Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M212988200 on March 26, 2003

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 22, 20059-20068, May 30, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/22/20059    most recent
M212988200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Townson, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Oesterreich, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Townson, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Oesterreich, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

SAFB2, a New Scaffold Attachment Factor Homolog and Estrogen Receptor Corepressor*

Steven M. Townson {ddagger} §, Klaudia M. Dobrzycka {ddagger}, Adrian V. Lee {ddagger}, Mamie Air {ddagger}, Wanleng Deng {ddagger}, Kaiyan Kang {ddagger}, Shiming Jiang {ddagger}, Noriyuki Kioka ¶, Kai Michaelis {ddagger} || and Steffi Oesterreich {ddagger} **

From the {ddagger}Breast Center, Department of Medicine, and Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030 adn the Laboratory of Cellular Biochemistry, Division of Applied Life Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan

Received for publication, December 19, 2002 , and in revised form, March 6, 2003.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We have characterized previously the nuclear matrix protein/scaffold attachment factor (SAFB) as an estrogen receptor corepressor and as a potential tumor suppressor gene in breast cancer. A search of the human genome for other potential SAFB family members revealed that KIAA00138 (now designated as SAFB2) has high homology to SAFB (now designated as SAFB1). SAFB1 and SAFB2 are mapped adjacent to each other on chromosome 19p13.3 and are arranged in a bidirectional divergent configuration (head to head), being separated by a short (<500 bp) GC-rich intergenic region that can function as a bidirectional promoter. SAFB1 and SAFB2 share common functions but also have unique properties. As shown previously for SAFB1, SAFB2 functions as an estrogen receptor corepressor, and its overexpression results in inhibition of proliferation. SAFB1 and SAFB2 interact directly through a C-terminal domain, resulting in additive repression activity. They are coexpressed in a number of tissues, but unlike SAFB1, which is exclusively nuclear, SAFB2 is found in the cytoplasm as well as the nucleus. Consistent with its cytoplasmic localization, we detected an interaction between SAFB2 and vinexin, a protein involved in linking signaling to the cytoskeleton. Our findings suggest that evolutionary duplication of the SAFB gene has allowed it to retain crucial functions, but also to gain novel functions in the cytoplasm and/or nucleus.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Scaffold attachment factor B (SAFB,1 also named HET and HAP in the literature) was originally identified based on its ability to bind to scaffold/matrix attachment regions (1) and as a protein binding to the small heat shock protein hsp27 gene promoter (2). SAFB is a large protein (130 kDa) with a number of putative functional domains. The function of many of these domains is still unclear but can be inferred from the roles of similar domains in other proteins. The N terminus contains an SAF box (3) (also called an SAP domain (4)), which is a homeodomain-like DNA binding motif. This motif is believed to play a role in chromatin organization and specifically in organizing the interaction between nuclear matrix proteins and scaffold/matrix attachment regions. SAF boxes are found in proteins involved in very diverse processes such as transcription, RNA processing, apoptotic chromatin degradation, and DNA repair (3). Amino acids 409–484 harbor an RNA recognition motif (RRM), which is often found in mRNA-processing proteins. SAFB can interact with a number of proteins from the RNA-processing machinery, such as AUF1/hnRNP D, hnRNP A1, htra2-{beta}1, ASF/SF2, SRp30c, and CLK2 (5, 6, 7). Consistent with this, SAFB is able to alter the splice site selection of an E1A minigene (7). Because SAFB was also shown to interact with the C-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II, it has been suggested to be part of a "transcriptosome" complex, coupling transcription and RNA processing (7). SAFB has a nuclear localization signal (NLS), and using biochemical fractionation experiments, we and others have shown that SAFB is a nuclear protein that copurifies with chromatin (1) and nuclear matrix protein fractions (2).

Previously we have published a number of studies showing that SAFB plays an important role in human breast cancer. First, it functions as an estrogen receptor (ER) corepressor (8). ER and SAFB interact both in vitro and in vivo, and overexpression of SAFB results in inhibition of ER activity. Second, overexpression of SAFB results in growth inhibition and generation of multinucleated cells. Finally, we discovered an exceptionally high rate of loss of heterozygosity (9) at the SAFB chromosomal locus on 19p13 in human breast cancer (8). Importantly, we have also identified SAFB mutations in those tumors but not in the adjacent normal tissue (9).

Given that SAFB is a multifunctional gene that seems to play an important role in breast tumorigenesis, we set out to determine whether SAFB would also be part of a larger family. Searching GenBank we identified one gene that showed high homology to SAFB, termed KIAA0138. Herein we propose the nomenclature SAFB2 for KIAA0138 and SAFB1 for SAFB/HET/HAP. In this study we define similarities and differences in sequences and domain structures, chromosomal localizations, expression and subcellular localizations, and functions of SAFB1 and SAFB2. We believe that SAFB1 and SAFB2, like many other genes in the human genome, probably arose through duplication of a single ancestral gene.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Plasmid Constructs and Chemicals—The cloning of the HET/SAF-B (SAFB1) expression construct (2), of pEGFP-SAFB1 (11), and of the mammalian expression vector for full-length ER (12) has been described previously. The human KIAA0138 cDNA (clone HA03743) (SAFB2) was kindly provided by the Kazusa DNA Research Institute (Kisarazu, Chiba, Japan). The 3,233-bp fragment with 57-bp poly(A) stretches was inserted into the EcoRV-NotI site of the Bluescript SK+ vector (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA). To generate an expression vector, the cDNA was cut with the restriction enzymes KpnI and NotI and cloned into the KpnI and NotI sites of the pcDNA3 vector (Invitrogen). pEGFP-SAFB2 was constructed by excising full-length SAFB2 from pcDNA3-SAFB2 with NotI, which was made blunt, and digested with KpnI. SAFB2 was then ligated into the KpnI and a blunt BamHI site of pEGFP-C1 (BD Biosciences).

The putative SAFB1/2 promoter fragment was amplified by PCR using platinum Taq PFX (Invitrogen) from genomic DNA (MCF-7) with the following primers containing XhoI sites: forward 5'-GGA ACT GCA GGT CTT CGC CAC CGA CTC AGT CG-3' and 5'-GGA ACT GCA GCC GCC CAC TTT CCA CAG AAG-3'. The fragment was cloned in both orientations into the XhoI site of the pGL3 Basic reporter plasmid (Promega) upstream of the luciferase gene. The clones were sequenced to verify both the orientation of the insert and sequence identity with the corresponding NCBI human genome sequences.

All other constructs were verified using restriction digests and/or extension capillary sequencing (SeqWright, Houston, TX). All primers were purchased from MWG Biotech Inc. (High Point, NC), and PCRs were carried out using the MJ Research PT-200 Peltier Thermal Cycler (Waltham, MA). Chemicals were purchased from Sigma unless stated otherwise. Restriction and general molecular biology enzymes were purchased from Invitrogen.

Cell Culture, Stable and Transient Transfection—Human breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7, MDA-MB-231, and T47D), a human osteosarcoma cell line (Saos-2 Endo), a human myeloblastoma cell line (KG-1), a transformed embryonic kidney cell line (293), and a monkey kidney cell line (CV-1) were maintained in improved modified Dulbecco's medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Hyclone, Logan, UT), 200 units/ml penicillin, 200 µg/ml streptomycin, and 6 ng/ml insulin. For reporter assays, cells were transiently transfected using FuGENE 6 (Roche Applied Science) following the manufacturer's protocol. One day before transfection, cells were plated at 1.5 x 105 cells/well in six-well plates. For estradiol induction experiments, the cells were plated in serum-free medium, which consisted of phenol red-free improved modified Dulbecco's medium, 10 mM HEPES pH 7.4, 1 µg/ml fibronectin (Invitrogen), trace elements (Biofluids), and 1 µg/ml transferrin (Invitrogen). Cotransfections were performed using 1 µg of reporter plasmid (ERE-TK-LUC), 25 ng of {beta}-galactosidase expression vector, and expression plasmids as indicated in the figure legends for each experiment. 24 h after transfection, the medium was replaced with serum-free medium containing the appropriate ligand. 48 h later cells were washed twice with PBS, and luciferase activity was measured using the luciferase kit from Promega (Madison, WI). {beta}-Galactosidase activity was measured as described previously (2), and the luciferase activities were normalized by dividing by the {beta}-galactosidase activity to give relative luciferase units.

For FACS analysis, cells were harvested 48 h after transfection, washed, and fixed in 70% ethanol. Immediately before analysis on a FACS STAR PLUS (BD Biosciences), propidium iodide and RNase were added to final concentrations of 0.1 and 0.5 mg/ml, respectively. Data were analyzed using CellQuest software.

