Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Biological Chemistry

Editor-in-Chief: Brüne, Bernhard

Editorial Board: Buchner, Johannes / Lei, Ming / Ludwig, Stephan / Sies, Helmut / Thomas, Douglas D. / Turk, Boris / Wittinghofer, Alfred

12 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 3.273

CiteScore 2016: 3.01

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 1.679
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.800

Online
ISSN
1437-4315
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 387, Issue 7

Issues

Despite its strong transactivation domain, transcription factor FOXM1c is kept almost inactive by two different inhibitory domains

Inken Wierstra
  • Institute of Molecular Biology, Medical School Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jürgen Alves
  • Institute of Molecular Biology, Medical School Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2006-07-20 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/BC.2006.120

Abstract

FOXM1c (MPP2) is an activating transcription factor with several nuclear localization signals, a forkhead domain for DNA binding, and a very strong acidic transactivation domain. Despite its very strong transactivation domain, FOXM1c is kept almost inactive by two different independent inhibitory domains, the N-terminus and the central domain. The N-terminus as a specific negative-regulatory domain directly binds to and thus inhibits the transactivation domain completely. However, it lacks any transrepression potential. In contrast, the central domain functions as a strong RB-independent transrepression domain and as an RB-recruiting negative-regulatory domain. The N-terminus alone is sufficient to eliminate transactivation, while the central domain alone represses the transactivation domain only partially. This hierarchy of the two inhibitory domains offers the possibility to activate the almost inactive wild type in two steps in vitro: deletion of the N-terminus results in a strong transactivator, while additional deletion of the central domain in a very strong transactivator. We suggest that the very high potential of the transactivation domain has to be tightly controlled by these two inhibitory domains because FOXM1 stimulates proliferation by promoting G1/S transition, as well as G2/M transition, and because deregulation of such potent activators of proliferation can result in tumorigenesis.

Keywords: forkhead box; FOXM1c; transactivation domain; transcription factor; transrepression domain; winged helix

About the article

Corresponding author


Received: January 6, 2006

Accepted: May 17, 2006

Published Online: 2006-07-20

Published in Print: 2006-07-01


Citation Information: Biological Chemistry, Volume 387, Issue 7, Pages 963–976, ISSN (Online) 1437-4315, ISSN (Print) 1431-6730, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/BC.2006.120.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Yi-Ju Chen, Carmen Dominguez-Brauer, Zebin Wang, John M. Asara, Robert H. Costa, Angela L. Tyner, Lester F. Lau, and Pradip Raychaudhuri
Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2009, Volume 284, Number 44, Page 30695
[2]
Michael V. Gormally, Thomas S. Dexheimer, Giovanni Marsico, Deborah A. Sanders, Christopher Lowe, Dijana Matak-Vinković, Sam Michael, Ajit Jadhav, Ganesha Rai, David J. Maloney, Anton Simeonov, and Shankar Balasubramanian
Nature Communications, 2014, Volume 5, Page 5165
[3]
Efstathia Thymiakou and Dimitris Kardassis
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms, 2014, Volume 1839, Number 6, Page 526
[4]
Young Hwa Kim, Myoung Ho Choi, Jang-Hee Kim, In Kyoung Lim, and Tae Jun Park
Carcinogenesis, 2013, Volume 34, Number 8, Page 1907
[5]
Inken Wierstra
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2013, Volume 431, Number 4, Page 753
[6]
Inken Wierstra and Jürgen Alves
FEBS Journal, 2006, Volume 273, Number 20, Page 4645
[7]
Nagaratna S. Hegde, Deborah A. Sanders, Raphaël Rodriguez, and Shankar Balasubramanian
Nature Chemistry, 2011, Volume 3, Number 9, Page 725
[8]
Inken Wierstra
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2011, Volume 413, Number 2, Page 230
[9]
Inken Wierstra and Jürgen Alves
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2006, Volume 348, Number 1, Page 99
[10]
Inken Wierstra and Jürgen Alves
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2008, Volume 368, Number 1, Page 107
[11]
Inken Wierstra and Jürgen Alves
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2007, Volume 352, Number 1, Page 61
[12]
Inken Wierstra and Jürgen Alves
Biological Chemistry, 2007, Volume 388, Number 12
[14]
Inken Wierstra and Jürgen Alves
Biological Chemistry, 2006, Volume 387, Number 7
[15]
Kim Mai Huynh, Jae-Won Soh, Rupesh Dash, Devanand Sarkar, Paul B. Fisher, and Dongchul Kang
Journal of Cellular Physiology, 2011, Volume 226, Number 1, Page 194
[16]
D. R. Littler, M. Alvarez-Fernandez, A. Stein, R. G. Hibbert, T. Heidebrecht, P. Aloy, R. H. Medema, and A. Perrakis
Nucleic Acids Research, 2010, Volume 38, Number 13, Page 4527
[17]
H J Park, Z Wang, R H Costa, A Tyner, L F Lau, and P Raychaudhuri
Oncogene, 2008, Volume 27, Number 12, Page 1696

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in