of WWP1
(Fig. 7). Interestingly, LKLF-mediated transactivation is suppressed in a dose-dependent manner by
the presence of WWP1 (Fig. 7). It is unlikely that high concentrations of an E3 ligase are responsible for a general or nonspecific effect because E6AP, which is also an E3 ubiquitin ligase, does not
significantly attenuate transactivation by LKLF. Not only does the
inhibitory domain of LKLF engage in protein-protein interactions with
WWP1, but these interactions also modulate the function of this
protein.
The Krüppel-like family of transcription factors is
comprised of a number of different members whose expression is
restricted to specific tissues or cell types. Three members of this
family, LKLF, GKLF, and EKLF, have been divided into a subfamily based on Jukes-Canton algorithm (19) and a conserved nuclear localization signal (20). It is now apparent that all three members of this subfamily also share a spatially conserved inhibitory domain located adjacent to the DNA-binding domain (Fig.
8) (8-10). When this region is deleted
from any of the three transcription factors, it becomes a strong
transcriptional activator. Although LKLF, EKLF, and GKLF contain
inhibitory domains, such autoinhibitory domains are not present in all
members of the Krüppel-like factor family. For example, the
activation domain of intestinal-enriched Krüppel-like factor
(KLF5) or of the ubiquitous Krüppel-like factor (UKLF/KLF7)
possesses only an activator domain (11, 21). Thus, the inhibitory
domains are limited to this subfamily, and deletion of this domain from
these factors results in a similar increase in the transcriptional
activation ability of each of these factors. Although the inhibitory
domains among these three factors lack any homology, a common feature
based on charge, hydrophobicity, or the proline-rich regions involved
in protein-protein interactions could be sufficient for autoinhibition.
This may explain why conservation in the amino acid sequence between
LKLF, GKLF, and EKLF is not observed. However, the autoinhibitory
domain in LKLF requires two regions for complete inhibition, suggesting
that a more complex secondary structure is involved and raising the
possibility of the existence of different interacting factors present
in the tissue in which these individual members are expressed.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
/
embryonic stem cells
demonstrated that LKLF is essential for late stages of normal lung
development (3). In addition to pulmonary development, the programming
of the quiescent state of single-positive (CD4+ or
CD8+) T cells and the late-stage survival of these cells in
the peripheral lymphoid organs and blood are also dependent on LKLF (4,
5). Early in T-cell development, single-positive thymocytes are
produced and survive in the thymus without LKLF. However, the mature
circulating cells undergo apoptosis in
LKLF
/
mice, resulting in severely reduced
numbers of peripheral T cells (4, 5).
/
embryos (6, 7). Analogous to its role
in other organs, LKLF does not appear to be an important regulator of
the initiation or early stages of blood vessel morphogenesis; rather,
it is active in the late stages of development including the
cell-mediated assembly and stabilization of the blood vessel wall (6).
Whereas the mechanism by which LKLF regulates blood vessel integrity is unknown, it has been suggested that LKLF may regulate a signaling pathway responsible for endothelial cell differentiation or survival required for the formation of the mature blood vessel wall (6).
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
110-257, GAL4-LKLF
88-267, and
GAL4-LKLF
57-215) were constructed in pGEM3 (Promega, Madison, WI)
and then subcloned into pM vector. The internal deletion mutants were
created utilizing either internal restriction sites or PCR to amplify
the zinc fingers, adding a silent mutation to create a unique
restriction site. GAL4-LKLF
57-215 was created utilizing two
internal NarI sites, and GAL4-LKLF
110-257 was created
utilizing two XbaIII restriction sites. PCR was used to
create GAL4-LKLF
88-267 by amplifying the zinc finger domain to
introduce a second SacII restriction site by silent mutation
at the 5' end (5'-TCC-CGC-GGC-CAA-ACA-TAC-TTG-CAG-C-3' and
5'-CTC-AAG-CTT-GCA-GTG-TGT-TTG-CAA-GGG-3'). This allowed a deletion
from the SacII site at amino acid 88 to the beginning of the
zinc finger.
