Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “REPRESSION”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 325 records · Page 18Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Prohibitin co-localizes with Rb in the nucleus and recruits N-CoR and HDAC1 for transcriptional repression.

The potential tumor suppressor protein prohibitin can prevent cell proliferation and this required its binding to the Rb protein. Prohibitin could repress the transcriptional activity of E2F family members and this required a part of the marked box region of E2F. The sub-cellular localization of prohibitin has been variously attributed to the mitochondria as well as the inner cell membrane. Here we show that a subset of prohibitin molecules are present in the nucleus where it co-localizes with the Rb protein. Deletion of a putative amino-terminal membrane-docking domain of prohibitin had no effect on its ability to suppress cell proliferation or inhibit E2F activity. Our experiments show that a 53 amino-acid stretch of E2F1 is sufficient for being targeted by prohibitin; fusion of this region to GAL4-VP16 construct could make it susceptible to prohibitin-mediated, but not Rb-mediated repression. Prohibitin, like Rb, could repress transcription from SV40 and major late promoters when recruited directly to DNA. Prohibitin mediated transcriptional repression required histone-deacetylase activity, but unlike Rb, additional co-repressors like N-CoR are also involved. Repression by prohibitin correlates with histone deacetylation on promoters and this was reversed by IgM stimulation of cells; IgM did not affect Rb-mediated repression or deacetylation of the promoters. Prohibitin thus appears to repress E2F-mediated transcription utilizing different molecular mediators and facilitate channeling of specific signaling pathways to the cell cycle machinery.

Base Sequence↗
PubMed2005

Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein 1 represses p53-mediated DNA repair and transcriptional activity.

The latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1) of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), a viral oncogene, is essential for transformation of resting B cells by the virus. We previously demonstrated that LMP1 could repress DNA repair in p53-wild-type and p53-deficient human epithelial cells. In this study, using a host cell reactivation (HCR) assay, we demonstrated that p53-enhanced DNA repair was repressed by LMP1 in p53-deficient cells. Moreover, we found that LMP1 was able to repress p53-dependent transcriptional activity. Regarding the mechanisms of p53 repression by LMP1, we found that LMP1 did not inhibit p53 function through direct interaction, by promoting protein degradation or reducing its DNA-binding ability. Using chimeric proteins in the reporter assay, we demonstrated that LMP1 inhibited p53 transactivation by influencing the N-terminal transactivation domain of p53. Subsequent experiments using various LMP1 deletion mutants indicated that a C-terminus-activating region of LMP1, CTAR1 or CTAR2, is responsible for the repression of p53-mediated DNA repair and p53-dependent transcription, which is correlated with the region responsible for NF-kappaB activation. Furthermore, blockage of NF-kappaB signalling by IkappaB-DeltaN was shown to abolish the repression of p53 by LMP1, suggesting that LMP1 likely repressed p53 function through the NF-kappaB pathway. Based on these results, we propose that inhibition of p53-dependent transcriptional activity and DNA repair by LMP1 results in the loss of p53 activity for maintaining genomic stability, which may contribute to the oncogenesis of LMP1 in human epithelial cells.

Cell Line, Tumor↗
PubMed2006

Prohibitin, a protein downregulated by androgens, represses androgen receptor activity.

Prohibitin (PHB) is a cell cycle regulatory protein, known to repress E2F1-mediated gene activation via recruitment of transcriptional regulatory factors such as retinoblastoma and histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1). We previously identified PHB as a target protein of androgen signaling in prostate cancer cells and showed that downregulation of PHB is required for androgen-induced cell cycle entry in these cells. We now present evidence that PHB, which has 54% homology at the protein level to the oestrogen receptor corepressor REA (repressor of oestrogen receptor activity), can repress androgen receptor (AR)-mediated transcription and androgen-dependent cell growth. Depletion of endogenous PHB resulted in an increase in expression of the androgen-regulated prostate-specific antigen gene. The repression appears to be specific to androgen and closely related receptors, as it is also evident for the glucocorticoid and progesterone, but not oestrogen, receptors. In spite of interaction of PHB with HDAC1, HDAC activity is not required for this repression. Although AR and PHB could be co-immunoprecipitated, no direct interaction was detectable, suggesting that PHB forms part of a repressive complex with the AR. Competition with the co-activator SRC1 further suggests that formation of a complex with AR, PHB and other cofactors is the mechanism by which repression is achieved. It appears then that repression of AR activity is one mechanism by which PHB inhibits androgen-dependent growth of prostate cells. Further, this study implies that the AR itself could, by mediating downregulation of a corepressor, be involved in the progression of prostate tumours to the hormone refractory stage.