To assay the activity of the putative SAFB1/2 promoter elements, 24 h before transfection, 1.5 x 105 MCF-7 cells were plated/well in a six-well plate in improved modified Dulbecco's medium. Cells were transfected using FuGENE 6 reagent with 1 µg of promoter or control vectors (empty pGL3 vector, TK-LUC) along with 25 ng of {beta}-galactosidase control. Cells were harvested 36 h later, and luciferase and {beta}-galactosidase activity were measured as described above.

To generate doxycycline-inducible SAFB1-overexpressing cells, MCF-7 cells were transfected with pUHD172-1neo plasmid (13) encoding a fusion product of the VP16 activation domain of herpes simplex virus and a mutated Escherichia coli tetracycline repressor protein. Neomycin-resistant clones were tested for responsiveness to doxycycline, a tetracycline derivative, by transient transfection of a luciferase reporter gene. A parental clone (RTA-16) was subsequently transfected with HA-tagged SAFB1 subcloned into pTRE2-hygro plasmid (Clontech) downstream from the tetracycline resistance operator and a minimal cytomegalovirus promoter. Stable clones were selected in the presence of 200 µg of hygromycin and tested for inducible expression of HA-SAFB1 by immunoblotting using anti-HA and anti-SAFB antibodies.

Reverse Transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and RNase Protection Assay— Total cellular RNA from cell lines was extracted using the RNeasy kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). Human tissue RNA for RNase protection assay analysis was purchased from Clontech. Reverse transcription of the RNA was performed in a final volume of 20 µl using 2 µg of RNA and 25pmol of primer (5'-GTG GCC ATG GCG CTC ATC TCC-3'). The reaction mixture was incubated at 70 °C for 5min and then put immediately on ice. 4 µl of 5 x incubation buffer, 40 units of RNase inhibitor, 625 µM each dNTP, and 200 units of Moloney murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase (Promega) were added, and the reaction was incubated at 42 °C for 1 h. Subsequent PCR was performed using SAFB2-specific primers (5'-CAA AGG GAG AGA GAG CGC CAG-3', and 5'-GTG GCC ATG GCG GTC ATC TCC-3') and 200 µM dNTPs, 1.5 mM MgSO4, 0.5 x enhancer solution, 10 x Pfx DNA polymerase buffer (Invitrogen), 1.25 units platinum Pfx DNA polymerase. The RNase protection assay was performed as described previously (11, 14). In addition to the SAFB1 (11) and 36B4 (15) probes, we also used an SAFB2-specific probe that was generated by cutting the SAFB2-pBSII SK+ with HindIII restriction enzyme. The released 700-bp fragment was cloned into pGEM-11zf (Promega), and the probe was made using T7 polymerase.

Immunoblotting and Immunofluorescence—Proteins were resolved on 6% or 8% SDS-PAGE and transferred to nitrocellulose. The membrane was blocked in PBS and 0.1% Tween 20 (PBST) + 5% milk for 1 h at room temperature. Mouse monoclonal anti-SAFB (16) (Upstate Biotechnology), rabbit polyclonal anti-Gal4 DNA binding region (Upstate Biotechnology), mouse anti-GFP (BD Biosciences), polyclonal anti-vinexin (17), and mouse anti-HA (Covance, Princeton, NJ) were diluted at 1:1,000 in PBST + 5% milk. After washing six times for 5 min with PBST, the membranes were incubated with horseradish peroxidase-linked anti-mouse or anti-rabbit IgG at 1:1,000 (Amersham Biosciences) in PBST + 5% milk, washed six times for 5 min, and the signal was developed using enhanced chemiluminescence according to the manufacturer's instructions (Pierce).

To produce SAFB2-specific antibodies, the SAFB2 peptide GLLDSFCDSKEYVAAQLRQ, corresponding to amino acids 154–172, was used to produce rabbit polyclonal anti-SAFB2 antiserum (Research Genetics, Huntsville, AL), which was subsequently purified using immobilized peptide. This peptide is within a region of low homology between SAFB1 and SAFB2.

For immunofluorescence, 5 x 104 cells (293, HeLa, MCF-7) were seeded onto poly-L-lysine-coated coverslips (Biocoat) (BD Biosciences) in 24-well plates 1 day before transfection. The cells were then transfected with GFP-vinexin {beta} (17) using LipofectAMINE Plus reagent (Invitrogen) overnight. The next day the medium was changed to Iscove's modified Dulbecco's medium + 10% fetal bovine serum, and cells were allowed to recover for 24 h. Cells were washed twice with PBS, fixed for 30 min in PEM (80 mM PIPES, pH 6.8, 5 mM EGTA, 2 mM MgCl2) and 4% paraformaldehyde, and then washed three times in PEM. The cells were permeabilized with PEM and 0.5% Triton X-100 buffer for 30 min, washed three times with PEM, and then blocked with PBST and 5% normal goat serum (Jackson Immunoresearch Laboratories Inc.). The cells were stained using our polyclonal anti-SAFB2 or the monoclonal anti-SAFB (Upstate Biotechnology) antibodies at 1:250 dilution in PBST and 5% normal goat serum overnight at 4 °C, and then washed five times for 5 min in PBST buffer. Cells were then stained with goat anti-rabbit or anti-mouse Texas Red antibodies (Jackson) at 1:100 dilution in PBST and 5% normal goat serum followed by five washes for 5 min in PBST buffer. The coverslips were mounted on slides using mounting medium (Vectorshield, Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA). Confocal microscopy was performed with a digital scanning confocal microscope (Nikon Eclipse E1000) equipped with a 60 x/numerical aperture = 1.40/oil immersion objective. Images were exported to Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA), and final figures were composed in PowerPoint (Microsoft).

In Vitro (GST Pull-down) and in Vivo (Coimmunoprecipitation) Protein-Protein Interaction—GST pull-down experiments were performed as described previously (8) using bacterially expressed GST fusion proteins and in vitro translated proteins. Coimmunoprecipitation studies were performed using transfected and nontransfected cell lines (i.e. coimmunoprecipitation of endogenous proteins). For the transient transfections, 293 and CV-1 cells were plated at 5 x 106 cells in 10-cm dishes. The next day the cells were transiently transfected with the appropriate plasmids using LipofectAMINE Plus (Invitrogen) for 7 h. The cells were maintained for an additional 20 h and then lysed in low stringency (PBS, 0.1% Nonidet P-40, protease inhibitors) or high stringency buffer (20 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5% Nonidet P-40, 0.5% SDS, 0.5% deoxycholate, protease inhibitors). 500 µg of lysate was precleared with 50 µl of protein G-agarose for 30 min at 4 °C and incubated overnight with 4 µg of the appropriate antibodies at 4 °C. Protein G-agarose was added for another 4 h, and the beads were pelleted and washed three times with low or high stringency buffer, respectively. Bound proteins were eluted in SDS sample buffer, subjected to SDS-PAGE, and analyzed by immunoblotting. To detect interaction of endogenous proteins, MCF-7 cells were allowed to grow for 48 h in 20-cm dishes, washed with PBS, and proteins were cross-linked for 30 min with 1 mM DSP (Pierce) which is membrane-permeable. After subsequent washing of the cells, they were lysed in high stringency buffer, and immunoprecipitation was performed as described above.

Yeast Two-hybrid Assays—We used the Matchmaker Two-Hybrid System 3 (BD Biosciences) with the yeast strain AH109, which includes three reporter genes, Ade2, His3, and {alpha}-galactosidase to reduce the incidence of false positive clones, for our yeast two-hybrid assays. Yeast manipulations were undertaken according the Clontech Matchmaker System 3 and Yeast Protocols Handbooks (BD Biosciences). The C-terminal SAFB1 domain (amino acids 599–915) was subcloned in-frame into the EcoRI-BamHI sites of pGBKT7. This SAFB1 clone results in expression of an SAFB1-C-Gal4DBD fusion protein of the expected size of 60 kDa (in vitro transcription and translation, TNT Kit, Promega) using the T7 promoter site of pGBKT7, as seen by Western blotting using polyclonal rabbit anti-Gal4 DNA binding region antibodies (Upstate Biotechnology) of the protein expressed in AH109 (data not shown). Similarly, the C terminus of SAFB2 (amino acids 600–953) was subcloned into pGADT7. SAFB1 bait and prey constructs were generated using appropriate PCR primers containing EcoRI or BamHI restriction sites and cloned into pGBKT7 and pGADT7 using the EcoRI and BamHI restriction sites of these vectors. The vinexin {beta} yeast two-hybrid clone 3-1 was obtained from a yeast two-hybrid screen using the SAFB1 C-terminal domain as bait against a normal mammary gland library (Clontech).2

For yeast two-hybrid interactions, the bait and prey constructs were cotransformed into the yeast strain AH109 and plated onto both SD-Leu/Trp and high stringency SD-Leu/Trp/His/Ade dropout plates. Colonies from the SD-Leu/Trp/His/Ade plates were allowed to grow for 5–10 days and then streaked onto new SD-Leu/Trp/His/Ade dropout plates. Interacting proteins were assessed after the colonies had been streaked a second time onto SD-Leu/Trp/His/Ade plates with or without X-{alpha}-galactose as the substrate for {alpha}-galactosidase. Appropriate controls as suggested by the manufacturer were used to ensure the validity of the interactions. Colonies that contained interacting proteins were maintained on SD-Leu/Trp/His/Ade and SD-Leu/Trp plates, whereas colonies having noninteracting proteins were maintained only on SD-Leu/Trp plates.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
SAFB1 and SAFB2 Are Highly Homologous Proteins That Map to the Same Chromosomal Locus—We set out to analyze whether SAFB is part of a gene family. Therefore, we performed a homology search using GenBank and identified a second human gene with very high homology to SAFB, termed KIAA0138 (accession number NM_014649 [GenBank] ). For ease of understanding and to prevent further confusion in the literature where a number of SAFB synonyms exist, we suggest the use of the terminology SAFB1 and SAFB2 for the two highly homologous genes; SAFB1 is the gene previously termed SAFB, HET, HET/SAFB, and HAP; and SAFB2 is the gene originally designated KIAAA0138.