-CAT (1), pG5-CAT (12), L8-CAT (13), G5L8-CAT (13),
or 5CACCC-LUC plasmid; 0.25 µg of pSV2LUC or CMV-
Gal control
plasmid; and 1.0 µg of test vector (GAL4-LKLF, LKLF-GAL4 deletion
mutant, Lex A-VP16, GAL4-VP16, Lex A-VP16-LKLF111-267, and LKLF-HA of
WWP1-FLAG as described in each figure). Vector DNA was added as needed
to keep the total DNA constant. The cells were harvested 48 h
after transfection. The luciferase and CAT activity was determined by
disrupting the cells by three cycles of freeze-thaw lysis in 0.25 M Tris (pH 7.5) to make crude protein extract. An aliquot
of protein extract was used for analysis of luciferase activity
(Promega). The remaining extract was heat-inactivated at 65 °C for
10 min. Extract amounts were normalized for transfection efficiencies,
and CAT assays were performed at 37 °C for 1 h. The thin-layer
chromatography plates were exposed to a PhosphorImager plate (Molecular
Dynamics, Sunnyvale, CA) for quantitation. Normalized values for the
CAT activity are based on the percentage conversion of
[14C]chloramphenicol substrate to the acetylated forms
and corrected for transfection efficiency with luciferase activity.
, gal80
,
LYS2::GAL1UAS-GAL1TATA-HIS3,
GAL2UAS-GAL2TATA-ADE2, URA3::MEL1UAS-MEL1TATA-MEL1) was used
in all the two-hybrid assays. Approximately 1.5 × 106
transformants were screened. The yeast were grown on synthetic dropout,
a minimal medium, with appropriate amino acid omissions not only for
plasmid selection but also for selection of protein-protein interactions. Tryptophan and leucine were selective markers for the
co-transformed pAS-1-CYH2 and pGAD10 plasmids. Histidine and adenine
select for protein-protein interactions between the LKLF inhibitory
domain and the GAL4 activation domain fusion protein.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (43K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
LKLF contains an inhibitory domain. A
number of LKLF serial and internal deletion mutations fused to GAL4
were created. Each of these GAL4 fusion constructs or GAL4 alone was
co-transfected with the pG5-CAT reporter construct into COS cells. A
schematic of GAL4 DBD fused to full-length LKLF cDNA and
(A) the serial deletion mutations in LKLF or (D)
internal deletion mutants in LKLF is shown. Normalized CAT activity of
GAL4 DBD-LKLF and (B) LKLF with deletion mutations or
(E) internal deletion mutations in LKLF is represented in
the bar graph (mean ± S.E.; n = 3 experiments).
Western blot analysis of cells showing expression of GAL4 DBD-LKLF and
(C) GAL4 DBD-LKLF serial deletion mutations or
(F) GAL4-LKLF internal deletion mutations is shown.

View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
LKLF inhibitory domain fused to Lex
A-VP16. Lex A-VP16 fusion constructs or Lex A-VP16 with the
inhibitory domain of LKLF (amino acids 111-267) was co-transfected
with L8G5-CAT reporter construct into COS cells. A,
normalized CAT activity of Lex A-VP16 or Lex A-VP16-LKLF 111-269 is
represented in the bar graph (mean ± S.E.; n = 3 experiments). B, Western blot analysis of cells showing
expression of Lex A-VP16 or Lex A-VP16-LKLF 111-269.