Amino Acid Sequence↗
PubMed1973

Changes in enzyme activities and distributions during glucose de-repression and respiratory adaptation of anaerobically grown Saccharomyces carlsbergensis.

1. During anaerobic glucose de-repression the respiration rate of whole cells of Saccharomyces carlsbergensis remained constant and was insensitive to antimycin A but was inhibited by 30% by KCN. Aeration of cells for 1 h led to increased respiration rate which was inhibited by 80% by antimycin A or KCN. 2. Homogenates were prepared from sphaeroplasts of anaerobically grown, glucose de-repressed cells and the distribution of marker enzymes was investigated after zonal centrifugation on sucrose gradients containing MgCl(2). These homogenates contained no detectable cytochrome c oxidase or catalase activity. The complex density distributions of NADH- and NADPH-cytochrome c oxidoreductases and adenosine triphosphatase(s) [ATPase(s)] were very different from those of anaerobically grown, glucose-repressed cells. 3. The specific activity of total ATPase was lowered and sensitivity to oligomycin decreased from 58 to 7% during de-repression. 4. Cytochrome c oxidase and catalase activities were detectable in homogenates of cells after 10min aeration. Zonal centrifugation indicated complex, broad sedimentable distributions of all enzyme activities assayed; the peaks of activity were at 1.27g/ml. 5. Centrifugation of homogenates of cells adapted for 30min and 3 h indicated a shift of density of the major sedimentable peak from 1.25g/ml (30min) to 1.235g/ml (3 h). After 30min adaptation a minor zone of oligomycin-sensitive ATPase and 15% of the total cytochrome c oxidase activities were detected at rho=1.12g/l; these particles together with those of higher density containing cytochrome c oxidase, ATPase and NADH-cytochrome c oxidoreductase activities were all sedimented at 10(5)g-min. 6. Electron microscopy indicated that the mitochondria-like structures of anaerobically grown, glucose-de-repressed cells were similar to those of repressed cells. After 10min of respiratory adaptation highly organized mitochondria were evident which resembled the condensed forms of mitochondria of aerobically grown, glucose-de-repressed cells. High-density zonal fractions of homogenates of cells after adaptation also contained numerous electron-dense vesicles 0.05-0.2mum in diameter. 7. The possibility that the ;promitochondria' of anaerobically grown cells may not be the direct structural precursors of fully functional mitochondria is discussed.

Acid Phosphatase↗
PubMed1995

Direct activation and anti-repression functions of GAL4-VP16 use distinct molecular mechanisms.

In order to determine whether the molecular mechanisms used for direct activation by GAL4-VP16 are the same as those used for anti-repression, we have employed monoclonal antibodies specific for the VP16 activation domain. In the absence of added repressors, GAL4-VP16 was able to stimulate transcription from a template containing GAL4-binding sites, and the antibodies raised against the VP16 activation domain failed to inhibit this direct activation. GAL4-VP16 also was able to prevent histone H1-mediated repression by a mechanism that was strongly dependent on the presence of specific GAL4-binding elements in the promoter. However, in contrast to the assays conducted in the absence of repressors, the antibodies were strong inhibitors of GAL4-VP16-activated transcription in the presence of histone H1. Thus the binding of the antibodies distinguished between the direct activation and anti-repression functions of GAL4-VP16, indicating that these functions operate through distinct molecular mechanisms. The anti-repression-specific mechanism that is inhibitable by the antibodies acted at an early stage of preinitiation complex formation. Deletions of individual subdomains of the VP16 activation domain demonstrated that there was not a discrete subdomain responsible for the anti-repression function of GAL4-VP16. Thus, the inhibitory effect of the antibodies appeared to be due to the location of the epitope within the activator protein rather than to some inherent biochemical property of that region of the protein that is required specifically for anti-repression. The inhibitory effect of the antibodies also ruled out the possibility that steric exclusion of repressor proteins from the promoter was the sole means of anti-repression by the transcriptional activator.