SAFB genes are highly conserved in other mammalian organisms. Orthologous SAFB1 and SAFB2 genes are present in mice; human SAFB1 corresponds to mouse gene ENSMUSG000000428128, and human SAFB2 corresponds to mouse gene ENSMUSG00000042625. A data base search of expressed sequence tag sequences also identified SAFB genes in cattle (Bos taurus, e.g. GenBank BE666390 [GenBank] ), and in pig (Sus scrofa, e.g. GenBank BI181164 [GenBank] ). Proteins with an SAF box and RRM domain structure similar to SAFBs have been identified in the sequence data bases of other organisms such as Drosophila melanogaster (gene CG6995, Berkeley Drosophila genome data base, (18)) and Caenorhabditis elegans. A search of the worm data base (19) at the Sanger Center revealed a putative gene CE43E11.1 (gene CE43E11.1 from clone C43E11, GenBank accession no. U80437 [GenBank] ) coding for the protein CE23592. Proteins with a domain structure similar to SAFB1 were not found in any of the public domain data bases for yeast, plants, bacteria, or protozoa.

Further computer analysis of the translated protein sequences derived from the NCBI human genome sequence data base, expressed sequence tag data bases, and overlapping cDNAs indicated the presence of a third gene with high homology in its SAF box (also called SAP domain for SAF-A/B, Acinus, and PIAS) and RRM domains to both SAFB1 and SAFB2. The full-length open reading frame for this hypothetical protein can be deduced readily from the overlap of GenBank sequences AK000867 [GenBank] and NM_024755 [GenBank] (for hypothetical protein FLJ13213) to give a 1,034-amino acid protein. However, because the overall nucleotide homology of this hypothetical protein is only 36% to SAFB1 and 37% to SAFB2, suggesting that it is a more distantly related member of this gene family, we have limited our current studies to the characterization of SAFB1 and SAFB2.

SAFB2 (KIAA0138 cDNA) was originally cloned from the myeloblast cell line KG-1 by Nagase et al. (20), but up until now no further analysis of this gene or its gene product has been reported. At the amino acid level, human SAFB2 shows a 74% homology to human SAFB1 (Fig. 1A) and 75% homology at the nucleotide level. The SAF box and RRM are highly conserved between SAFB1 and SAFB2 (Fig. 1B). Furthermore, there are three other regions that share high homology but whose function is unknown. One such region maps to the N terminus (amino acids 210–385), and the other two map to the C terminus (Glu/Arg-rich, 619–788; Gly-rich, 792–899). We have shown previously that SAFB1 is a nuclear protein and has a functional NLS (2).3 The NLS in SAFB1 at position 599–616 (KRSVVSFDKVKEPRKSRD) has very little homology to the corresponding sequence in SAFB2. However, SAFB2 also has a predicted NLS which is at position 713-730 (RRQQEQLRYEQERRPGRR).



View larger version (70K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Identification of a new SAFB homolog on chromosome 19: SAFB1 and SAFB2 are two adjacent and highly homologous genes on chromosome 19p13. A, amino acid alignment between human SAFB1 and SAFB2. Amino acids with white text and a black background indicate consensus between the two proteins. Dark gray shading indicates similar amino acids. B, homology of putative functional domains in SAFB1 and SAFB2. These include a scaffold attachment factor (SAF) box, RNA recognition motif (RRM), nuclear localization signal (NLS), and Glu/Arg- and Gly-rich regions. C, chromosomal arrangement of SAFB1 and SAFB2 on chromosome 19p13. The genes are oriented in bidirectional divergent (head-to-head) fashion, with the translational start sites separated by only 490 bp.

 

We have previously mapped SAFB1 to chromosome 19p13.3 (21). Searching for the genomic locus of SAFB2, we found that it is immediately adjacent to SAFB1 on chromosome 19p13.3. As outlined in Fig. 1C, the two genes are oriented in a bidirectional divergent (head-to-head) fashion: SAFB1, 5' -> 3' toward the centromere, and SAFB2, 5' -> 3' toward the telomere. The translational start sites of the first exon in SAFB1 and SAFB2 are only 490 bp apart.

In summary, SAFB1 and SAFB2 are highly homologous genes that reside in very close proximity on chromosome 19p13.3.

SAFB1 and SAFB2 Are Coexpressed, and Their Expression Is Regulated through a Bidirectional Promoter—SAFB2 was originally identified as a cDNA (KIAA0138) from the KG-1 myeloblast cell line. We next tested whether SAFB2 expression is restricted or whether it is, like SAFB1, expressed in a wide number of breast cancer cell lines as well as other non-breast tissues.

Therefore, we first generated SAFB2-specific primers for RT-PCRs and (a) confirmed its expression in KG-1 cells, and (b) determined that SAFB2, just like SAFB1, is expressed in a number of breast cancer cell lines including MCF-7BK, MDA-MB-231, T47D, and ZR75. A representative RT-PCR is shown in Fig. 2A, where we detected a band of the expected size (562 bp) using RNA from ZR75 and KG-1 cell lines.



View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
SAFB1 and SAFB2 are coexpressed, and their expression is regulated through a bidirectional promoter. A, RT-PCR of SAFB2 in human breast cancer cell lines. RNA from ZR75 and KG-1 cell lines was amplified by RT-PCR in the absence (lanes 2 and 4) and presence (lanes 3 and 5) of reverse transcriptase using SAFB2-specific primers. SAFB2-pCDNA3 served as a positive control (+ve), and no DNA or RNA was added to the negative control (–ve). The arrow indicates the SAFB2 band. B, RNase protection assay using human tissue RNA and probes (SAFB1, SAFB2, 36B4) as indicated. tRNA served as a negative control. The bottom panels represent arbitrary values for expression after measuring intensities using software on the Molecular Imager FX (Bio-Rad) and correcting for the 36B4 loading control. C, sequence of the genomic DNA region containing the minimal promoter region of the SAFB1/2 genes. The nucleotides in bold represent first exons of both genes. The primer sequences used to clone the minimal promoter are underlined. The capitalized nucleotides in bold represent putative transcriptional start sites for the two genes, and the bold underlined nucleotides represent putative transcription factor binding sites (labeled on the left). The bottom panel shows the activity of the SAFB1/2 minimal promoter. Therefore, MCF7 cells were transfected with plasmids as indicated (pGL3 Basic and Tk-Luc as negative controls, and 5'-3' and 3'-5' SAFB1/2 promoter cloned into pGL3 Basic), and relative luciferase units were determined as described under "Materials and Methods." D, SAFB1 and SAFB2 proteins have very similar molecular weights and run as a close doublet on immunoblots. Left panel, Western blot using anti-HET/SAFB mAb (Upstate Biotechnology) and SDS extracts from MCF-7 cells and Saos-2 Endo cells transfected with vector only, SAFB1-pcDNA1, or SAFB2-pcDNA3. Right panel, IVT products using extracts primed with SAFB1 or SAFB2 cDNA.

 

Next we designed SAFB1- and SAFB2-specific RNase protection assay probes that hybridize to regions with low homology (see "Materials and Methods"). As shown before, RNase protection assay can be used to differentiate between the expressions of highly homologous genes because small differences such as 3-bp insertions can be identified (22). Using an SAFB1 probe (protected fragment, 240 bp), an SAFB2 probe (protected fragment, 340 bp), and 36B4, a ribosomal gene frequently used as a control probe in RNase protection assay (protected fragment, 140 bp), we analyzed expression in a series of normal tissues. RNA from MCF-7 served as a positive control, and tRNA as a negative control. An autoradiogram and numerical values for the corrected expression levels are shown in Fig. 2B. Tissues with high expression of SAFB1 (e.g. central nervous system) show high expression of SAFB2, whereas tissues with low SAFB1 expression (e.g. liver) also show low SAFB2 expression. Thus, the two highly homologous proteins SAFB1 and SAFB2 are coexpressed in tissues, implying a possible coregulation of the two genes. Thus, we next asked whether the relatively small intergenic region between SAFB1 and SAFB2 could harbor a promoter driving transcription of both genes, i.e. function as a bidirectional promoter.