View larger version (30K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
LKLF inhibitory domain bound to DNA
simultaneously with Lex A-VP16. Lex A-VP16 fusion constructs and
constructs of GAL4 with a LKLF domain fusion were co-transfected with
L8G5-CAT or L8-CAT reporter construct into COS cells. A, a
schematic of L8G5-CAT is shown. B, normalized CAT activity
of Lex A-VP16 and a GAL4 DBD-LKLF domain using L8G5-CAT reporter gene
is represented in the bar graph (mean ± S.E.; n = 3 experiments). C, a schematic of the L8-CAT reporter genes
is shown. D, normalized CAT activity of Lex A-VP 16 and GAL4
DBD-LKLF 111-267 using L8-CAT is represented in the bar graph
(mean ± S.E.; n = 3 experiments).

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
LKLF inhibitory domain and serial deletion
mutants of the inhibitory domain tethered to DNA simultaneously with
Lex A-VP16. Lex A-VP16 fusion constructs and GAL4 with a LKLF
inhibitory domain fusion construct or with serial deletions in
the inhibitory domain were co-transfected with L8G5-CAT reporter
construct into COS cells. A, a schematic of GAL4-LKLF
inhibitory domain fusion constructs. B, normalized CAT
activity of Lex A-VP16 and GAL4 DBD-LKLF inhibitory domain (aa
111-267) or GAL4 DBD-LKLF inhibitory domain with a deletion mutation
using the L8G5-CAT reporter gene is represented in the bar graph
(B; mean ± S.E.; n = 3 experiments).

View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Overexpression of the inhibitory domain
enhanced LKLF transactivation of a reporter gene. LKLF alone or
with increasing amounts of GAL4 DBD/LKLF111-269 (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, or
2.5 µg of DNA) was transfected into COS cells. Total amount of DNA in
each transfection was kept constant utilizing GAL4 DBD DNA alone. Fold
activation is shown in the bar graph. Fold activation in the absence of
LKLF was set at 1 (mean ± S.E.; n = 3 wells of a
representative experiment).

View larger version (56K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Protein-protein interactions between WWP1 and
LKLF. WWP1-GAL4 activation domain was co-transformed into
S. cerevisiae strain AH109 with either full-length LKLF,
LKLF inhibitory domain (ID), full-length EKLF, EKLF
inhibitory domain (ID), GATA 5 (aa 133-265), or GATA 6 (aa
208-351) fused to GAL4 DBD or with GAL4 DBD alone. A,
schematic representing the yeast genotype of each wedge. B,
yeast cells grown on Leu
Trp
minimal media.
C, yeast cells grown on Leu
Trp
His
Ade
3-AT minimal media (20 mM). LKLF and WWP1 co-immunoprecipitate from mammalian
cells. COS-1 cells transiently transfected with LKLF-HA, WWP1-FLAG, or
both were lysed and (D) immunoprecipitated with anti-HA
antibody and blotted with anti-FLAG (M2) antibody, or (E)
whole cell extracts were blotted with anti-FLAG (M2) directly.

View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
WWP1 attenuates transactivation by LKLF.
COS cells were transfected with LKLF alone or with increasing amounts
of WWP1 (0.25, 0.5, or 1.0 µg) or with increasing amounts of E6AP
(0.25, 0.5, or 1.0 µg). The total amount of DNA in each transfection
was kept constant with vector DNA. The percentage activation is
represented in the bar graph. The percentage activation of LKLF was set
at 100% (mean ± S.E.; n = 3 experiments).
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (32K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 8.
Comparison of the subdomains of LKLF, EKLF,
and GKLF. The white box represents the transactivating
subdomain, whereas the black box represents the inhibitory
subdomain. Each transcription factor contains a putative nuclear
localization signal (NLS) within the inhibitory domain. The
Cys2-His2 zinc finger domain is represented by
the shaded box.