Antibodies, Monoclonal↗
PubMed1996

Histone-like protein HU as a specific transcriptional regulator: co-factor role in repression of gal transcription by GAL repressor.

BACKGROUND: Transcription initiation from the two overlapping promoters of the gal operon in Escherichia coli is negatively regulated by binding of Gal repressor (GalR) to bipartite operators, which encompass the promoters. Coordinated repression of the two promoters requires GalR binding to both operators. In a purified system, GalR, nevertheless, fails to show the coordinated repression, predicting the participation of an additional factor(s) in the regulation in vivo. RESULTS: We have purified a protein that restored the expected GalR-mediated repression for the in vitro system and have identified this factor to be the bacterial histone-like protein HU. In vitro transcription assays in the presence of GalR and HU show that, just as in vivo, the coordinated repression of the two gal promoters requires GalR binding to both operators and is sensitive to the inducer, D-galactose. The GalR and HU dependent repression also requires supercoiled DNA template and prevents open complex formation. CONCLUSION: We propose that HU, acting as a co-factor, brings about the GalR-mediated repression by forming a distinct nucleoprotein complex of higher order structure. Although how HU participates in the assembly process is unknown, there may be a cooperative effect in the formation of the repression complex.

Bacterial Proteins↗
PubMed1997

Two mechanisms in the action of repressor deltaEF1: binding site competition with an activator and active repression.

BACKGROUND: Counteraction between activators and repressors is crucial for the regulation of a number of cell-specific enhancers, where an activator and a repressor are mutually competitive in binding to the same site. DeltaEF1 is a repressor protein of delta1-crystallin minimal enhancer DC5 binding at the CACCT site, and inhibits activator deltaEF3 from binding to the overlapped site. It has two zinc finger clusters N-fin and C-fin, close to N- and C-termini, respectively, and a homeodomain in the middle. deltaEF1 also binds to the E2-box sequence CACCTG, and represses E2-box-dependent enhancers. RESULTS: The mechanism of the repressor action of deltaEF1 was investigated by examining various deletion mutants of deltaEF1 for their activity to repress delta1-crystallin enhancer fragment HN which contained DC5 sequence and an additional activator site. Both zinc finger clusters were found to be essential for DNA binding and repression, but the homeodomain was not. In addition, the NR domain close to the N-terminus was required for full repression. The NR domain showed active repression when fused to the Gal4 DNA binding domain. Active repression by deltaEF1, dependent on the NR domain, was also demonstrated in a situation where the binding sites of deltaEF1 and deltaEF3 were separated. N-fin and C-fin in their isolated forms bind the 5'-(T/C)ACCTG-3' and 5'-(t/C)ACCT-3' sequences, respectively, while the homeodomain showed no DNA binding activity. An analysis of DNA binding of the delta(Int)F form, having both N-fin and C-fin, indicated that a single DNA binding domain is assembled from two zinc finger clusters. CONCLUSION: Two mechanisms are involved in the repressor action of deltaEF1. First, a binding site competition with an activator which depends on the integrity of both zinc finger clusters, and second, an active repression to silence an enhancer which is attributed to the NR domain.

Adenovirus E2 Proteins↗
PubMed1999

Glycerol-3-phosphate-mediated repression of malT in Escherichia coli does not require metabolism, depends on enzyme IIAGlc and is mediated by cAMP levels.