The putative transcriptional start sites (as judged by the most distal nucleotide in a large number of 5'-expressed sequence tags) (indicated in bold in Fig. 2C, top panel) are 437 bp apart. This intergenic region is TATA-less; however, a large number of other TATA-less promoters have been found to be able to initiate transcription through so-called initiator elements overlapping the transcriptional start sites. Because the nucleotide sequence of initiators is not highly conserved, it is difficult to predict the exact initiator region. We do however know that the intergenic region can function as a minimal promoter, as determined in transient reporter assays in MCF-7 cells (Fig. 2C, bottom panel). The transcriptional activity of this region was ~5,000 times stronger compared with pGL3 Basic and 200 times stronger compared with a minimal TK promoter. Furthermore, the promoter was able to function cloned in either orientation, 5' -> 3' or 3' -> 5'. The promoter region contains a number of potential sites such as PEA3 (ets family member), CREB, c-myc, and GATA-1 binding sites (underlined in Fig. 2C, top panel). Finally, ProSite detected a total of 59 potential Sp1 binding sites in forward and reverse orientation, which is no surprise because this region is extremely C- + G-rich (65%, of which 12% occurs as a CpG motif). Thus, SAFB1 and SAFB2 transcription is directed through a bidirectional promoter that contains a number of potential transcription factor binding sites, SP1 being the most frequent.

Finally, we set out to determine whether we would be able to detect protein expression of both SAFB1 and SAFB2. We had observed previously that Western blot analysis using an SAFB monoclonal antibody (Upstate) frequently showed a double band. This antibody was raised against a peptide (amino acids 345–357) mapping to a region of 100% homology between SAFB1 and SAFB2. Therefore it was likely that this doublet would represent SAFB1 and SAFB2 (the predicted SAFB2 protein sequence is 38 amino acids longer than the SAFB1 protein). To confirm a theoretical predicted size difference, we transcribed and translated the two genes in vitro (IVT) (Fig, 2D, right panel) and expressed them in Saos-2 Endo cells (Fig. 2D, left panel). Saos-2 Endo cells represent a good model system because they do not express any endogenous SAFBs because of a homozygous deletion at the D19S216 locus.4 As shown in Fig. 2D, the antibody detected both proteins, with SAFB2 running at a slightly higher molecular mass than SAFB1. It is therefore possible that the doublet that we frequently detect represents SAFB1 and SAFB2 proteins. We cannot exclude, however, that the doublet additionally represents post-translational modification of SAFB1/2.

Thus, SAFB1 and SAFB2 are coexpressed in a number of tissues, and their transcription is regulated through a complex bidirectional promoter.

SAFB2 Can Function as an ER Corepressor and Inhibit Proliferation—Previously we have characterized SAFB1 as an ER corepressor (8). SAFB1 binds to ER and inhibits its transcriptional activity. We asked whether SAFB2 could function in a similar manner, by first performing GST pull-down assays using a GST-ER fusion protein (amino acids 180–302, containing the ER domains C (DNA binding domain) and D (hinge domain), which we have previously shown to interact with SAFB1 (8)). As shown in Fig. 3A, SAFB2 can bind to ER in GST pull-down assays, suggesting a direct interaction. To determine whether ER and SAFB2 endogenous proteins interact, we needed to generate SAFB2-specific antibodies using an antigenic peptide highly specific for SAFB2 (see "Materials and Methods"). Specificity was confirmed through immunoblotting of protein extracts from Saos-2 Endo cells (SAFB1- and SAFB2-negative) transfected with vector only, SAFB1, or SAFB2 cDNA. As expected, SAFB2 but not SAFB1 was detected using this antibody (Fig. 3B). Subsequently we used this antibody to immunoprecipitate SAFB2 from MCF-7 lysates, and immunoblotting with anti-ER antibodies confirmed the in vivo interaction between SAFB2 and ER (Fig. 3C). The experiment was also performed in a reciprocal manner (i.e. immunoprecipitation with ER antibodies and blotting with SAFB2 antibodies), and again we detected an interaction between SAFB2 and ER (data not shown).



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
SAFB1 and SAFB2 function as ER corepressors and can inhibit proliferation. A, SAFB2 and ER interact directly in in vitro assays. GST pull-down experiments using IVT SAFB2 and GST-ER (DBD/Hinge) or GST only (negative control). 10% of total IVT was loaded in the input lane. B, generation of new SAFB2-pspecific polyclonal antibody. Specificity of polyclonal anti-SAFB2 antibodies was tested using cell extracts from Saos-2 Endo cells transiently transfected with control plasmid (–ve), SAFB1, or SAFB2 expression plasmids in immunoblots. C, SAFB2 and ER endogenous proteins interact in MCF-7 cells. Coimmunoprecipitation experiments used lysates from MCF-7 cells and antibodies as indicated (IgG, ER, and SAFB2). 20 µg of lysate (= Input) was loaded into the first lane. The membrane was blotted with anti-ER antibodies. D, SAFB1 and SAFB2 repress ER activity in transient reporter assays. MCF-7 cells were transfected with ERE-TK-Luc, plus expression plasmids as indicated (SAFB1 and SAFB2). After overnight transfection in serum-free medium, the medium was changed, and the cells were treated with E2 (10–8 M) or vehicle (–E2). Values are the mean ± S.D. of triplicate wells, and the graph is representative of at least three experiments. E, SAFB1 and SAFB2 overexpression results in decrease of S phase fraction. FACS analysis of 293 cells transiently transfected with either control plasmids (pEGFP-C3/C1), GFP-SAFB1, or GFP-SAFB2 was performed. Cells were transiently transfected with the appropriate plasmid, allowed to grow for 24 h, and the DNA content was measured in fluorescent cells by FACS analysis. The arrow points to the decrease in S phase.

 

To determine whether the SAFB2-ER interaction results in repression of ER activity we performed transient transfection reporter assays (Fig. 3D). MCF-7 cells were transfected with an ERE-TK-LUC reporter construct, and luciferase activity was determined upon cotransfection with SAFB1 or SAFB2 in the presence or absence of estradiol. As expected, the addition of estradiol led to a 2–3-fold increase in reporter activity, and SAFB1 overexpression resulted in strong repression of ER transcriptional activity. Similarly, SAFB2 overexpression also repressed ER transcriptional activity, demonstrating that SAFB2, like SAFB1, can function as an ER corepressor.

Another characteristic of SAFB1 is its ability to block cell growth, at least in part by decreasing the fraction of cells in S phase (11). To see whether SAFB2 would have a similar effect on S phase, we expressed GFP-SAFB1 or GFP-SAFB2 transiently in 293 cells and measured cell cycle distribution via FACS. As a control, we used cells transfected with the appropriate GFP construct only. As expected, cells transfected with SAFB1 displayed fewer cells in S phase (from 19.4 to 16.8%) (Fig. 3E; see pointed arrow). In 293 cells, this decrease in S phase is associated with a block in G1 (64.8% to 74.6%). Similar results were observed in cells transfected with SAFB2, although the effect was repeatedly more pronounced. The cells in S phase decreased from 19.7 to 14%, and the cells in G1 increased from 58.6 to 73.6%. Thus, overexpression of either SAFB1 or SAFB2 decreased the fraction of cells in S phase.

In summary, we have shown that previously described functions of SAFB1 are also carried out by its homolog SAFB2. These functions include binding to ER and conferring repression of ER transcriptional activity and inhibiting cell proliferation as measured by S phase distribution.

SAFB1 and SAFB2 Interact, but Only SAFB1 Self-associates—It has been reported previously that scaffold attachment factors can form large aggregates through oligomerization (23). We therefore asked whether the scaffold attachment factors SAFB1 and SAFB2 would be able to interact with each other and to self-associate. We hypothesized that an interaction domain would be in the C terminus because this region has been shown to contain multiple protein-protein interaction sites (24). To test our hypothesis we used a directed yeast two-hybrid screen with the SAFB1 C terminus (599–915) as bait and the SAFB2 C terminus (600–953) as prey, and as shown in the yeast two-hybrid assay in Fig. 4A (top panel), these domains strongly interacted. For negative controls, we used the respective empty vectors only (pGBKT7 and pGADT7), and as positive control we used p53 as bait and the SV40 large T-antigen as prey (Fig. 4A, middle panel). Subsequent deletion mapping of the C-terminal domain in SAFB1 (Fig. 4A, bottom panel) resulted in the identification of amino acids 719–808 as the major interaction region and amino acids 519–720 as a region of minor interaction. Interestingly, the same region allows self-association of SAFB1 but not of SAFB2 (data not shown).