Whereas autoinhibitory domains are not commonly observed in transcription factors, there are several examples of transcription factors that contain such domains. One of the best-characterized examples is Ets-1, a member of the Ets family. Ets-1 contains an autoinhibitory domain that functions intramolecularly to repress DNA binding and thus prevents transactivation (22). Binding of core-binding factor alpha 2 to Ets-1 counteracts the autoinhibition by increasing the DNA binding affinity of Ets-1 (23). Similarly, activating transcription factor-2, a basic region leucine zipper transcription factor, also contains an autoinhibitory domain that has been proposed to regulate transactivation by masking a portion of the activation domain and thereby preventing transactivation (24). In contrast, the DNA binding affinity of EKLF is increased when its inhibitory domain is removed, suggesting that the inhibitory domain of EKLF acts through an intramolecular interaction (8). However, this type of intramolecular mechanism cannot account for the observation that the LKLF inhibitory domain is able to attenuate transactivation of VP16 when it is tethered to the DNA via the GAL4 DBD. This suggests that the inhibition must occur, at least in part, through an intermolecular mechanism and cannot be completely explained through intramolecular effects such as alterations in DNA binding affinity. However, an intermolecular mechanism involving protein-protein interaction does not totally preclude the involvement of intramolecular contributions. The LKLF inhibitory domain was able to suppress Lex A-VP16 more efficiently when fused directly to VP16 than when tethered to DNA, supporting the possibility of a dual mechanism. Alternatively, fusing the LKLF inhibitory domain directly to VP16 could be more efficient because it brings a putative inhibitory cofactor in closer proximity than when tethered to the DNA by GAL4 DBD.
One hypothesis that is directly supported by our data is that the LKLF autoinhibitory domain may directly interact with a co-repressor that is involved in preventing transactivation by LKLF. The addition of increasing amounts of inhibitory domain fused to GAL4 DBD in cells expressing wild type LKLF allowed wild type LKLF to transactivate more efficiently. This suggests that the excess inhibitory domain can sequester a co-repressor that is involved in the inhibitory process, supporting the idea that the inhibitory domain functions through intermolecular interactions through protein-protein interactions. In an effort to identify and characterize such a co-repressor, a yeast two-hybrid screen was conducted using the LKLF inhibitory domain (aa 111-267). The 2 strongest of 15 clones code for the WW domains of an E3 ubiquitin ligase, WWP1 (17, 18). WWP1 contains four WW domains composed of 38-40-amino acid regions that are named after two highly conserved tryptophan residues characteristically spaced either 22 or 23 residues apart (25). These domains recognize and bind to target proteins that are rich in proline residues (18), a hallmark feature of the activation domain of Krüppel-like factors. In addition, WWP1 contains a catalytic homology to E6 carboxyl terminus (HECT) domain that catalyzes the transfer of ubiquitin moieties as a thiol intermediate from a conserved cysteine residue in this domain to a lysine residue in the target protein, resulting in their polyubiquitination, followed by degradation by the 26S proteasome complex (26). However, not all ubiquitinated proteins are destined for the proteasome degradation. In certain cases, ubiquitination also functions as a posttranslational modification that regulates the target protein (27, 28). WWP1 not only binds to LKLF in a yeast two-hybrid assay but also interacts physically in mammalian cells as demonstrated by co-immunoprecipitation of the two proteins and suppresses LKLF-mediated transactivation of a reporter gene.
It is well documented that ubiquitin E3 ligases function as
transcriptional co-repressors with many transcription factors such as
p53 (29), MAT
2 (30), c-Myc (31), c-Jun (32), c-Fos (33, 34),
estrogen receptor (35), progesterone receptor (36), signal transducers
and activators of transcription 1 (37), nuclear factor
B (38, 39),
and SMAD1 (40), and they modulate these factors through a variety of
mechanisms. For example, c-Jun and c-Fos undergo rapid degradation
mediated by ubiquitination of lysine-rich domains within the protein
(32-34). Deletion of these regulatory domains in the oncoproteins,
v-Jun and v-Fos, results in a more stable form of these oncoproteins.