malT encodes the central activator of the maltose system in Escherichia coli, a gene that is typically under positive control of the cAMP/CAP catabolite repression system. When cells were grown in tryptone broth, the addition of glycerol reduced malT expression two- to threefold. Phosphorylation of glycerol to glycerol-3-phosphate (G3P) was necessary for this repression, but further metabolism to dihydroxyacetone phosphate was not. Mutants lacking adenylate cyclase and harbouring a crp* mutation (synthesizing a cAMP receptor protein that is independent of cAMP) no longer repressed a transcriptional malT-lacZ fusion but still repressed a translational malT-lacZ fusion. Similar results were obtained with a mutant lacking enzyme IIAGlc. For the translational fusion (in a cya crp* genetic background) to be repressed by glycerol, a drop to pH 5 of the growth medium was necessary. Thus, while transcriptional repression by glycerol requires enzyme IIAGlc, cAMP and CAP, pH-mediated translational repression is cAMP independent. Other sugars that are not transported by the phosphotransferase system, most notably D-xylose, showed the same effect as glycerol.

Artificial Gene Fusion↗
PubMed2002

Molecular analysis of tyrosine-and phenylalanine-mediated repression of the tyrB promoter by the TyrR protein of Escherichia coli.

The mechanism of repression of the tyrB promoter by TyrR protein has been studied in vivo and in vitro. In tyrR+ strains, transcription of tyrB is repressed by either tyrosine or phenylalanine. Both of the TyrR binding sites (strong and weak TyrR boxes) lie downstream of the tyrB transcription start site and are required for tyrosine- or phenylalanine-mediated repression. Our results establish that the binding of the TyrR protein to the weak box, induced by cofactor tyrosine or phenylalanine, is critical for repression to occur. Neither the binding of the TyrR protein dimer formed in the presence of phenylalanine, nor the binding of the hexamer formed in the presence of tyrosine, blocks the binding of RNA polymerase to the promoter. Instead, open complex formation is inhibited in the presence of tyrosine whereas a step(s) following open complex formation is inhibited in the presence of phenylalanine. Moving the TyrR boxes 3 bp or more further away from the promoter affects tyrosine-mediated repression without affecting phenylalanine-mediated repression which remains unaltered until 6 bp are inserted between the TyrR boxes and the promoter. Analysis of deletion and insertion mutants fails to reveal any face of the helix specificity for either tyrosine- or phenylalanine-mediated repression.

Base Sequence↗
PubMed2003

Translational repression mechanisms in prokaryotes.

Translational repression results from a complex choreography of macromolecular interactions interfering with the formation of translational initiation complexes. The relationship between the rate and extent of formation of these interactions to form repressed mRNA complexes determines the extent of repression. A novel analysis of repression mechanisms is presented here and it indicates that the reversibility of repressed complex formation influences the steady state balance of the distribution of translationally active and inactive complexes and therefore has an impact on the efficiency of repression. Reviewed here is evidence for three distinct translational repression mechanisms, regulating expression of the transcription factor sigma32, threonine tRNA synthetase and ribosomal proteins on the alpha operon in Escherichia coli. Efficient regulation of expression in these systems makes use of specific mRNA structures in quite different ways.

Escherichia coli↗
PubMed2003

Repression of gene expression by Arabidopsis HD2 histone deacetylases.

The four HD2 proteins of Arabidopsis thaliana (AtHD2A-D) belong to a unique class of histone deacetylases that is plant specific. Previously, we have demonstrated that one of the members, AtHD2A, can mediate transcriptional repression when targeted to the promoter of a reporter gene. Here, we report that AtHD2B and AtHD2C can also repress gene expression. AtHD2A and AtHD2C differ from AtHD2B and AtHD2D in the composition of their structural domains. Our data show that both structural types play a role in the repression of gene transcription. We demonstrate that AtHD2A can mediate gene repression through interactions with transcription factors in plants. By fusing AtHD2A with the DNA-binding domain of the plant transcriptional factor Pti4, the expression of a GCC box containing reporter gene was repressed. We also demonstrated repression of a GUS gene with GAL4 enhancers using transgenic plants that expressed a GAL4/AtHD2A fusion gene. Furthermore, the expression of the GAL4/AtHD2A protein using the seed-specific napin promoter (NAP2) and the constitutive tCUP promoter demonstrated that repression of transgenes could be achieved in a tissue-specific or unrestricted manner. Targeting of HD2 proteins to specific promoters using transcription factor DNA-binding domains may therefore provide a new technology for silencing target genes and pathways in plants as well as for assessing the function of unknown transcription factors.

Arabidopsis↗
PubMed2003

Histone deacetylation by Sir2 generates a transcriptionally repressed nucleoprotein complex.

Sir2 is an NAD-dependent histone deacetylase required for transcriptional silencing. To study the mechanism of Sir2 function, we examined the biochemical properties of purified recombinant Drosophila Sir2 (dSir2). First, we performed histone deacetylation assays and found that dSir2 deacetylates a broad range of acetylated lysine residues. We then carried out in vitro transcription experiments and observed that dSir2 does not repress transcription with either naked DNA templates or chromatin assembled from native (and mostly unacetylated) histones. It was possible, however, that repression by dSir2 requires an acetylated histone substrate. We therefore tested the transcriptional effects of dSir2 with native histones that were hyperacetylated by treatment with acetic anhydride. Assembly of the hyperacetylated histones onto DNA yields a soluble histone-DNA complex that differs from canonical nucleosomal chromatin. With this hyperacetylated histone-DNA complex, we observed potent (50- to 100-fold) NAD-dependent transcriptional repression by purified dSir2. In contrast, repression by dSir2 was not observed in parallel experiments in which histones were hyperpropionylated with propionic anhydride. We also found that dSir2 mediates the formation of a nuclease-resistant fast-sedimenting histone-DNA complex in an NAD-dependent manner. Unlike dSir2, the dHDAC1 deacetylase does not strongly repress transcription or generate a nuclease-resistant histone-DNA complex. Furthermore, with yeast Sir2, the transcriptional repression we observe correlates with deacetylation activity in vitro and silencing activity in vivo. These findings suggest that deacetylation by Sir2 causes a conformational change or rearrangement of histones into a transcriptionally repressive chromatin structure.

Acetylation↗
PubMed2006

NXP-2 association with SUMO-2 depends on lysines required for transcriptional repression.

Small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) modification of transcription factors is generally associated with repression. Reverse genetic analysis of SUMO-1, and -2 conserved residues emphasized the importance of dual charge reversals in abrogating the critical role of SUMO-2 K33, K35, and K42 in repression. GST-SUMO-2-affinity chromatography followed by liquid chromatography (LC)-MS analysis identified proteins that appeared to bind preferentially to WT SUMO-2 versus SUMO-2 K33E and K35E. LSD1, NXP-2, KIAA0809 (ARIP4), SAE2, RanGAP1, PELP1, and SETDB1 bound to SUMO-2 and not to SUMO-2 K33E, K42E, or K35E and K42E. Although LSD1 is a histone lysine demethylase, and histone H3K4 was demethylated at a SUMO-2-repressed promoter, neither overexpression of a dominant-negative LSD1 nor LSD1 depletion with RNA interference affected SUMO-2-mediated repression, indicating that LSD1 is not essential for repression, in this context. When tethered to a promoter by fusion to Gal4, NXP-2 repressed transcription, consistent with a role for NXP-2 in SUMO-mediated repression. SUMO-2-associated proteins identified in this study may contribute to SUMO-dependent regulation of transcription or other processes.

Amino Acid Sequence↗
PubMed2001

Histone deacetylase-dependent transcriptional repression by pRB in yeast occurs independently of interaction through the LXCXE binding cleft.

We have developed a yeast model system to address transcriptional repression by the retinoblastoma protein (pRB). When fused to the DNA-binding domain of Gal4p (DB-pRB), pRB can repress transcription of reporter genes containing Gal4p binding sites; the histone deacetylase activity encoded by yeast RPD3 is required for DB-pRB repression. Mutation of the LXCXE binding cleft in pRB, a region reported to be required for histone deacetylase recruitment, does not interfere with pRB-mediated repression. From these findings based on yeast experiments, we surmise that the small pocket region of pRB must contain an additional domain that confers histone deacetylase-dependent transcriptional repression. This hypothesis was verified by experiments examining pRB-dependent histone deacetylase association in mammalian cells. In addition to RPD3, repression by pRB in yeast requires MSI1, an ortholog of RbAp48, but not SIN3 or SAP30. By comparing the genetic requirements of DB-pRB repression in yeast to those of other DB-repressor fusions, we can suggest a mechanism by which pRB recruits histone deacetylase activity.