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
SAFB1 and SAFB2 can interact in vitro and in vivo. A, SAFB1 and SAFB2 interact in yeast two-hybrid assays. Interactions between SAFB1 and SAFB2 were studied by cotransforming yeast strain AH109 with C-terminal fragments of SAFB1 (599–915) as bait and of SAFB2 (600–953) as prey (top panel), along with appropriate controls (middle panel). Growth of yeast carrying the Gal4DBD-SAFB1 and gal4AD-SAFB2 fusions show that bait and prey proteins interact. Further deletion mapping (bottom panel) revealed amino acids 719–808 as the major SAFB1-SAFB2 interaction site. B, SAFB1 and SAFB2 proteins interact in transiently transfected cells. For the coimmunoprecipitation experiment, CV-1 cells were transiently transfected with HA-SAFB1 and GFP-SAFB2. SAFB1 was immunoprecipitated with anti-HA antibodies followed by Western blotting using either anti-HA antibodies (left panel) or anti-GFP antibodies. C, SAFB1 and SAFB2 proteins interact in MCF-7 cells. Top panels, MCF-7 RTA-HA-SAFB1 cells show inducible overexpression of SAFB1. Therefore, the cells were treated for 48 h with 1 µg/ml doxycycline, SDS lysates were prepared and analyzed by immunoblotting using HA and SAFB antibodies. Bottom panel, SAFB1 and SAFB2 proteins interact in MCF-7 RTA-HA-SAFB1 cells. Cells were treated with 1 µg/ml doxycycline for 48 h, and lysates were precipitated with antibodies as indicated (IgG, HA, SAFB2). D, SAFB1 and SAFB2 have additive effects with regard to ER repression. MCF-7 cells were treated with hormone and transfected as indicated, and relative luciferase units was determined as described under "Materials and Methods."

 

To confirm the interaction between SAFB1 and SAFB2 in vivo, we coimmunoprecipitated differentially tagged proteins from CV-1 cells. Cells were transiently transfected with constructs expressing HA-SAFB1 and GFP-SAFB2, followed by lysis and immunoprecipitation with anti-HA antibodies. As shown in Fig. 4B, GFP-SAFB2 coimmunoprecipitated with anti-HA, reflecting the interaction between HA-SAFB1 and GFP-SAFB2 in vivo. Coimmunoprecipitations in transient transfection assays can potentially result in artifacts because of overexpression. Because an SAFB1-specific antibody is not available at this point in time, we generated MCF-7 clones that express low levels of an HA-tagged SAFB1 construct upon treatment with the inducer doxycycline (see "Materials and Methods"). Immunoblotting of cell lysates from MCF-7RTA-HASAFB1 (clone 23) resulted in detection of HA in the presence but not in the absence of doxycycline (Fig. 4C, top left panel). Immunoblotting of the same lysates using anti-SAFB antibodies showed an ~2-fold overexpression (Fig. 4C, top right panel). The same cells were subsequently used to analyze in vivo interaction of endogenous SAFB2 and HA-SAFB1. Therefore, lysates were immunoprecipitated with HA-antibodies followed by immunoblotting with anti-SAFB2 antibodies (Fig. 4C, bottom panel). The interaction observed in these studies was confirmed in immunoprecipitation experiments performed in a reciprocal manner (i.e. immunoprecipitation with SAFB2, and immunoblotting with HA antibodies) (data not shown).

Finally, we tested whether coexpression of SAFB1 and SAFB2 would result in additive, synergistic, or antagonistic repression of ER activity. Various amounts of the two expression plasmids were coexpressed in MCF-7 and Saos-2 Endo cells (no endogenous SAFB1/2), and we repeatedly observed additive repression. A representative experiment is shown in Fig. 4D.

Thus, SAFB1 and SAFB2 are able to interact both in vitro and in vivo. The C-terminal domain that harbors the interaction domain is also involved in SAFB1 self-association. The formation of large aggregates has been shown for other scaffolding factors, and future studies will determine whether a yet to be determined function of SAFB1/SAFB2 depends on the formation of SAFB1/SAFB2 dimers and/or large aggregates.

SAFB1 and SAFB2 Differ in Intracellular Localization, and SAFB2 Interacts with Vinexin—In the experiments described thus far, we did not detect any significant differences in expression patterns or functions between SAFB1 and SAFB2. However, genes duplicated during evolution usually gain at least some evolutionary novelties or become silenced. Therefore, our next goal was to determine whether SAFB1 and SAFB2 would differ in subcellular localization. Three different cell lines (MCF-7, HeLa, and 293) were transfected with GFP-SAFB1 or GFP-SAFB2 and analyzed by confocal laser microscopy. As a control, cells were transfected with GFP only, which resulted in a uniform staining of both nucleus and cytoplasm (data not shown). GFP-SAFB1 transfection resulted in exclusive punctate staining of the nucleoplasm with exclusion of nucleoli (Fig. 5A, left panels). Similar observations were recently described by Weighardt (5) and Chiodi (25). In contrast, SAFB2 clearly showed cytoplasmic as well as nuclear staining (Fig. 5A, right panel). The nuclear staining of SAFB2 mirrored that of SAFB1 (i.e. exclusion of nucleoli and partition into nuclear speckles), but there was clearly also a uniform staining of the cytoplasm in all cell lines tested. Further sequence analysis identified a potential nuclear export signal (LXXLXXI/L/VXL) (26, 27) in SAFB2 (amino acids 30–38: LSELRVIDL). However, a similar sequence can be found in SAFB1 (amino acids 31–39: LSDLRVIDL). It is thus unclear whether the surrounding sequence determines the nuclear export, or whether other factors play a role in retaining SAFB2 but not SAFB1 in the cytoplasm.



View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
SAFB2 may have additional functions in the cytoplasm, whereas SAFB1 is localized exclusively in the nucleus. A, SAFB2 but not SAFB1 can also be detected in the cytoplasm. MCF-7, HeLa, and 293 cells were transiently transfected with GFP-SAFB1 (left panel) or GFP-SAFB2 (right panel). Confocal microscopy analysis was performed 24 h post-transfection using a digital scanning confocal microscope (Nikon Eclipse E1000). B, SAFB2 and vinexin {beta} interact in transiently transfected MCF-7 cells. MCF-7 cells were transiently transfected with GFP-tagged vinexin {beta}. 48 h later proteins were immunoprecipitated with IgG (negative control), and SAFB2 antibodies, run on SDS-PAGE, and immunoblotted with vinexin antibodies. C, colocalization of vinexin {beta} and SAFB2. Saos-2 Endo cells were transiently transfected with GFP-vinexin {beta}, fixed, and stained using anti-SAFB2 antibodies. D, endogenous SAFB2 and vinexin {alpha} and {beta} proteins interact in MCF-7 cells. Lysates from MCF-7 cells were immunoprecipitated with IgG and SAFB2-antibodies, run on SDS-PAGE, and immunoblotted with vinexin antibodies. The top panel represents SAFB2 interaction with vinexin {alpha}, and the bottom panel with vinexin {beta}.

 

The additional cytoplasmic localization of SAFB2 implies that it could have functions that are separate from those shared with SAFB1 in the nucleus. Interestingly, in a recent yeast two-hybrid assay aimed at identifying SAFB-interacting proteins that might play a role in the function of SAFB as a repressor,2 we identified several vinexin {beta} clones (17). Vinexin {beta} is a member of a family of Src homology 3-containing adaptor molecules that regulate growth factor signaling, cell adhesion, and cytoskeletal organization in the cytoplasm (28).

After confirming the interaction between SAFB2 and vinexin {beta} in yeast (data not shown), we next validated the interaction in mammalian cells. Again, coimmunoprecipitation experiments were performed using transiently transfected cells as well as nontransfected cells analyzing the interaction of endogenous proteins. First we transfected MCF-7 cells with GFP-vinexin {beta}, precipitated SAFB2 from the lysates, and subsequently immunoblotted the membrane with anti-vinexin antibodies. As shown in Fig. 5B, we were indeed able to detect an interaction between SAFB2 and GFP-vinexin {beta}. Next, we performed colocalization studies to confirm further an SAFB2-vinexin {beta} interaction. Saos-2 Endo cells were transiently transfected with GFP-vinexin {beta} and SAFB2 cDNA, stained for SAFB2 using our polyclonal antibody, and analyzed by digital confocal microscopy (Fig. 5C). As described previously (17), the majority of vinexin {beta} was found in focal adhesions. Overlay of GFP-vinexin {beta} and SAFB2 staining revealed colocalization in discrete focal points in a subset of cells. Additionally, in some cells, we found that SAFB2 and vinexin {beta} costained the "leading edges" at the periphery of cells (data not shown). Finally, we immunoprecipitated SAFB2 from nontransfected MCF-7 cells and immunoblotted the membrane with anti-vinexin antibodies. As shown in Fig. 5D, we detected not only an interaction with vinexin {beta} but also with vinexin {alpha}. Interestingly, the molecular masses of the immunoprecipitated vinexin {alpha} and {beta} proteins are slightly smaller as expected (75 versus 82 kDa, and 30 versus 38 kDa, respectively), which could be the result of loss of post-translational modification or degradation of the SAFB2-interacting vinexin proteins. It is, however, also possible that SAFB2 preferentially interacts with minor vinexin {alpha} and {beta} isoforms, which we have described previously (17).