Conversely, the stability of MET4 is unaffected by ubiquitination;
however, ubiquitinated MET4 fails to form functional transcription
complexes, demonstrating that ubiquitination can repress function
without degradation (41). Several lines of evidence suggest that MDM2 regulates p53 not only by ubiquitination but also by binding and masking the activation domain (42, 43). Progesterone receptor-mediated transactivation is potentiated in the presence of E6AP, an E3 ligase,
demonstrating E3 ubiquitin ligase may function through multiple
mechanisms in regulating gene expression by transcription factors
(36). Regardless of whether proteins are targeted for degradation or not, ubiquitination plays a key role in cellular processes such as gene transcription.
Collectively, our data show that LKLF contains an inhibitory domain
that functions by interacting with a repressive cofactor, WWP1. Removal
of the inhibitory domain from LKLF results in a better transcriptional
activator. Likewise, attachment of this domain to the strong viral
activator VP16 suppresses VP16-mediated transactivation. Furthermore,
overexpression of the inhibitory domain in conjunction with LKLF also
potentiates LKLF-mediated transactivation. Each of these observations
is consistent with the idea that the LKLF inhibitory domain functions
at least in part by directly interacting with WWP1. Previously, other
investigators have shown that LKLF degradation during T-cell
development is preceded by an alteration in the electrophoretic
mobility of the protein, suggesting that LKLF may undergo a protein
modification such as ubiquitination that may target LKLF for
degradation in T cells (4). In addition, we have established that both
the amino- and carboxyl ends of the LKLF inhibitory domain are required for transcriptional repression. Both of these regions are rich in
lysine residues, the target of ubiquitin ligase proteins. At this time,
it is unclear whether these lysines are a target of ubiquitin or
acetylation, but with the discovery that WWP1 binds LKLF, it is
plausible that these sites are ubiquitinated. However, degradation
alone cannot account for the ability of the inhibitory domain to
attenuate VP16-mediated transactivation when the inhibitory domain is
tethered to DNA near Lex A-VP16 but is not attached to Lex A-VP16. The
inhibitory domain could have intrinsic inhibitory function in addition
to providing a binding site for WWP1. Moreover, similar to p53 and
MDM2, there may be multiple mechanisms by which WWP1 suppresses
LKLF-mediated transactivation. The autoinhibitory domain represents a
novel mechanism for regulating the function of this subfamily of
transcription factors and may help understand the role of LKLF
in the late stages of development.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Dr. Steve Konieczny of Purdue University for kindly providing L8G5-CAT and L8-CAT reporter vectors and the Lex A-VP16 expression vector. We thank Drs. Emery Bresnick and Allen Weisman for providing expression constructs for WWP1 and E6AP, respectively. We also thank Jeff Molkentin for providing the pG5-CAT reporter and GAL4 (pM) expression vector. In addition, we acknowledge Dr. Kathleen Anderson and Mindy Call for invaluable comments during preparation of the manuscript.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This research was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grant HL 57281 (to J. B L.) and National Institutes of Health Training Grant 5-T32 HL07752 (to M. D. C.).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.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Molecular
Genetics, Biochemistry, and Microbiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0524. Tel.: 513-558-5324; Fax: 513-558-1190; E-mail:
jerry.lingrel@uc.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, May 25, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M103670200