Binding Sites↗
PubMed1988

Dual mechanism of repression at a distance in the lac operon.

The mechanism by which the internal lacZ gene sequence O2 influences lac repression was investigated by using in vivo footprinting of operon mutants. Quantitative in vivo binding curves show that O2 strengthens by approximately 3-fold repressor binding to O1 that is located 400 base pairs upstream at the transcription start site. The internal O2 sequence also contributes to repression by a second mechanism: repressor bound internally blocks elongation of beta-galactosidase gene expression. This secondary mechanism of repression is facilitated by the remote O1 operator that strengthens binding to O2 12-fold. Thus, lac repression involves two mechanisms, both of which involve cooperation between remote operator elements. During mild repression only the initiation mechanism applies, but more severe repression favors formation of the presumptive O1-O2 repression loop that allows both mechanisms to act simultaneously.

Coliphages↗
PubMed1993

Selective repression of transcriptional activators at a distance by the Drosophila Krüppel protein.

The Krüppel (Kr) protein, bound at kilobase distances from the start site of transcription, represses transcription by RNA polymerase II in mammalian cells. Repression is monotonically dependent on the dose of Kr protein and the presence of Kr binding site(s) on the DNA. These data suggest an inhibitory protein-protein interaction between the Kr protein and proximal transcription factors. Repression by Kr depends on the specific activator protein driving transcription. In particular, Kr protein selectively represses transcription mediated by the Sp1 glutamine-rich activation domain, tethered to the promoter by a GAL4 DNA-binding domain, but does not repress transcription stimulated by the acidic GAL4 activator. We believe this represents repression by a quenching interaction between DNA-bound Kr protein and the activation region of Sp1, rather than competition between Sp1 and Kr for a limiting transcriptional component. Selective, context-related repression affords an added layer of combinatorial control of gene expression by sequence-specific transcription factors.

Animals↗
PubMed1995

Transcription factor TFIID is a direct functional target of the adenovirus E1A transcription-repression domain.

The 243-amino acid adenovirus E1A oncoprotein both positively and negatively modulates the expression of cellular genes involved in the regulation of cell growth. The E1A transcription repression function appears to be linked with its ability to induce cellular DNA synthesis, cell proliferation, and cell transformation, as well as to inhibit cell differentiation. The mechanism by which E1A represses the transcription of various promoters has proven enigmatic. Here we provide several lines of evidence that the "TATA-box" binding protein (TBP) component of transcription factor TFIID is a cellular target of the E1A repression function encoded within the E1A N-terminal 80 amino acids. (i) The E1A N-terminal 80 amino acids [E1A-(1-80)protein] efficiently represses basal transcription from TATA-containing core promoters in vitro. (ii) TBP reverses completely E1A repression in vitro. (iii) TBP restores transcriptional activity to E1A-(1-80) protein affinity-depleted nuclear extracts. (iv) The N-terminal repression domain of E1A interacts directly and specifically with TBP in vitro. These results may help explain how E1A represses a set of genes that lack common upstream promoter elements.

Adenovirus E1A Proteins↗
PubMed1998

HIV-1 tat binds TAFII250 and represses TAFII250-dependent transcription of major histocompatibility class I genes.

HIV Tat, a transactivator of viral transcription, represses transcription of major histocompatibility (MHC) class I genes. Repression depends exclusively on the C-terminal domain of Tat, although the mechanism of this repression has not been known. We now show that repression results from the interaction of Tat with the TAFII250 component of the general transcription factor, TFIID. The C-terminal domain of Tat binds to a site on TAFII250 that overlaps the histone acetyl transferase domain, inhibiting TAFII250 histone acetyl transferase activity. Furthermore, promoters repressed by Tat, including the MHC class I promoter, are dependent on TAFII250 whereas those that are not repressed by Tat, such as SV40 and MuLV promoters, are independent of functional TAFII250. Thus, Tat repression of MHC class I transcription would be one mechanism by which HIV avoids immune surveillance.

Acetyltransferases↗