RNA Leaching of Transcription Factors Disrupts Transcription in Myotonic Dystrophy

Science

Volumn 303, Issue 5656, 2004, Pages 383-387

  Ebralidze, A ^a   Wang, Y ^a   Petkova, V ^a   Ebralidse, K ^a   Junghans, R P ^a  

^a BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISEASES; ENZYMES; GENES; MUTAGENESIS;

TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS;

RNA;

MESSENGER RNA; PROTEIN KINASE; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR;

GENETICS;

ARTICLE; CHROMATIN; CLINICAL GENETICS; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; ION TRANSPORT; LEACHING; MOLECULAR GENETICS; MUTANT; MYOTONIC DYSTROPHY; NEUROPATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RNA BINDING; RNA TRANSCRIPTION;

BINDING SITES; CELL LINE; CELL NUCLEUS; CHLORIDE CHANNELS; CHROMATIN; DNA-BINDING PROTEINS; HUMANS; MUSCLE CELLS; MUTATION; MYOTONIC DYSTROPHY; PROMOTER REGIONS (GENETICS); PROTEIN-SERINE-THREONINE KINASES; RECEPTORS, IGG; RECEPTORS, RETINOIC ACID; RIBONUCLEOPROTEINS; RNA; RNA SPLICING; RNA, MESSENGER; SP1 TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; SP3 TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; STAT1 TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; STAT3 TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; TRANS-ACTIVATORS; TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS; TRANSCRIPTION, GENETIC;

EID: 0346373752     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1088679     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. J. D. Brook et al., Cell 68, 799 (1992).
2. G. Jansen et al., Nature Genet. 13, 316 (1996).
3. A. D. Otten, S. J. Tapscott, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92, 5465 (1995).
4. N. A. Timchenko et al., J. Biol. Chem. 276, 7820 (2001).
5. A. V. Philips, L. T. Timchenko, T. A. Cooper, Science 280, 737 (1998).
6. A. Mankodi et al., Mol. Cell 10, 35 (2002).
7. N. Charlet-B et al., Mol. Cell 10, 45 (2002).
8. R. P. Junghans, A. Ebralidze, B. Tiwari, Neurogenetics 3, 59 (2001).
9. K. L. Taneja, M. McCurrach, M. Schalling, D. Housman, R. H. Singer, J. Cell Biol. 128, 995 (1995).
10. B. M. Davis, M. E. McCurrach, K. L. Taneja, R. H. Singer, D. E. Housman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 7388 (1997).
11. Appropriate conditions for in vitro binding are insufficiently understood to replicate the selectivity of the TF binding process that occurs in vivo (Fig. 1). We observe only nonselective binding of purified TF in vitro with all RNAs, whether mutant RNA or heterologous unrelated RNAs (12). The same discordance can be inferred for conditions used for CUGBP binding in vitro (31) that fail to reproduce the selectivity for mutant versus wild-type RNA that is evident in vivo (4, 12), (Fig. 1A).
12. A. Ebralidze et al., unpublished observations.
13. M. Nicolas, V. Noe, K. B. Jensen, C. J. Ciudad, J. Biol. Chem. 276, 22126 (2001).
14. T. Kimura et al., Neurosci. Lett. 295, 93 (2000).
15. GI: 479168 (32) with Matinspector V2.2 software (33).
16. M. E. Massari, C. Murre, Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 429 (2000).
17. Experimental details are available as supporting material on Science Online.
18. K. S. Rajavel, E. F. Neufeld, Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 5512 (2001).
19. Although mutant RNA double-strand hairpins of CUG-repeat domains have been noted in vitro by electron microscopy, and binding of CUGBP in vitro at their single-strand junctions (31), in vitro binding studies may be vulnerable to overinterpretation for the in vivo setting [compare note (11)]. In vivo mutant RNP extracted from cells has yet to be studied structurally in this fashion.
20. We apply the same standard of 30% change for "significantly" disturbed transcription as used in the HD study (24).
21. Seven additional genes were recently studied, of which three were significantly suppressed and four unchanged in mutant RNA-expressing cells. A total of nine genes have now been tested with TF "restorations." When Sp1 or Sp3 was overexpressed, full or partial recovery was seen in three out of four of the depressed genes, with the fourth presumably responding to depleted TFs not tested, by this model. In contrast, among the five genes that were unchanged in mutant RNA-expressing cells, none (0/5) was stimulated by TF overexpression.
22. A. W. Dunah et al., Science 296, 2238 (2002).
23. R. N. Freiman, R. Tjian, Science 296, 2149 (2002).
24. R. Luthi-Carter et al., Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 1911 (2002).
25. J. Finsterer, Eur. J. Neurol. 9, 441 (2002).
26. E. Bergmann, J. M. Egly, Trends Genet. 17, 279 (2001).
27. F. Le Page et al., Cell 101, 159 (2000).
28. D. Gabellini, M. R. Green, R. Tupler, Cell 110, 339 (2002).
29. W. Vermeulen et al., Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 59, 317 (1994).
30. K. Ohshima, S. Kang, J. E. Larson, R. D. Wells, J. Biol. Chem. 271, 16773 (1996).
31. S. Michalowski et al., Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 3534 (1999).
32. C. Lorenz, C. Meyer-Kleine, K. Steinmeyer, M. C. Koch, T. J. Jentsch, Hum. Mol. Genet. 3, 941 (1994).
33. K. Quandt, K. Frech, H. Karas, E. Wingender, T. Werner, Nucleic Acids Res. 23, 4878 (1995).
34. We acknowledge the many collegial interactions with C. Thornton and T. Cooper, who supplied information, materials and advice that assisted many phases of the project. Supported by grants to R.P.J. from the Muscular Dystrophy Association and of the National Institute for Arthritis, Muscle, and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) of the NIH.