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: LKLF, lung Krüppel-like factor; KLF, Krüppel-like factor; DBD, DNA-binding domain; EKLF, erythroid Krüppel-like factor; GKLF, gut-enriched Krüppel-like factor; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; HA, hemagglutinin; CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase; aa, amino acid(s); 3-AT, 3-amino 1,2,4,-triazole; VP16, viral protein 16; AD, activation domain; ID, inhibitory domain.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Anderson, K. P., Kern, C. B., Crable, S. C., and Lingrel, J. B. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 5957-5965 |
| 2. | Wani, M. A., Conkright, M. D., Jeffries, S., Hughes, M. J., and Lingrel, J. B. (1999) Genomics 60, 78-86 |
| 3. | Wani, M. A., Wert, S. E., and Lingrel, J. B. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 21180-21185 |
| 4. | Kuo, C. T., Veselits, M. L., and Leiden, J. M. (1997) Science 277, 1986-1990 |
| 5. | Kuo, C. T., Veselits, M. L., and Leiden, J. M. (1997) Science 278, 788-789 |
| 6. | Kuo, C. T., Veselits, M. L., Barton, K. P., Lu, M. M., Clendenin, C., and Leiden, J. M. (1997) Genes Dev. 11, 2996-3006 |
| 7. | Wani, M. A., Means, R. T., Jr., and Lingrel, J. B. (1998) Transgenic Res. 7, 229-238 |
| 8. | Chen, X., and Bieker, J. J. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 5888-5896 |
| 9. | de Geiman, T.-T. H., Johnson, J. M., and Yang, V. W. (2000) Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 1106-1113 |
| 10. | Yet, S. F., McA'Nulty, M. M., Folta, S. C., Yen, H. W., Yoshizumi, M., Hsieh, C. M., Layne, M. D., Chin, M. T., Wang, H., Perrella, M. A., Jain, M. K., and Lee, M. E. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 1026-1031 |
| 11. | Conkright, M. D., Wani, M. A., Anderson, K. P., and Lingrel, J. B. (1999) Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 1263-1270 |
| 12. | Sadowski, I., Bell, B., Broad, P., and Hollis, M. (1992) Gene (Amst.) 118, 137-141 |
| 13. | Hollenberg, S. M., Sternglanz, R., Cheng, P. F., and Weintraub, H. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 3813-3822 |
| 14. | James, P., Halladay, J., and Craig, E. A. (1996) Genetics 144, 1425-1436 |
| 15. | Crossley, M., Whitelaw, E., Perkins, A., Williams, G., Fujiwara, Y., and Orkin, S. H. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 1695-1705 |
| 16. | Turner, J., and Crossley, M. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 5129-5140 |
| 17. | Huang, K., Johnson, K. D., Petcherski, A. G., Vandergon, T., Mosser, E. A., Copeland, N. G., Jenkins, N. A., Kimble, J., and Bresnick, E. H. (2000) Gene (Amst.) 252, 137-145 |
| 18. | Pirozzi, G., McConnell, S. J., Uveges, A. J., Carter, J. M., Sparks, A. B., Kay, B. K., and Fowlkes, D. M. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 14611-14616 |
| 19. | Turner, J., and Crossley, M. (1999) Trends Biochem. Sci. 24, 236-240 |
| 20. | Shields, J. M., and Yang, V. W. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 18504-18507 |
| 21. | Matsumoto, N., Laub, F., Aldabe, R., Zhang, W., Ramirez, F., Yoshida, T., and Terada, M. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 28229-28237 |
| 22. | Jonsen, M. D., Petersen, J. M., Xu, Q. P., and Graves, B. J. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 2065-2073 |
| 23. | Goetz, T. L., Gu, T. L., Speck, N. A., and Graves, B. J. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 81-90 |
| 24. | Li, X. Y., and Green, M. R. (1996) Genes Dev. 10, 517-527 |
| 25. | Bork, P., and Sudol, M. (1994) Trends Biochem. Sci. 19, 531-533 |
| 26. | Joazeiro, C. A., and Weissman, A. M. (2000) Cell 102, 549-552 |
| 27. | Hershko, A., and Ciechanover, A. (1998) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67, 425-479 |