In summary, in contrast to SAFB1 which we could only detect in the nucleus, SAFB2 is also present in the cytoplasm. This finding suggests that SAFB2 could play additional roles in the cytoplasmic compartment which are distinct from the nuclear functions shared with SAFB1, and the interaction with vinexin lets us predict that these functions might include coordination of signaling and cytoskeletal responses.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In this study we showed that the ER corepressor SAFB is part of a gene family consisting of two highly related genes termed SAFB1 and SAFB2. The genes map adjacent to each other on chromosome 19p13.3 and are arranged in a bidirectional divergent configuration (head to head). They are separated by a short GC-rich intergenic region that can function as a bidirectional promoter. SAFB1 and SAFB2 proteins share common functions but also have unique properties.

There are a large number of genes with similar features sharing domains with extremely high homology and performing analogous functions. In most cases, these genes arose as a result of gene duplication during evolution, and it is believed that gene duplications have played important roles in the evolution of the extremely complex vertebrate genome (29). A recent study by Dehal et al. (30) extensively characterized a number of tandem familial clusters of genes on chromosome 19 (where SAFB is localized) which originally arose from gene duplication events during evolution. Chromosome 19 is one of the smallest and most gene-dense chromosomes, and up to 31% of its genes might have arisen from gene duplications, among them being SAFB1 and SAFB2. Subsequent continuous genesis of tandem repeats by further chromosomal arrangements such as inversions could have resulted in the particular head-to-head configuration of SAFB1 and SAFB2, as suggested for other loci by Achaz et al. (31).

The distance between the translational and potential transcriptional start sites of SAFB1 and SAFB2 is only 490 and 437 bp, respectively. This closeness and the coexpression of the two transcripts implied that the two genes utilize a common promoter element, and indeed promoters with bidirectional activity coregulating two divergent genes have been described previously (32, 33, 34, 35). Our promoter studies described herein prove that the intergenic region can indeed function as a bidirectional promoter.

Previous studies showing that the SAFB locus undergoes extremely frequent loss of heterozygosity in tumors and finding mutations in the SAFB1 gene have led to our hypothesis that SAFB1 could be a breast cancer tumor suppressor gene (9). Interestingly, a high percentage of repair genes (42% of 120 analyzed genes) including tumor suppressor genes such as BRCA1, p53, and CHK2, are arranged in bidirectional divergent manner (36). A very common feature of these bidirectional loci is the presence of CpG islands between the genes which could function as CpG island promoters; in contrast to tissue-specific promoters very little is known about specific mechanisms of CpG island promoters. They could also be targets for hypermethylation, an increasingly recognized mechanism for inactivation of tumor suppressor genes (37). Indeed, the SAFB1 and SAFB2 intergenic region as well as the first introns are extremely GC-rich and could potentially be hypermethylated in tumors.

Other breast cancer tumor suppressor genes exist in families, such as p53/p63/p73, Rb/p107/p130, and BRCA1/BRCA2 Members of these families have overlapping as well as distinct biological functions (38, 39, 40, 41, 42). For BRCA1 and BRCA2, it is clear that inactivation of either gene may lead to familial breast cancer, but the roles of the more recently identified family members of p53 and Rb in tumorigenesis are still under intense investigation. In contrast to all of these genes, the two SAFB family members are located directly adjacent to each other, and deleterious chromosomal events such as deletions result in concurrent inactivation of both genes. Further studies including a comprehensive analysis of SAFB1 and SAFB2 in human breast tumor specimens as well as the generation of appropriate mouse models are necessary to be able to draw solid conclusions on whether SAFB1 and/or SAFB2 are indeed tumor suppressor genes.

The high homology between SAFB1 and SAFB2 suggested that they might function in a similar manner. Here we show that SAFB2 was able to inhibit S phase, just as we have described previously for SAFB1 (11). We also found that SAFB2 can bind to and repress ER, thus functioning as an ER corepressor. Other ER-interacting proteins exist in large families, such as the SRC coactivator and N-CoR/SMRT corepressor families (43). N-CoR and SMRT share many sequence and structural features and subsequently many functional properties (for review, see Ref. 44), although differences have been observed. For example, the thyroid receptor (TR{beta}1) and the orphan receptor RevErb (45) prefer to recruit N-CoR to DNA response elements, whereas RAR{alpha} prefers SMRT (46). Similarly, the SRC family of nuclear receptor coactivators (SRC-1, GRIP/TIF2/SRC-2, and ACTR/RAC3/AIB-1/TRAM-1/SRC-3), also possesses many similar properties in interaction with nuclear hormone receptors and transcriptional activation (for review, see Ref. 47), yet there is evidence that not all the functions of the SRC proteins are redundant (47, 48, 49).

Unique functions of family members support the idea that most gene duplications result in inactivation of one of the genes unless it possesses an evolutionary novelty, such as an altered function or pattern of expression (50, 51, 52, 53). It has also been described that retention of duplicated genes is attained through segregation into different intracellular sites within the same cell (54). For example, this intracellular sorting has been observed for protein kinase C isoforms (55). We have detected a cytoplasmic localization of SAFB2, which is clearly different from the strictly nuclear localization of SAFB1. Interestingly, we detected an interaction of SAFB2 with vinexin {beta}, a protein that has been described to function in anchorage-dependent activation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway (56). This occurs via its interaction with Sos, the guanine nucleotide exchange factor for Ras and Rac (57, 58), through its Src homology 3 domains and its binding to vinculin, a cytoskeletal protein involved in cell spreading, cytoskeletal organization, and focal adhesion (17, 56, 58). Thus, vinexin {beta} is believed to play a role in the convergence of growth factor signaling and cytoskeletal organization. Future experiments will address a potential role of SAFB2 in the convergence of various signaling pathways and the pathways involved in cytoskeletal organization.

Finally, we observed that SAFB1 and SAFB2 interact, both in yeast two-hybrid assays and in vivo by coimmunoprecipitation experiments. Although it is feasible that SAFB1 and SAFB2 dimerize when bound to ER, it is also possible that this association is necessary for the formation of the SAFB-containing nuclear bodies (5, 24). The precise function of these nuclear bodies has yet to be determined, but they have been proposed to represent transcriptosome complexes. In addition, SAFB is recruited to stress-induced small nuclear bodies that are formed after cells are exposed to stress conditions such as heat shock (24, 25). Interestingly, recent data have shown that the signature proteins of several different nuclear bodies can self-oligomerize (e.g. SMN (59), Sam68 (60), PML (10), suggesting that formation of large aggregates is a prerequisite for nuclear body formation.

In summary, we have identified a second member of the SAFB family, whose members are now termed SAFB1 and SAFB2. Their close proximity at a chromosomal locus showing extremely high loss of heterozygosity, their ER repressor activities, and the additional function of SAFB2 in the cytoplasm where it interacts with vinexin, suggest that both proteins play important roles in breast cancer.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grants K01 CA-77674 and R01 CA-97213 (to S. O.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

§ Supported by United States Army Medical Research Material Command Grant DAMD-17-01-1-0146. Back

|| Present address: Institut für Molekulare Infektionsbiologie, Universität Würzburg, Röntgenring 11, Würzburg, Germany. Back

** To whom correspondence should be addressed: Breast Center, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, BCM 600, Houston, TX 77030. Tel.: 713-798-1623; Fax: 713-798-1642; E-mail: steffio{at}breastcenter.tmc.edu.

