FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2079420389> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2079420389 endingPage "34729" @default.
• W2079420389 startingPage "34725" @default.
• W2079420389 abstract "The proteins of the MYC family are key regulators of cell behavior. MYC, originally identified as an oncoprotein, affects growth, proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis of cells through its ability to regulate a significant number of genes. In addition MYC governs events associated with tumor progression, including genetic stability, migration, and angiogenesis. The pleiotropic activities attributed to MYC and their balanced control requires that the expression and function of MYC is tightly controlled. Indeed many different pathways and factors have been identified that impinge on MYC gene expression and protein function. In particular the protein is subject to different posttranslational modifications, including phosphorylation, ubiquitinylation, and acetylation. Here we discuss the latest developments regarding these modifications that control various aspects of MYC function, including its stability, the interaction with partner proteins, and the transcriptional potential. The proteins of the MYC family are key regulators of cell behavior. MYC, originally identified as an oncoprotein, affects growth, proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis of cells through its ability to regulate a significant number of genes. In addition MYC governs events associated with tumor progression, including genetic stability, migration, and angiogenesis. The pleiotropic activities attributed to MYC and their balanced control requires that the expression and function of MYC is tightly controlled. Indeed many different pathways and factors have been identified that impinge on MYC gene expression and protein function. In particular the protein is subject to different posttranslational modifications, including phosphorylation, ubiquitinylation, and acetylation. Here we discuss the latest developments regarding these modifications that control various aspects of MYC function, including its stability, the interaction with partner proteins, and the transcriptional potential. Few genes and their products have stimulated the extent of interest and research activities comparable to what MYC genes and proteins have done and still do. A strong driving force in sustaining the long lasting efforts to understand the function and regulation of MYC is its potent role as an oncoprotein in human tumors. The first myc gene emerged almost 30 years ago when it was realized that several highly transforming chicken retroviruses had captured a cellular sequence that transformed myeloid cells among others, hence the name myc for myelomonocytic leukemia (1Cole M.D. Annu. Rev. Genet. 1986; 20: 361-384Crossref PubMed Scopus (555) Google Scholar, 2Henriksson M. Luscher B. Adv. Cancer Res. 1996; 68: 109-182Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). In mammals several MYC genes, including MYC (formerly c-MYC, gene and protein symbols as proposed by the Human Genome Organisation Gene Nomenclature Committee (www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/index.html)), MYCN, and MYCL, have been identified. All three have been implicated in the genesis of human malignancies and suffer in many instances from different genetic alterations, including translocations and amplifications (for a more detailed overview see supplemental Fig. S1) (3Boxer L.M. Dang C.V. Oncogene. 2001; 20: 5595-5610Crossref PubMed Scopus (382) Google Scholar, 4Nesbit C.E. Tersak J.M. Prochownik E.V. Oncogene. 1999; 18: 3004-3016Crossref PubMed Scopus (974) Google Scholar). In addition the MYC promoter is targeted by multiple signal transduction cascades, including the WNT, RAS/RAF/MAPK, 2The abbreviations used are: MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; bHLHZ, basic region/helix-loop-helix/leucine zipper; aa, amino acid; HAT, histone acetyltransferase; MB, MYC box; NLS, nuclear localization sequence; P-TEFb, positive transcription elongation factor; SCF, SKP1-CUL1-F-box protein; TAD, transactivation domain. JAK/STAT, transforming growth factor β, and NF-κB pathways, that are deregulated in cancer cells and contribute to enhanced MYC expression (5Clevers H. Cancer Cell. 2004; 5: 5-6Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (133) Google Scholar, 6Liu J. Levens D. Curr. Top Microbiol. Immunol. 2006; 302: 1-32Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar). These tumor-associated alterations in general deregulate and enhance MYC expression. Because MYC proteins function primarily as transcription factors, the consequences of these alterations result in the deregulation of MYC target genes and subsequent effects on cell behavior and in the inability to down-regulate MYC expression to levels sufficiently low for a cell to exit the cell cycle and enter a quiescent state or to differentiate in response to appropriate signals. MYC is a member of the MYC/MAX/MAD network of the basic region/helix-loop-helix/leucine zipper (bHLHZ) domain transcriptional regulators (for a summary of the domain structure see Fig. 1). MYC proteins form obligatory heterodimers with MAX, and these complexes bind to specific E-box DNA sequences with the consensus 5′-CACGTG (7Luscher B. Larsson L.G. Oncogene. 1999; 18: 2955-2966Crossref PubMed Scopus (165) Google Scholar). The transactivation domain (TAD) is localized at the N terminus, containing two highly conserved elements, Myc box (MB) I and II, that are particularly relevant for MYC regulation and cofactor recruitment, respectively (Fig. 1). Within the MYC/MAX/MAD network, MYC proteins are antagonized by several bHLHZ proteins collectively referred to as MAD proteins (for an overview of the network see Fig. S2A) (8Rottmann S. Luscher B. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2006; 302: 63-122PubMed Google Scholar). As an activator MYC recruits a number of different cofactors that possess the capability to control chromatin structure, acetylate core histones as well as transcriptional regulators, and regulate polymerase complexes (summarized in Fig. S2B) (9Cole M.D. Nikiforov M.A. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2006; 302: 33-50PubMed Google Scholar). Recent studies have demonstrated that MYC activates all three RNA polymerases (10Oskarsson T. Trumpp A. Nat. Cell Biol. 2005; 7: 215-217Crossref PubMed Scopus (112) Google Scholar). In addition to its role as an activator, MYC also has the ability to repress genes (summarized in Fig. S2C) (11Adhikary S. Eilers M. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005; 6: 635-645Crossref PubMed Scopus (918) Google Scholar). In contrast to MYC, the members of the MAD family function as transcriptional repressors at least in part by recruiting mSIN3-histone deacetylase complexes (summarized in Fig. S2D) (8Rottmann S. Luscher B. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2006; 302: 63-122PubMed Google Scholar). Various studies, including several microarray expression analyses, have demonstrated that MYC proteins control the expression of many target genes (11Adhikary S. Eilers M. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005; 6: 635-645Crossref PubMed Scopus (918) Google Scholar, 12Grandori C. Cowley S.M. James L.P. Eisenman R.N. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2000; 16: 653-699Crossref PubMed Scopus (1040) Google Scholar, 13Luscher B. Gene (Amst.). 2001; 277: 1-14Crossref PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar, 14Oster S.K. Ho C.S. Soucie E.L. Penn L.Z. Adv. Cancer Res. 2002; 84: 81-154Crossref PubMed Scopus (399) Google Scholar). The resulting consequences on many different aspects of cell behavior and cell fate demand that this protein is precisely controlled. Too little or too much MYC protein and/or activity may severely affect proper functioning of cells and as a consequence affect their proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis, which may result in disease. As pointed out above this is most evident in cells that produce too much MYC, which is associated with tumorigenesis. Thus it is not surprising that the expression and function of this protein is regulated at multiple levels. The expression of the MYC gene is regulated by a wide variety of signals that control promoter activity, RNA polymerase elongation, and mRNA processing and collectively determine where, when, and how much MYC is synthesized (6Liu J. Levens D. Curr. Top Microbiol. Immunol. 2006; 302: 1-32Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar). Here we will focus on mechanisms further downstream that impinge on MYC. The protein is subject to interdependent posttranslational modifications, including phosphorylation, acetylation, and ubiquitinylation, suggesting that MYC proteins directly integrate the information of different signal transduction pathways. MYC proteins are phosphorylated at multiple sites distributed over the entire protein (Fig. 1). The first and major sites were identified almost 20 years ago within two areas, the acidic domain and near the basic region, and are substrates of protein kinase CK2, an enzyme that has broad biological activities including a role in tumorigenesis (15Litchfield D.W. Biochem. J. 2003; 369: 1-15Crossref PubMed Scopus (1042) Google Scholar, 16Luscher B. Kuenzel E.A. Krebs E.G. Eisenman R.N. EMBO J. 1989; 8: 1111-1119Crossref PubMed Scopus (208) Google Scholar). Nevertheless the functional relevance of these CK2 phosphorylation sites on MYC has remained elusive. However, in a recent study a correlation between CK2 activity and MYC protein levels was demonstrated, suggesting that CK2 stabilizes MYC (17Channavajhala P. Seldin D.C. Oncogene. 2002; 21: 5280-5288Crossref PubMed Scopus (126) Google Scholar). Although it is not clear whether this is a direct effect, the CK2 sites within the acidic region might be relevant. This region lies within a PEST consensus sequence that has been shown to be involved in MYC protein degradation (18Gregory M.A. Hann S.R. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000; 20: 2423-2435Crossref PubMed Scopus (371) Google Scholar, 19Rechsteiner M. Rogers S.W. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1996; 21: 267-271Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1413) Google Scholar). Thus it is interesting to speculate that CK2, which shows enhanced expression in many tumors (15Litchfield D.W. Biochem. J. 2003; 369: 1-15Crossref PubMed Scopus (1042) Google Scholar, 20Ahmed K. Gerber D.A. Cochet C. Trends Cell Biol. 2002; 12: 226-230Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (348) Google Scholar), affects cell proliferation at least in part by stabilizing MYC proteins. In addition to MYC, its dimerization partner MAX is also a CK2 substrate. It is worth noting that CK2-dependent phosphorylation of MAX affects the kinetics of DNA binding of both MYC/MAX hetero- and MAX/MAX homodimers and regulates the sensitivity to caspases during apoptosis (21Berberich S.J. Cole M.D. Genes Dev. 1992; 6: 166-176Crossref PubMed Scopus (176) Google Scholar, 22Bousset K. Henriksson M. Luscher-Firzlaff J.M. Litchfield D.W. Luscher B. Oncogene. 1993; 8: 3211-3220PubMed Google Scholar, 23Krippner-Heidenreich A. Talanian R.V. Sekul R. Kraft R. Thole H. Ottleben H. Luscher B. Biochem. J. 2001; 358: 705-715Crossref PubMed Scopus (107) Google Scholar). Together this suggests that CK2-dependent phosphorylation affects the stability and the DNA binding properties of MYC/MAX complexes and possibly other dimers of the network. In addition to these two areas of phosphorylation, a third is located within the TAD of MYC (Fig. 1). Two sites, Thr-58 and Ser-62 within MBI, that are targeted by GSK3 and by proline-directed kinases, respectively, have generated particular interest (24Sears R.C. Cell Cycle. 2004; 3: 1133-1137Crossref PubMed Scopus (285) Google Scholar). This was stimulated at least in part by the observations that Thr-58 and amino acids in its vicinity are frequently mutated in Burkitt lymphoma (Fig. S1G) (25Bahram F. von der Lehr N. Cetinkaya C. Larsson L.G. Blood. 2000; 95: 2104-2110Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). The Thr-58 and Ser-62 sites are interdependent because Ser-62 phosphorylation is a prerequisite for modification of Thr-58. Kinases implicated in Ser-62 phosphorylation include mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), c-JUN N-terminal kinase (JNK), and cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (CDK1) (26Benassi B. Fanciulli M. Fiorentino F. Porrello A. Chiorino G. Loda M. Zupi G. Biroccio A. Mol. Cell. 2006; 21: 509-519Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (153) Google Scholar, 27Henriksson M. Bakardjiev A. Klein G. Luscher B. Oncogene. 1993; 8: 3199-3209PubMed Google Scholar, 28Lutterbach B. Hann S.R. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1994; 14: 5510-5522Crossref PubMed Scopus (180) Google Scholar, 29Lutterbach B. Hann S.R. J. Cell. Biochem. 1999; 72: 483-491Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar, 30Noguchi K. Kitanaka C. Yamana H. Kokubu A. Mochizuki T. Kuchino Y. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 32580-32587Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (154) Google Scholar, 31Sears R. Leone G. DeGregori J. Nevins J.R. Mol. Cell. 1999; 3: 169-179Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (370) Google Scholar, 32Sears R. Nuckolls F. Haura E. Taya Y. Tamai K. Nevins J.R. Genes Dev. 2000; 14: 2501-2514Crossref PubMed Scopus (969) Google Scholar). These findings suggest that different signal transduction pathways as well as cell cycle-specific regulation are controlling the phosphorylation of Ser-62. Indeed RAS signaling that results in the activation of MAP kinases has been suggested to enhance MYC phosphorylation at Ser-62 (31Sears R. Leone G. DeGregori J. Nevins J.R. Mol. Cell. 1999; 3: 169-179Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (370) Google Scholar, 32Sears R. Nuckolls F. Haura E. Taya Y. Tamai K. Nevins J.R. Genes Dev. 2000; 14: 2501-2514Crossref PubMed Scopus (969) Google Scholar). Phosphorylation at this site appears to affect the stability of MYC at the G0 to G1 transition and to regulate MYC DNA binding (see below). Together these findings promote an attractive model because the RAS signaling pathway is activated by many growth factors and coincides with a strong increase in MYC protein levels upon reentry of cells into the cell cycle. However, because the evidence was derived from cells that overexpressed MYC from recombinant adenoviruses (31Sears R. Leone G. DeGregori J. Nevins J.R. Mol. Cell. 1999; 3: 169-179Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (370) Google Scholar, 32Sears R. Nuckolls F. Haura E. Taya Y. Tamai K. Nevins J.R. Genes Dev. 2000; 14: 2501-2514Crossref PubMed Scopus (969) Google Scholar), some caution is indicated. The massive overexpression of MYC in resting cells should stimulate cell cycle entry and apoptosis. Also it is not clear whether enough MAX is present in cells to build faithful MYC/MAX complexes. These artificial conditions may severely affect protein behavior, including stability and the response to RAS signaling. It should also be considered that MYC mRNA expression is strongly enhanced upon growth factor treatment of resting cells (6Liu J. Levens D. Curr. Top Microbiol. Immunol. 2006; 302: 1-32Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar), and the analysis of de novo MYC protein synthesis has revealed a substantial increase in different cell types, including primary cells (33Clark E.A. Shu G.L. Luscher B. Draves K.E. Banchereau J. Ledbetter J.A. Valentine M.A. J. Immunol. 1989; 143: 3873-3880PubMed Google Scholar, 34Persson H. Gray H.E. Godeau F. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1985; 5: 2903-2912Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar). Thus the contribution of RAS signaling to MYC expression levels at the G0 to G1 transition will need further studying. It should also be noted that the role of MAPK in phosphorylating Ser-62 has been disputed (29Lutterbach B. Hann S.R. J. Cell. Biochem. 1999; 72: 483-491Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar). Once Ser-62 is phosphorylated, Thr-58 of MYC becomes a substrate for GSK3 (24Sears R.C. Cell Cycle. 2004; 3: 1133-1137Crossref PubMed Scopus (285) Google Scholar). Most substrates of this enzyme must first be phosphorylated by another kinase at a Ser or Thr amino acid four residues C-terminal of the GSK3 site (35Cohen P. Frame S. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2001; 2: 769-776Crossref PubMed Scopus (1304) Google Scholar). This “priming phosphate” binds specifically into a pocket of the substrate recognition domain of GSK3 and explains why MYC and other substrates require this phosphorylation for the precise positioning of the phosphorylation site. Thus phosphorylation of Thr-58 appears to be strictly dependent on prior phosphorylation of Ser-62. Similar findings were made for MYCN (36Sjostrom S.K. Finn G. Hahn W.C. Rowitch D.H. Kenney A.M. Dev. Cell. 2005; 9: 327-338Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (111) Google Scholar). Phosphorylation at Ser-54 by CDK1 leads to Thr-50 phosphorylation by GSK3, the two sites correspond to Ser-62 and Thr-58 in MYC, respectively, which enhances MYCN turnover during mitosis in neuronal cells. This is suggested to be relevant for neuronal differentiation. Finally it should be noted that phosphopeptide mapping has revealed additional phosphorylation sites in MYC (37Lutterbach B. Hann S.R. Oncogene. 1997; 14: 967-975Crossref PubMed Scopus (30) Google Scholar). These include Ser-71, Ser-82, Ser-162 or -164, Ser-293, and possibly Ser-343/344. With the exception of Ser-162 and Ser-343, all other sites contain a Pro at the +1 position and are thus potential substrates for Pro-directed kinases. At present kinases possibly involved in modifying these phosphorylation sites and their functional relevance have not been defined. Because of the location of the phosphorylation sites at Thr-58 and Ser-62 within the TAD, it was speculated early on that these sites are involved in the regulation of gene transcription. However, these findings have been controversial (2Henriksson M. Luscher B. Adv. Cancer Res. 1996; 68: 109-182Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). Although the differences between the published studies could not be clarified, the recent findings connecting these phosphorylation sites to protein turnover indicate that distinct effects might have been mingled, potentially explaining the inconclusive results. More recently this discussion has been revived. It has been suggested that Ser-62 phosphorylation modulates gene expression (26Benassi B. Fanciulli M. Fiorentino F. Porrello A. Chiorino G. Loda M. Zupi G. Biroccio A. Mol. Cell. 2006; 21: 509-519Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (153) Google Scholar). In response to oxidative stress Ser-62 becomes phosphorylated, which correlates with increased recruitment of MYC to specific promoters but not with stabilization. It remains to be determined what the role of Ser-62 phosphorylation is in promoter selection or whether the phosphorylation is the consequence of targeting MYC to specific DNA sequences. Furthermore MYC mutated at Thr-58 fails to activate the expression of BIM, a proapoptotic BH3-only BCL2 family member, resulting in reduced apoptosis and enhanced tumorigenesis (38Hemann M.T. Bric A. Teruya-Feldstein J. Herbst A. Nilsson J.A. Cordon-Cardo C. Cleveland J.L. Tansey W.P. Lowe S.W. Nature. 2005; 436: 807-811Crossref PubMed Scopus (381) Google Scholar). Although MYC stimulates apoptosis by regulating many different genes (39Nilsson J.A. Cleveland J.L. Oncogene. 2003; 22: 9007-9021Crossref PubMed Scopus (373) Google Scholar, 40Pelengaris S. Khan M. Evan G. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2002; 2: 764-776Crossref PubMed Scopus (936) Google Scholar), MYC-stimulated expression of BIM is particularly relevant for repression of tumor development (41Egle A. Harris A.W. Bouillet P. Cory S. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2004; 101: 6164-6169Crossref PubMed Scopus (419) Google Scholar). BIM functions as a tumor suppressor, at least in MYC-driven B cell leukemia. This is independent of the status of the p53 tumor suppressor pathway that is viewed as an important mediator of MYC-induced apoptosis (39Nilsson J.A. Cleveland J.L. Oncogene. 2003; 22: 9007-9021Crossref PubMed Scopus (373) Google Scholar, 40Pelengaris S. Khan M. Evan G. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2002; 2: 764-776Crossref PubMed Scopus (936) Google Scholar). It remains to be determined how MYC controls the expression of the BIM gene and whether it is a direct MYC target. Nevertheless the data suggest that the frequent mutations of the MYC coding sequence in Burkitt lymphoma uncouple proliferative and apoptotic effects at least in part by differential regulation of BIM. Together these findings suggest that phosphorylation at Thr-58 and/or Ser-62 affects promoter selection of MYC. It will be interesting to unravel the underlying mechanism. A significant body of evidence points to the importance of the phosphorylation sites at Thr-58 and Ser-62 within MBI in controlling MYC protein stability. As indicated above, phosphorylation of Ser-62 stabilizes MYC, whereas upon phosphorylation of Thr-58 a series of events are induced that lead to MYC degradation (Fig. 2A). Once both sites are phosphorylated, the PIN1 prolyl isomerase promotes access of protein phosphatase 2A to MYC and dephosphorylates Ser-62 (42Arnold H.K. Sears R.C. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006; 26: 2832-2844Crossref PubMed Scopus (201) Google Scholar, 43Yeh E. Cunningham M. Arnold H. Chasse D. Monteith T. Ivaldi G. Hahn W.C. Stukenberg P.T. Shenolikar S. Uchida T. Counter C.M. Nevins J.R. Means A.R. Sears R. Nat. Cell Biol. 2004; 6: 308-318Crossref PubMed Scopus (627) Google Scholar). The Thr-58 only phosphorylated form of MYC is recognized by the F-box protein FBW7. This protein is a subunit of one SKP1-CUL1-F-box protein (SCF) ubiquitin-protein isopeptide ligase complex that stimulates polyubiquitinylation and subsequent proteasomal degradation of MYC (44Moberg K.H. Mukherjee A. Veraksa A. Artavanis-Tsakonas S. Hariharan I.K. Curr. Biol. 2004; 14: 965-974Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (104) Google Scholar, 45Rottmann S. Wang Y. Nasoff M. Deveraux Q.L. Quon K.C. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005; 102: 15195-15200Crossref PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar, 46Welcker M. Orian A. Grim J.E. Eisenman R.N. Clurman B.E. Curr. Biol. 2004; 14: 1852-1857Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (251) Google Scholar, 47Welcker M. Orian A. Jin J. Grim J.E. Harper J.W. Eisenman R.N. Clurman B.E. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2004; 101: 9085-9090Crossref PubMed Scopus (681) Google Scholar, 48Yada M. Hatakeyama S. Kamura T. Nishiyama M. Tsunematsu R. Imaki H. Ishida N. Okumura F. Nakayama K. Nakayama K.I. EMBO J. 2004; 23: 2116-2125Crossref PubMed Scopus (612) Google Scholar). The relevance of the two phosphorylation sites in controlling MYC stability is supported by the altered stability of tumor-derived MYC mutant proteins and is in agreement with the notion that FBW7 possesses tumor suppressor activity (24Sears R.C. Cell Cycle. 2004; 3: 1133-1137Crossref PubMed Scopus (285) Google Scholar, 49Minella A.C. Clurman B.E. Cell Cycle. 2005; 4: 1356-1359Crossref PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar). From these findings a model has been developed that suggests a dual role for RAS signaling (24Sears R.C. Cell Cycle. 2004; 3: 1133-1137Crossref PubMed Scopus (285) Google Scholar): because RAS stimulates phosphorylation of Ser-62 through MAPK, the subsequent phosphorylation of Thr-58 has to be prevented to avoid subsequent rapid degradation of MYC by the mechanism summarized above. Therefore it was suggested that RAS inhibits the activity of GSK3 through the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-AKT pathway, resulting in MYC proteins phosphorylated only at Ser-62. This model is consistent with the finding that mutations of Ser-62 stabilize MYC, possibly due to the lack of Thr-58 phosphorylation by GSK3 (the substrate lacks the priming phosphate). Nevertheless it is worth considering a role of Ser-62 phosphorylation in stabilizing MYC independent of Thr-58. Because most likely several kinases can phosphorylate Ser-62, it seems counterintuitive that all the Ser-62 targeting signals would enhance MYC turnover. Also the need to dephosphorylate Ser-62 suggests that this site might possess additional functions. If Ser-62 by itself is indeed a stabilizing signal, it will be challenging to establish the underlying molecular mechanism. In addition to the phosphorylation-induced SCF-FBW7-dependent degradation, MYC is also turned over in response to polyubiquitinylation by the SCF-SKP2 ubiquitin-ligase complex (Fig. 2B) (50Kim S.Y. Herbst A. Tworkowski K.A. Salghetti S.E. Tansey W.P. Mol. Cell. 2003; 11: 1177-1188Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (423) Google Scholar, 51von der Lehr N. Johansson S. Wu S. Bahram F. Castell A. Cetinkaya C. Hydbring P. Weidung I. Nakayama K. Nakayama K.I. Soderberg O. Kerppola T.K. Larsson L.G. Mol. Cell. 2003; 11: 1189-1200Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (405) Google Scholar). Presently it is not known whether the interaction of SKP2 with MYC requires any signal. Importantly, however, this interaction serves at least one additional function. SKP2 as well as other subunits of the SCF-SKP2 complex are recruited to MYC-regulated promoters and seem to be relevant for MYC-dependent gene transcription. The emerging model suggests that SCF-SKP2, after interacting with MYC, results in ubiquitinylation that first activates the transcriptional potential of MYC and subsequently triggers its proteasomal degradation, thereby limiting the transcriptional potential of this proto-oncoprotein to a potentially narrow time window (Fig. 2B). This model is in line with the observation that the stability of transcriptional activators is inversely proportional to the power of their TAD, a correlation that is dependent on ubiquitinylation (52Molinari E. Gilman M. Natesan S. EMBO J. 1999; 18: 6439-6447Crossref PubMed Scopus (166) Google Scholar). It is not entirely clear how the SCF-SKP2 complex stimulates MYC function. One possibility is that components of the SCF-SKP2 complex or of the proteasome function as coactivators. In support of this, recent findings demonstrate that the 19 S lid of the proteasome can recruit SAGA, a chromatin remodeling complex (53Lee D. Ezhkova E. Li B. Pattenden S.G. Tansey W.P. Workman J.L. Cell. 2005; 123: 423-436Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar). Another possibility is that ubiquitinylation of MYC modulates cofactor recruitment, one candidate being the positive transcription elongation factor P-TEFb (54Marshall R.M. Grana X. Front Biosci. 2006; 11: 2598-2613Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar). In support of such a model, ubiquitinylation of LexA-VP16 stimulates the interaction with P-TEFb and activates transcription (55Kurosu T. Peterlin B.M. Curr. Biol. 2004; 14: 1112-1116Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (65) Google Scholar). P-TEFb can also be recruited to promoters through its binding partner Brd4. This bromodomain protein binds to acetylated histones (56Jang M.K. Mochizuki K. Zhou M. Jeong H.S. Brady J.N. Ozato K. Mol. Cell. 2005; 19: 523-534Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (939) Google Scholar, 57Yang Z. Yik J.H. Chen R. He N. Jang M.K. Ozato K. Zhou Q. Mol. Cell. 2005; 19: 535-545Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (829) Google Scholar) and thus represents an additional possibility of how MYC, through its ability to mediate core histone acetylation (11Adhikary S. Eilers M. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005; 6: 635-645Crossref PubMed Scopus (918) Google Scholar), may recruit P-TEFb to promoters. It is conceivable that the two suggested mechanisms synergize. Recently a third ubiquitin-ligase, HECTH9, was identified as a modulator of MYC (58Adhikary S. Marinoni F. Hock A. Hulleman E. Popov N. Beier R. Bernard S. Quarto M. Capra M. Goettig S. Kogel U. Scheffner M. Helin K. Eilers M. Cell. 2005; 123: 409-421Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (313) Google Scholar). This enzyme polyubiquitinylates MYC by catalyzing the branching through Lys-63 rather than Lys-48 (Fig. 2C). This Lys-63-dependent polymerization does not signal degradation but rather appears to function by enhancing CBP/p300 recruitment. Although these cofactors can interact with bacterial MYC in vitro (59Vervoorts J. Luscher-Firzlaff J.M. Rottmann S. Lilischkis R. Walsemann G. Dohmann K. Austen M. Luscher B. EMBO Rep. 2003; 4: 484-490Crossref PubMed Scopus (215) Google Scholar), in cells HECTH9-dependent ubiquitinylation enhances binding, recruitment to promoters, and affects the gene expression pattern. Several of the cofactors or cofactor complexes that interact with MYC possess histone acetyltransferase (HAT) activity (Fig. S2B). These HAT enzymes, including CBP/p300, TIP60, and mammalian mGCN5, have been shown to regulate histone acetylation upon recruitment by MYC to specific promoters (11Adhikary S. Eilers M. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005; 6: 635-645Crossref PubMed Scopus (918) Google Scholar). However, MYC does not simply serve as a platform for these cofactors but is itself a substrate of these HATs (Fig. 2D) (59Vervoorts J. Luscher-Firzlaff J.M. Rottmann S. Lilischkis R. Walsemann G. Dohmann K. Austen M. Luscher B. EMBO Rep. 2003; 4: 484-490Crossref PubMed Scopus (215) Google Scholar, 60Patel J.H. Du Y. Ard P.G. Phillips C. Carella B. Chen C.J. Rakowski C. Chatterjee C. Lieberman P.M. Lane W.S. Blobel G.A. McMahon S.B. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004; 24: 10826-10834Crossref PubMed Scopus (267) Google Scholar). These HATs modify different lysines, some of which have been identified either in response to co-expressed mGCN5 or p300 or by in vitro acetylation with p300 (Fig. 1) (60Patel J.H. Du Y. Ard P.G. Phillips C. Carella B. Chen C.J. Rakowski C. Chatterjee C. Lieberman P.M. Lane W.S. Blobel G.A. McMahon S.B. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004; 24: 10826-10834Crossref PubMed Scopus (267) Google Scholar, 61Faiola F. Liu X. Lo S. Pan S. Zhang K. Lymar E. Farina A. Martinez E. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005; 25: 10220-10234Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar, 62Zhang K. Faiola F. Martinez E. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2005; 336: 274-280Crossref PubMed Scopus (40) Google Scholar). At least one of the lysines, Lys-323, located within the NLS, is modified by both p300 and mGCN5. Acetylated lysines can serve as docking sites for proteins and can be recognized by bromodomains (63Zeng L. Zhou M.M. FEBS Lett. 2002; 513: 124-128Crossref PubMed Scopus (566) Google Scholar). At present it is unclear whether any of the acetylated Lys residues in MYC are binding sites for specific interaction partners. It was conceivable that acetylation of Lys-323 might affect NLS function. However co-expression of mGCN5 did not alter the subcellular localization of MYC. Furthermore binding of MYC to MAX was tested because Lys-417, acetylated by mGCN5, is located within the leucine zipper. Again no alterations could be measured (60Patel J.H. Du Y. Ard P.G. Phillips C. Carella B. Chen C.J. Rakowski C. Chatterjee C. Lieberman P.M. Lane W.S. Blobel G.A. McMahon S.B. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004; 24: 10826-10834Crossref PubMed Scopus (267) Google Scholar). Because lysines can be modified by both ubiquitinylation and acetylation, these two modifications can potentially interfere with each other (Fig. 2D). Indeed stimulation of acetylation decreases ubiquitinylation of MYC and enhances its stability (59Vervoorts J. Luscher-Firzlaff J.M. Rottmann S. Lilischkis R. Walsemann G. Dohmann K. Austen M. Luscher B. EMBO Rep. 2003; 4: 484-490Crossref PubMed Scopus (215) Google Scholar, 60Patel J.H. Du Y. Ard P.G. Phillips C. Carella B. Chen C.J. Rakowski C. Chatterjee C. Lieberman P.M. Lane W.S. Blobel G.A. McMahon S.B. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004; 24: 10826-10834Crossref PubMed Scopus (267) Google Scholar, 61Faiola F. Liu X. Lo S. Pan S. Zhang K. Lymar E. Farina A. Martinez E. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005; 25: 10220-10234Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar). In addition some of the identified acetylation sites overlap with the proposed ubiquitinylation sites of HECTH9 (58Adhikary S. Marinoni F. Hock A. Hulleman E. Popov N. Beier R. Bernard S. Quarto M. Capra M. Goettig S. Kogel U. Scheffner M. Helin K. Eilers M. Cell. 2005; 123: 409-421Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (313) Google Scholar), suggesting that acetylation may also affect the recruitment of CBP/p300, the binding of which is enhanced upon Lys-63-linked polyubiquitinylation (Fig. 2D). Thus these studies suggest that ubiquitinylation and acetylation are tightly connected, not only in regulating MYC protein stability but potentially also in controlling the binding of interacting proteins. The studies on MYC function and regulation have provided a wealth of information that indicates multiple signaling pathways converging on MYC. Many of these pathways control directly the function of MYC by posttranslational means, involving phosphorylation, acetylation, and ubiquitinylation. These modifications in turn define interactions with other proteins that regulate the stability of MYC and modulate its molecular functions as a transcriptional regulator. Some of the modifications are interconnected, resulting in a cross-talk of phosphorylation and ubiquitinylation and of acetylation and ubiquitinylation. It will be a challenge for the future to catalogue all the different posttranslational modifications, to understand their functional consequences, and to define their cross-talk. Because MYC is deregulated in the majority of human tumors, the MYC/MAX complex, but also the signaling pathways and the enzymes that modify and control MYC, should be considered as potential therapeutic targets." @default.
• W2079420389 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2079420389 creator A5015086682 @default.
• W2079420389 creator A5041462448 @default.
• W2079420389 creator A5090315796 @default.
• W2079420389 date "2006-11-01" @default.
• W2079420389 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2079420389 title "The Ins and Outs of MYC Regulation by Posttranslational Mechanisms" @default.
• W2079420389 cites W100165276 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1509850974 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1519914630 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1538085254 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1964515703 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1972780353 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1973462980 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1976874039 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1980583475 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1984159955 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1992127633 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W1992741271 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2007648282 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2007694332 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2011401291 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2013194319 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2015815772 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2019366492 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2028508763 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2028829513 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2033384486 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2043148368 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2044724807 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2046405795 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2047632234 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2050041795 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2053632669 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2058654854 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2059247879 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2062934426 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2064772366 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2065301449 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2069733731 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2074305355 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2086345417 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2087988002 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2088214323 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2092421439 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2093611899 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2098155709 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2103117539 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2105214585 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2106119346 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2110894784 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2120376568 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2130227763 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2138366746 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2145345398 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2149357952 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2159290169 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2164461769 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W2318659842 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W4243887032 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W8121613 @default.
• W2079420389 cites W86612188 @default.
• W2079420389 doi "https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.r600017200" @default.
• W2079420389 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16987807" @default.
• W2079420389 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2079420389 type Work @default.
• W2079420389 sameAs 2079420389 @default.
• W2079420389 citedByCount "231" @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892012 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892013 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892014 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892015 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892016 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892017 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892018 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892019 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892020 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892021 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892022 @default.
• W2079420389 countsByYear W20794203892023 @default.
• W2079420389 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2079420389 hasAuthorship W2079420389A5015086682 @default.
• W2079420389 hasAuthorship W2079420389A5041462448 @default.
• W2079420389 hasAuthorship W2079420389A5090315796 @default.
• W2079420389 hasBestOaLocation W20794203891 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConcept C100631289 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConcept C11960822 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConcept C181199279 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConcept C2902315 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConcept C70721500 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConceptScore W2079420389C100631289 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConceptScore W2079420389C11960822 @default.
• W2079420389 hasConceptScore W2079420389C181199279 @default.

• next