| 28. | Weissman, A. M. (1997) Immunol. Today 18, 189-198 |
| 29. | Scheffner, M., Huibregtse, J. M., Vierstra, R. D., and Howley, P. M. (1993) Cell 75, 495-505 |
| 30. | Hochstrasser, M., Ellison, M. J., Chau, V., and Varshavsky, A. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 4606-4610 |
| 31. | Ciechanover, A., DiGiuseppe, J. A., Schwartz, A. L., and Brodeur, G. M. (1991) Prog. Clin. Biol. Res. 366, 37-43 |
| 32. | Treier, M., Staszewski, L. M., and Bohmann, D. (1994) Cell 78, 787-798 |
| 33. | Tsurumi, C., Ishida, N., Tamura, T., Kakizuka, A., Nishida, E., Okumura, E., Kishimoto, T., Inagaki, M., Okazaki, K., Sagata, N., Ichihara, A., and Tanaka, K. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 5682-5687 |
| 34. | Stancovski, I., Gonen, H., Orian, A., Schwartz, A. L., and Ciechanover, A. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 7106-7116 |
| 35. | Nirmala, P. B., and Thampan, R. V. (1995) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 213, 24-31 |
| 36. | Nawaz, Z., Lonard, D. M., Smith, C. L., Lev-Lehman, E., Tsai, S. Y., Tsai, M. J., and O'Malley, B. W. (1999) Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 1182-1189 |
| 37. | Kim, T. K., and Maniatis, T. (1996) Science 273, 1717-1719 |
| 38. | Orian, A., Whiteside, S., Israel, A., Stancovski, I., Schwartz, A. L., and Ciechanover, A. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 21707-21714 |
| 39. | Palombella, V. J., Rando, O. J., Goldberg, A. L., and Maniatis, T. (1994) Cell 78, 773-785 |
| 40. | Zhang, Y., Chang, C., Gehling, D. J., Hemmati-Brivanlou, A., and Derynck, R. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 974-979 |
| 41. | Kaiser, P., Flick, K., Wittenberg, C., and Reed, S. I. (2000) Cell 102, 303-314 |
| 42. | Haupt, Y., Maya, R., Kazaz, A., and Oren, M. (1997) Nature 387, 296-299 |
| 43. | Kubbutat, M. H., Jones, S. N., and Vousden, K. H. (1997) Nature 387, 299-303 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
G. B. Atkins and M. K. Jain Role of Kruppel-Like Transcription Factors in Endothelial Biology Circ. Res., June 22, 2007; 100(12): 1686 - 1695. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Zhou, L. McPherson, D. Feng, A. Song, C. Dong, S.-C. Lyu, L. Zhou, X. Shi, Y.-T. Ahn, D. Wang, et al. Kruppel-Like Transcription Factor 13 Regulates T Lymphocyte Survival In Vivo J. Immunol., May 1, 2007; 178(9): 5496 - 5504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Chen, X. Sun, P. Guo, X.-Y. Dong, P. Sethi, X. Cheng, J. Zhou, J. Ling, J. W. Simons, J. B. Lingrel, et al. Human Kruppel-like Factor 5 Is a Target of the E3 Ubiquitin Ligase WWP1 for Proteolysis in Epithelial Cells J. Biol. Chem., December 16, 2005; 280(50): 41553 - 41561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Truscott, L. Raynal, Y. Wang, G. Berube, L. Leduy, and A. Nepveu The N-terminal Region of the CCAAT Displacement Protein (CDP)/Cux Transcription Factor Functions as an Autoinhibitory Domain that Modulates DNA Binding J. Biol. Chem., November 26, 2004; 279(48): 49787 - 49794. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Asamitsu, T. Tetsuka, S. Kanazawa, and T. Okamoto RING Finger Protein AO7 Supports NF-{kappa}B-mediated Transcription by Interacting with the Transactivation Domain of the p65 Subunit J. Biol. Chem., July 11, 2003; 278(29): 26879 - 26887. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Song, A. Patel, K. Thamatrakoln, C. Liu, D. Feng, C. Clayberger, and A. M. Krensky Functional Domains and DNA-binding Sequences of RFLAT-1/KLF13, a Kruppel-like Transcription Factor of Activated T Lymphocytes J. Biol. Chem., August 9, 2002; 277(33): 30055 - 30065. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. J. Bieker Kruppel-like Factors: Three Fingers in Many Pies J. Biol. Chem., September 7, 2001; 276(37): 34355 - 34358. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||