1 The abbreviations used are: SAFB, scaffold attachment factor B; DSP, dithiobis-(succinimidylproprionate); ER, estrogen receptor; ERE, estrogen response element; FACS, fluorescence-activated cell sorter; GFP, green fluorescent protein; GST, glutathione S-transferase; HA, hemagglutinin; LUC, luciferase; NLS, nuclear localization signal; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; PIPES, 1,4-piperazinediethanesulfonic acid RRM, RNA recognition motif; RT-PCR, reverse transcription-PCR; TK, thymidine kinase; SD, synthetic dropout. Back

2 S. M. Townson, K. Kang, A. V. Lee, and S. Oesterreich, manuscript in preparation. Back

3 S. M. Townson and S. Oesterreich, unpublished data. Back

4 P. O'Connell and S. Oesterreich, unpublished observation. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Dr. Takahiro Nagase for providing the KIAA0138 cDNA (SAFB2) and Dr. Gary Chamness for critical reading of this manuscript and helpful suggestions.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Renz, A., and Fackelmayer, F. O. (1996) Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 843–849[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Oesterreich, S., Lee, A. V., Sullivan, T. M., Samuel, S. K., Davie, J. R., and Fuqua, S. A. (1997) J. Cell. Biochem. 67, 275–286[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Kipp, M., Gohring, F., Ostendorp, T., van Drunen, C. M., van Driel, R., Przybylski, M., and Fackelmayer, F. O. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 7480–7489[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Aravind, L., and Koonin, E. V. (2000) Trends Biochem. Sci. 25, 112–114[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Weighardt, F., Cobianchi, F., Cartegni, L., Chiodi, I., Villa, A., Riva, S., and Biamonti, G. (1999) J. Cell Sci. 112, 1465–1476[Abstract]
  6. Arao, Y., Kuriyama, R., Kayama, F., and Kato, S. (2000) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 380, 228–236[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Nayler, O., Stratling, W., Bourquin, J. P., Stagljar, I., Lindemann, L., Jasper, H., Hartmann, A. M., Fackelmayer, F. O., Ullrich, A., and Stamm, S. (1998) Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 3542–3549[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Oesterreich, S., Zhang, Q., Hopp, T., Fuqua, S. A., Michaelis, M., Zhao, H. H., Davie, J. R., Osborne, C. K., and Lee, A. V. (2000) Mol. Endocrinol. 14, 369–381[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Oesterreich, S., Allredl, D. C., Mohsin, S. K., Zhang, Q., Wong, H., Lee, A. V., Osborne, C. K., and O'Connell, P. (2001) Br. J. Cancer 84, 493–498[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Ishov, A. M., Sotnikov, A. G., Negorev, D., Vladimirova, O. V., Neff, N., Kamitani, T., Yeh, E. T., Strauss, J. F., III, and Maul, G. G. (1999) J. Cell Biol. 147, 221–234[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Townson, S. M., Sullivan, T., Zhang, Q., Clark, G. M., Osborne, C. K., Lee, A. V., and Oesterreich, S. (2000) Clin. Cancer Res. 6, 3788–3796[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Castles, C. G., Oesterreich, S., Hansen, R., and Fuqua, S. A. (1997) J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 62, 155–163[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Gossen, M., Freundlieb, S., Bender, G., Mueller, G., Hillen, W., and Bujard, H. (1995) Science 268, 1766–1769[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Oesterreich, S., Weng, C.-N., Qiu, M., Hilsenbeck, S. G., Osborne, C. K., and Fuqua, S. A. W. (1993) Cancer Res. 53, 4443–4448[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Laborda, J. (1991) Nucleic Acids Res. 19, 3998[Free Full Text]
  16. Oesterreich, S., Zhang, Q. P., and Lee, A. V. (2000) Eur. J. Cancer 36, S43–S44[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Kioka, N., Sakata, S., Kawauchi, T., Amachi, T., Akiyama, S. K., Okazaki, K., Yaen, C., Yamada, K. M., and Aota, S. (1999) J. Cell Biol. 144, 59–69[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Adams, M. D., Celniker, S. E., Holt, R. A., Evans, C. A., Gocayne, J. D., Amanatides, P. G., Scherer, S. E., Li, P. W., Hoskins, R. A., Galle, R. F., George, R. A., Lewis, S. E., Richards, S., Ashburner, M., Henderson, S. N., Sutton, G. G., Wortman, J. R., Yandell, M. D., Zhang, Q., Chen, L X., Brandon, R. C., Rogers, Y.-H. C., Blazej, R. G., Champe, M., Pfeiffer, B. D., Wan, K. H., Doyle, C. D., Baxter, E. G., Helt, G., Nelson, C. R., Miklos, G. L. G., Abril, J. F., Agbayani, A., An, H.-J., Andrews-Pfannkoch, C., Baldwin, D., Ballew, R. M., Basu, A., Baxendale, J., Bayraktaroglu, L., Beasley, E. M., Beeson, K. Y., Benos, P. V., Berman, B. P., Bhandari, D., Bolshakov, S., Borkova, D., Botchan, M. R., Bouck, J. B., Broksein, P., Brottier, P., Burtis, K. C., Busam, D. A., Butler, H., Cadieu, E., Center, A., Chandra, I., Cherry, J. M., Cawley, S., Dahlke, C., Davenport, L. B., Davies, P., de Pablos, B., Delcher, A., Deng, Z., Mays, A. D., Dew, I., Dietz, S. M., Dodson, K., Doup, L. E., Downes, M., Dugan-Rocha, S., Dunkov, B. C., Dunn, P., Durbin, K. J., Evangelista, C. C., Ferraz, C., Ferriera, S., Fleischmann, W., Fosler, C., Gabrielian, A. E., Garg, N. S., Gelbart, W. M., Glasser, K., Glodek, A., Gong, F., Gorrell, J. H., Gu, Z., Guan, P., Harris, M., Harris, N. L., Harvey, D., Heiman, T. J., Hernandez, J. R., Houck, J., Hostin, D., Houstin, K. A., Howland, T. J., Wei, M.-H., Ibegwam, C., Jalali, M., Kalush, F., Karpen, G. H., Ke, Z., Kennison, J. A., Ketchum, K. A., Kimmel, B. E., Kodira, C. D., Kraft, C., Kravitz, S., Kulp, D., Lai, Z., Lasko, P., Lei, Y., Levitsky, A. A., Li, J., Li, Z., Liang, Y., Lin, X., Liu, X., Mattei, B., McIntosh, T. C., McLeod, M. P., McPherson, D., Merkulov, G., Milshina, N. V., Mobarry, C., Morris, J., Moshrefi, A., Mount, S. M., Moy, M., Murphy, B., Murphy, L., Muzny, D. M., Nelson, D. L., Nelson, D. R., Nelson, Nelson, K. A., Nixon, K., Nusskern, D. R., Pacleb, J. M., Palazzolo, M., Pittman, G. S., Pan, S., Pollard, J., Puri, V., Reese, M. G., Reinert, K., Remington, K., Saunders, R. D. C., Scheeler, F., Shen, H., Shue, B. C., Sidén-Kiamos, I., Simpson, M., Skupski, M. P., Smith, T., Spier, E., Spradling, A. C., Stapleton, M., Strong, R., Sun, E., Svirskas, R., Tector, C., Turner, R., Venter, E., Wang, A. H., Wang, X., Wang, Z.-Y., Wassarman, D. A., Weinstock, G. M., Weissenbach, J., Williams, S. M., Woodage, T., Worley, K. C., Wu, D., Yang, S., Yao, Q. A., Ye, J., Yeh, R.-F., Zaveri, J. S., Zhan, M., Zhang, G., Zhao, Q., Zheng, L., Zheng, X. H., Zhong, F. N., Zhong, W., Zhou, X., Zhu, S., Zhu, X., Smith, H. O., Gibbs, R. A., Myers, E. W., Rubin, G. M., and Venter, J. C. (2000) Science 287, 2185–2195[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Stein, L., Sternberg, P., Durbin, R., Thierry-Mieg, J., and Spieth, J. (2001) Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 82–86[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Nagase, T., Seki, N., Tanaka, A., Ishikawa, K., and Nomura, N. (1995) DNA Res. 2, 167–174, 199–210[Abstract]
  21. DuPont, B. R., Garcia, D. K., Naylor, S. L., and Oesterreich, S. (1997) Cyto-genet. Cell Genet. 79, 284–285[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Yee, D., Lebovic, G. S., Marcus, R. R., and Rosen, N. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 21439–21441[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Romig, H., Fackelmayer, F. O., Renz, A., Rampsberger, U., and Richter, A. (1992) EMBO J. 11, 3431–3440[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Denegri, M., Chiodi, I., Corioni, M., Cobianchi, F., Riva, S., and Biamonti, G. (2001) Mol. Biol. Cell 12, 3502–3514[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Chiodi, I., Biggiogera, M., Denegri, M., Corioni, M., Weighardt, F., Cobianchi, F., Riva, S., and Biamonti, G. (2000) J. Cell Sci. 113, 4043–4053[Abstract]
  26. Gorlich, D., and Kutay, U. (1999) Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 15, 607–660[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Mattaj, I. W., and Englmeier, L. (1998) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67, 265–306[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Kioka, N., Ueda, K., and Amachi, T. (2002) Cell Struct. Funct. 27, 1–7[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Force, A., Lynch, M., Pickett, F. B., Amores, A., Yan, Y. L., and Postlethwait, J. (1999) Genetics 151, 1531–1545[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Dehal, P., Predki, P., Olsen, A. S., Kobayashi, A., Folta, P., Lucas, S., Land, M., Terry, A., Ecale Zhou, C. L., Rash, S., Zhang, Q., Gordon, L., Kim, J., Elkin, C., Pollard, M. J., Richardson, P., Rokhsar, D., Uberbacher, E., Hawkins, T., Branscomb, E., and Stubbs, L. (2001) Science 293, 104–111[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Achaz, G., Netter, P., and Coissac, E. (2001) Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 2280–2288[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Platzer, M., Rotman, G., Bauer, D., Uziel, T., Savitsky, K., Bar-Shira, A., Gilad, S., Shiloh, Y., and Rosenthal, A. (1997) Genome Res. 7, 592–605[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Shinya, E., and Shimada, T. (1994) Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 2143–2149[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Fujii, H., Shinya, E., and Shimada, T. (1992) FEBS Lett. 314, 33–36[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Shimada, T., Fujii, H., and Lin, H. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 20171–20174[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Adachi, N., and Lieber, M. R. (2002) Cell 109, 807–809[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Baylin, S. B., Herman, J. G., Graff, J. R., Vertino, P. M., and Issa, J. P. (1998) Adv. Cancer Res. 72, 141–196[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Irwin, M. S., and Kaelin, W. G. (2001) Cell Growth Differ. 12, 337–349[Free Full Text]
