TTK Isoforms Interact with Two Regions of the Mep-1 Protein of Drosophila melanogaster.
NURD complex
protein–protein interactions
transcriptional repression
Journal
Doklady. Biochemistry and biophysics
ISSN: 1608-3091
Titre abrégé: Dokl Biochem Biophys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101126895
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
received:
13
01
2021
accepted:
06
03
2021
revised:
06
03
2021
entrez:
30
6
2021
pubmed:
1
7
2021
medline:
23
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Drosophila TTK protein is involved in the processes of cell differentiation and is represented by two isoforms, TTK69 and TTK88, which have a common N-terminal BTB domain and different C-terminal sequences. Earlier, it was shown that TTK69 represses the activity of enhancers and promoters by recruiting a conserved among higher eukaryotes NURD complex to chromatin. The Mep-1 protein was found in the NURD-complex of Drosophila, and this protein can interact with the C-terminal region of TTK69. In the present study, using the yeast two-hybrid system, we mapped the interacting regions of the TTK and Mep-1 proteins. We identified regions in the unique C-terminal regions of TTK isoforms that can interact simultaneously with two regions of the Mep-1 protein. The results show that, despite the low homology of the C-terminal regions, the TTK isoform retains the ability to interact with two conserved regions of the Mep-1 protein, which suggests the functional significance of this interaction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34189645
doi: 10.1134/S1607672921030042
pii: 10.1134/S1607672921030042
doi:
Substances chimiques
Drosophila Proteins
0
Protein Isoforms
0
Receptor, EphB6
0
Repressor Proteins
0
ttk protein, Drosophila
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
177-179Références
Harrison, S.D. and Travers, A.A., EMBO J., 1990, vol. 9, pp. 207–216.
doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1990.tb08097.x
Brown, J.L. and Wu, C., Development, 1993, vol. 117, pp. 45–58.
doi: 10.1242/dev.117.1.45
Read, D. and Manley, J.L., EMBO J., 1992, vol. 11, pp. 1035–1044.
doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1992.tb05142.x
Ciglar, L., Girardot, C., Wilczynski, B., et al., Development, 2014, vol. 141, pp. 2633–2643.
doi: 10.1242/dev.101956
Badenhorst, P., Finch, J.T., and Travers, A.A., Mech. Dev., 2002, vol. 117, pp. 87–101.
doi: 10.1016/S0925-4773(02)00183-1
Lai, Z.C., Harrison, S.D., Karim, F., et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 1996, vol. 93, pp. 5025–5030.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.10.5025
Bonchuk, A., Denisov, S., Georgiev, P., et al., J. Mol. Biol., 2011, vol. 412, pp. 423–436.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.07.052
Kunert, N., Wagner, E., Murawska, M., et al., EMBO J., 2009, vol. 28, pp. 533–544.
doi: 10.1038/emboj.2009.3
Bracken, A.P., Brien, G.L., and Verrijzer, C.P., Genes Dev., 2019, vol. 33, pp. 936–959.
doi: 10.1101/gad.326066.119
Reddy, B.A., Bajpe, P.K., Bassett, A., et al., Mol. Cell Biol., 2010, vol. 30, pp. 5234–5244.
doi: 10.1128/MCB.00266-10