  39. Venkitaraman, A. R. (2002) Cell 108, 171–182[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Paggi, M. G., and Giordano, A. (2001) Cancer Res. 61, 4651–4654[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Sage, J., Mulligan, G. J., Attardi, L. D., Miller, A., Chen, S., Williams, B., Theodorou, E., and Jacks, T. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 3037–3050[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Dannenberg, J. H., van Rossum, A., Schuijff, L., and te Riele, H. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 3051–3064[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Chen, J. D., Umesono, K., and Evans, R. M. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 7567–7571[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Jepsen, K., and Rosenfeld, M. G. (2002) J. Cell Sci. 115, 689–698[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Zamir, I., Harding, H. P., Atkins, G. B., Horlein, A., Glass, C. K., Rosenfeld, M. G., and Lazar, M. A. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 5458–5465[Abstract]
  46. Cohen, R. N., Putney, A., Wondisford, F. E., and Hollenberg, A. N. (2000) Mol. Endocrinol. 14, 900–914[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Leo, C., and Chen, J. D. (2000) Gene (Amst.) 245, 1–11[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Xu, J., Qiu, Y., DeMayo, F. J., Tsai, S. Y., Tsai, M. J., and O'Malley, B. W. (1998) Science 279, 1922–1925[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Anzick, S. L., Kononen, J., Walker, R. L., Azorsa, D. O., Tanner, M. M., Guan, X. Y., Sauter, G., Kallioniemi, O. P., Trent, J. M., and Meltzer, P. S. (1997) Science 277, 965–968[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Ohno, S. (1970) Evolution by Gene Duplication, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany
  51. Walsh, J. B. (1995) Genetics 139, 421–428[Abstract]
  52. Sidow, A. (1996) Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 6, 715–722[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Nadeau, J. H., and Sankoff, D. (1997) Genetics 147, 1259–1266[Abstract]
  54. Gunning, P., Weinberger, R., Jeffrey, P., and Hardeman, E. (1998) Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 14, 339–372[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Goodnight, J. A., Mischak, H., Kolch, W., and Mushinski, J. F. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 9991–10001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Suwa, A., Mitsushima, M., Ito, T., Akamatsu, M., Ueda, K., Amachi, T., and Kioka, N. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 13053–13058[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Ribon, V., Printen, J. A., Hoffman, N. G., Kay, B. K., and Saltiel, A. R. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 872–879[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Akamatsu, M., Aota, S., Suwa, A., Ueda, K., Amachi, T., Yamada, K. M., Akiyama, S. K., and Kioka, N. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 35933–35937[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Lorson, C. L., Strasswimmer, J., Yao, J. M., Baleja, J. D., Hahnen, E., Wirth, B., Le, T., Burghes, A. H., and Androphy, E. J. (1998) Nat. Genet. 19, 63–66[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. Chen, T., Damaj, B. B., Herrera, C., Lasko, P., and Richard, S. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 5707–5718[Abstract]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
K. J. Higgins, S. Liu, M. Abdelrahim, K. Vanderlaag, X. Liu, W. Porter, R. Metz, and S. Safe
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-2 Expression Is Down-Regulated by 17{beta}-Estradiol in MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cells by Estrogen Receptor {alpha}/Sp Proteins
Mol. Endocrinol., February 1, 2008; 22(2): 388 - 402.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
P. Ihalmo, H. Schmid, M. P. Rastaldi, D. Mattinzoli, R. G. Langham, P. Luimula, R. Kilpikari, M. Lassila, R. E. Gilbert, D. Kerjaschki, et al.
Expression of filtrin in human glomerular diseases
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 1903 - 1909.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cell Sci.Home page
K. A. Sergeant, C. F. Bourgeois, C. Dalgliesh, J. P. Venables, J. Stevenin, and D. J. Elliott
Alternative RNA splicing complexes containing the scaffold attachment factor SAFB2
J. Cell Sci., January 15, 2007; 120(2): 309 - 319.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
K. M. Dobrzycka, K. Kang, S. Jiang, R. Meyer, P. H. Rao, A. V. Lee, and S. Oesterreich
Disruption of Scaffold Attachment Factor B1 Leads to TBX2 Up-regulation, Lack of p19ARF Induction, Lack of Senescence, and Cell Immortalization
Cancer Res., August 15, 2006; 66(16): 7859 - 7863.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
S. Jiang, R. Meyer, K. Kang, C. K. Osborne, J. Wong, and S. Oesterreich
Scaffold Attachment Factor SAFB1 Suppresses Estrogen Receptor {alpha}-Mediated Transcription in Part via Interaction with Nuclear Receptor Corepressor
Mol. Endocrinol., February 1, 2006; 20(2): 311 - 320.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Mol EndocrinolHome page
M-B Debril, L Dubuquoy, J-N Feige, W Wahli, B Desvergne, J Auwerx, and L Gelman
Scaffold attachment factor B1 directly interacts with nuclear receptors in living cells and represses transcriptional activity
J. Mol. Endocrinol., December 1, 2005; 35(3): 503 - 517.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
G. Bour, J.-L. Plassat, A. Bauer, S. Lalevee, and C. Rochette-Egly
Vinexin {beta} Interacts with the Non-phosphorylated AF-1 Domain of Retinoid Receptor {gamma} (RAR{gamma}) and Represses RAR{gamma}-mediated Transcription
J. Biol. Chem., April 29, 2005; 280(17): 17027 - 17037.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Cell. Biol.Home page
M. Ivanova, K. M. Dobrzycka, S. Jiang, K. Michaelis, R. Meyer, K. Kang, B. Adkins, O. A. Barski, S. Zubairy, J. Divisova, et al.
Scaffold Attachment Factor B1 Functions in Development, Growth, and Reproduction
Mol. Cell. Biol., April 15, 2005; 25(8): 2995 - 3006.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Cell. Biol.Home page
S.-E. Park, J. Xu, A. Frolova, L. Liao, B. W. O'Malley, and B. S. Katzenellenbogen
Genetic Deletion of the Repressor of Estrogen Receptor Activity (REA) Enhances the Response to Estrogen in Target Tissues In Vivo
Mol. Cell. Biol., March 1, 2005; 25(5): 1989 - 1999.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
J. W. Park, K. Parisky, A. M. Celotto, R. A. Reenan, and B. R. Graveley
From the Cover: Identification of alternative splicing regulators by RNA interference in Drosophila
PNAS, November 9, 2004; 101(45): 15974 - 15979.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
M. Mitsushima, A. Suwa, T. Amachi, K. Ueda, and N. Kioka
Extracellular Signal-regulated Kinase Activated by Epidermal Growth Factor and Cell Adhesion Interacts with and Phosphorylates Vinexin
J. Biol. Chem., August 13, 2004; 279(33): 34570 - 34577.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
S. M. Townson, K. Kang, A. V. Lee, and S. Oesterreich
Structure-Function Analysis of the Estrogen Receptor {alpha} Corepressor Scaffold Attachment Factor-B1: IDENTIFICATION OF A POTENT TRANSCRIPTIONAL REPRESSION DOMAIN
J. Biol. Chem., June 18, 2004; 279(25): 26074 - 26081.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
M. Tujague, J. S. Thomsen, K. Mizuki, C. M. Sadek, and J.-A. Gustafsson
The Focal Adhesion Protein Vinexin {alpha} Regulates the Phosphorylation and Activity of Estrogen Receptor {alpha}
J. Biol. Chem., March 5, 2004; 279(10): 9255 - 9263.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/22/20059    most recent
M212988200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Townson, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Oesterreich, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Townson, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Oesterreich, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement