This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
laevis telomeric proteins TRF1 and PinX1
A Thesis Presented to The Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Reed College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Arts
Molly McCarthy King May 2009
Approved for the Division (Biology)
Janis. Jeryl Hewey. Amrita Rajasingham. and the reasons I made it out. To my wonderful friends. Rachel Cooper. for giving me the support and understanding to endure this year. even when I sometimes didn’t see you for months at a time.Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor Janis Shampay for believing that one day. I feel so honored to call you my best friends – your unconditional love and support mean so much to me. especially that first time. Allison Edgar. Sean Lerner. and Courtney von Bergen. Advait Jukar. for sharing your love and contagious enthusiasm for life. Thank you for the incredible sacrifices you made to get and keep me here. Celia Hassan. who showed me the path to involvement. Maeve Hooper. Christine Lewis. Knowing that you were in this with me made each day doable. . I would. I would like to thank all of my friends at Reed for getting me through these long days. love. Michael Reisor. years. understanding. Taiga Christie (my other two Musketeers). I am so grateful for your infinite patience. Mom and Dad. Thank you for making me get back on the plane. I couldn't have made it through Reed without you girls. Words can never thank you enough for all you have done to help me be me. Kevin Lynagh. Pooja Bhaskar. Matt Jemielita. Sarah Kemp. Lee Lipton. and for making this past year happier than I thought possible. You are incredibly special people. showed me it is possible. Nick Bradish. Andrew Betson. Anna McGee. and helped keep me sane through the darkest of times. Kailyn McCord. thank you for putting up with my crazy. Javed Parkes: thank you all for your camraderie. and infinite understanding of my very human failings throughout the years – I couldn’t have done it without you. my Reed family. Chris Williams. and Cori Savaiano: I am so blessed to have gotten to know you. Thank you to my role models and friends who went before me. you are the reasons I made it to Reed. Adarsh Pyarelal. and encouragement that reinvigorated my love of science. Catherine Hinchliff. and understanding when I failed to call for weeks. and I certainly would not have had this much fun. Thank you for answering my calls at 2 am. Ryan Gersovitz. passion and balance. Dana Bublitz. Annie Miano. in fact. and for your willingness to answer all of my stupid questions when I did. no way. and incredibly special to me. weeks. actually make it into lab.
and for your friendship in and outside of lab. Kristin Holmberg – who were willing to listen and collaborate. Gabe Merrell and Amy Frey. I would have been lost without your guidance. and for your belief in me as an individual and as an academic. that day is already here. A huge thanks to Mark Amoruso for all your help and encouragement in lab. even in those times when I wasn’t able to make academics priority one. and again. which was such a big part of my identity at Reed. A bittersweet thanks to Senate. for always being there and for encouraging and supporting me. and I never could have made it through a year of thesis with student body presidenting without you. Kyle Webster and the SAO. Noelle Faricy. Thank you Bob Kaplan. xkcd and PhD comics. I can never thank you enough for all you did to help me grow in high school. and a belief that someday. Thank you Kjersten Whittington. for giving me direction and hope that there is something for me at the intersection of science and society. Kathy Rose. because it is about the process and not the product. and for the always-warm welcomes to a much-needed refuge from academia and everything else. guidance and encouragement. Michael Leidecker. To the mentors who got me to Reed. all this will be worth it. for your late-night solidarity. Colin Diver. I couldn’t have done it without you – thanks for being such a super president of vice and partner in crime. Kristin Holmberg. Thank you all. . Donna Gordon and Mike Erikson. the Senate Bylaws. Also. thank you for taking me under your respective wings. and who work together year after year to keep this institution the place I have grown to love. thanks for all of your insight. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Reed College Biology Undergraduate Research Project Program. a silly but genuine thanks to all the inanimate objects and ideals in my life that helped me through – coffee. patience. To my lab-mates Dave Constant and Jen Jin: thank you for all of your help when I was utterly clueless. Towny Angell.To my mentors. 3 am conversations about the Honor Principle. for making me truly appreciate the moments when I got to be a student and for the invaluable lessons I learned outside of the classroom. Lily Copenagle. And the realization that. Ajax/Overmind/Bradish. And thank you to the administrators – Mike Brody. I am grateful for having the opportunity to work with a group of people as dedicated to and passionate about Reed as my senators. for listening nonjudgmentally to my rants. Barre Stoll.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Small plasmid DNA isolations ....................................................................................................................26 Construction of pTNT™ in vitro translation clone .................................................5 Telomerase maintains telomere length ..............1 Duplicating chromosomes: the end replication problem ................14 TIN2 (TRF1-Interacting Nuclear protein 2).....................................................19 Experimental goals and design.................4 DNA repair pathways ......................2 The DNA damage response......................................................................................27 ........18 Xenopus as a model organism..............24 Subcloning of xlTRF1dd PCR product into intermediate vector.............................................27 Ligation into pTNT™ vector .................................................................. coli ...............................................13 TPP1 (TINT1 / PTOP / PIP1)................................................................................................................................23 Primer design....................................................................................................................................8 TRF1 (Telomeric Repeat binding Factor 1)......................25 PCR product purification .................................1 The problem with telomeres ...........4 T-loops: distinguishing chromosome breaks from telomere ends........................................................................................................................14 RAP1 (Repressor/Activator Protein 1) .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12 POT1 (Protection of Telomeres 1) ...................................7 The shelterin complex and associated factors...............1 Telomeres: the chromosome protection complex.........................................18 The interaction of PinX1 and Trf1 .................15 PinX1 is a TRF1-interacting telomerase inhibitor ............................................................................................................................................1 Telomere structure.......23 PCR construction of Myc-tagged xlTRF1dd ..........................................................................................................Table of Contents Introduction.............................................23 Sequence alignment analysis .................. TRF1 and PinX1 in oncogenesis ..............................................................20 Materials & Methods........10 TRF2 (Telomeric Repeat binding Factor 2).....................................26 Analysis of isolated plasmid DNA .25 Subcloning and transformation of E.............................................................................23 Amplification of desired construct ..............................................................15 The roles of telomeres.......................................................................................................................................................
............................ 31 Visualization of total protein ................................. 29 In vitro expression of proteins ............. 30 Visualization of proteins ............................................. 45 pTNT-xlTRF1dd clone j used for in vitro translation........ 32 Detection of biotin labeled amino acids .................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Overview ................................. 57 ................................................................ 49 Coimmunoprecipitation attempt ................ 28 pTNT-xlTRF1dd plasmid purification ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 In silico protein sequence analyses ................................................................................................................................................................ 39 Intermediate subcloning of xlTRF1dd-Myc construct.......... 46 Immunoprecipitation............................................................................. 48 Coimmunoprecipitation experimental design............................................. 41 Purified xlTRF1dd-Myc construct inserted into in vitro translation vector...................................................... 52 Conclusions and recommendations for further study .................................... 31 Electroblotting................................ 31 SDS-PAGE separation of protein products ......... 30 Coimmunoprecipitation.......................................................................... 37 Interaction with xTERT.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Sequence analyses confirm no mutations in xlTRF1dd construct............................................................................................... 29 Immunoprecipitation.................................................................................................................................................Transformation of E................................................................................ 32 Detection of His-tagged protein on western blot ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Transformed bacteria contain expression vector with desired insert ............................. 40 Transformed bacteria contain intermediate vector with insert ............................ coli with pTNT-xlTRF1dd vector............ 39 Primers amplify dimerization domain from full-length xlTRF1 clone .............................................................. 28 Sequence analysis of plasmid DNA.......... 32 Results & Discussion................................................. 39 Design of experimental constructs.................................. 52 Appendix A: Sequence of Myc-tagged xlTRF1dd protein construct ....................................................................... 45 Visualization of protein products............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 TRF1 sequence analysis .......................................... 55 Bibliography.. 39 PinX1 construct design.................. 35 PinX1 sequence analysis ............................
....1......2.......24 .........List of Tables Table 2.... PCR primers used to create Myc-tagged xlTRF1dd construct....... Cycling program for amplification of xlTRF1dd.........................23 Table 2..........
..41 Figure 3....................12.............................5......... Analytical gel to confirm restriction digests and estimate concentration of purified TOPO-xlTRF1dd DNA.... ...........................7...... ....1..... TRF1 amino acid sequence alignment among species................... Biotin labeled amino acids obtained from immunoprecipitation...................2..........8.............. ..10......... ..........43 Figure 3. Schema of experimental design for IP and co-IP reactions....3..... Desired pTNT-xlTRF1dd-Myc in vitro translation construct.................49 Figure 3....1.....5 Figure 1....................44 Figure 3.............................. Insertion of xlTRF1dd-Myc construct in intermediate cloning vector........ ............ ....9 Figure 1.................... Chromosome replication results in the end replication problem....4. ...........40 Figure 3.......................3 Figure 1..................... ................ Visualizations of protein products from in vitro transcription/translation reactions of xlTRF1dd-Myc and xlTRF1full-Flag............ ...... Restriction enzyme analysis of clones obtained from plasmid purification of pTNT-xlTRF1dd samples....................6.... gradually shortening successive daughter strands without the remediative action of telomerase........36 Figure 3........47 Figure 3...........................................3 Cross-species alignment of domain of PinX1 that interacts with TRF1dd....List of Figures Figure 1..........9.................................. .... ..........11........... The protein components of the shelterin complex bound to the telomeric overhang.............. Domain diagrams of human shelterin and PinX1 proteins......37 Figure 3.......................................... Myc-tagged xlTRF1dd construct resulting from amplification by designed primers...... The t-loop at the ends of chromosomes is theorized to form via the invasion of the G-rich strand into the internal complementary sequence of the C-rich strand..................... PinX1 amino acid sequence alignment among species......2.........4.....................................10 Figure 3....................................................42 Figure 3..38 Figure 3........51 ..... ................ Sequenced 5’ and 3’ terminal fragments of xlTRF1dd-Myc construct.45 Figure 3.
have been found to interact and to negatively regulate telomere length in humans. This construct can be used in future studies for more specific identification of interacting domains. while TRF1 indirectly regulates telomerase by preventing access to the telomeric overhang. Telomerase and other telomereassociated proteins are essential for end protection. An in vitro expression construct for a Mycepitope tagged TRF1 dimerization domain was created to aid in the study of this interaction. The interaction of X. laevis PinX1 and full-length TRF1 was investigated using previously cloned constructs. chromosome maintenance and telomere regeneration. laevis. . Immunoprecipitation and coimmunoprecipitation studies were performed to investigate in vitro interaction. progress was made towards a rigorous experimental design to test this interaction. While no conclusive evidence was found either for or against interaction. Two telomere protection complex proteins. should PinX1 and full-length TRF1 be found to interact in X. making it an excellent model organism for research on telomerase and telomere length regulation. Human PinX1 is a direct inhibitor of telomerase enzymatic activity. TRF1 and PinX1. Xenopus laevis has previously been shown to have constitutive telomerase activity in somatic cells. Telomeres are repetitive sequences at the ends of chromosomes that protect them from inappropriate DNA repair and cellular responses to DNA damage. This study sought to investigate the interaction of the telomeric proteins TRF1 and PinX1 in Xenopus laevis.Abstract The chromosome replication process causes the ends of chromosomes to slowly degrade without the remediative action of the enzyme telomerase.
Dedication For my parents. who were right all along. .
Normal telomere function is essential for cell viability. Due to their composition of TTAGGG repeats. their ends are especially vulnerable to degradation by enzymes (Palm and de Lange. and prevention of homologous recombination between telomeric DNA (Chan and Blackburn. to be described in more detail below. 2005).. The ends of eukaryotic chromosomes are protected by telomeres. nucleoprotein structures that regulate telomere replication and safeguard against degradation. The two complementary strands of the telomere are thus referred to as the G-strand and the C-strand (Palm and de Lange. range from 10-50 kb in length and can vary among tissues in the same individual (Bassham et al. In vertebrates. prevention of the fusion of chromosome ends. 2004). 2008). 2008). Telomere-associated proteins consist of the shelterin complex and the accessory factors it recruits. but also contain additional TTAGGG repeats in subtelomeric regions (Palm and de Lange. The Gstrand of eukaryotes typically ends in a 100-200 nucleotide single-stranded overhang . Telomere structure The telomere length necessary to adequately protect chromosomes varies among organisms. 1998). 2000). These roles are vital for chromosome stability and cell survival and proliferation. 1989. Human telomeres are usually 10-15 kb (kilobases). Telomeres and their associated proteins serve four capping functions for chromosomes: regulation of telomere length. prevention of the DNA damage response to telomere presence. Xenopus laevis.Introduction The problem with telomeres Telomeres: the chromosome protection complex Chromosomes are long molecules of DNA and histone proteins that contain an organism’s genetic material. this sequence is TTAGGG (Meyne et al. Most eukaryotes have telomeres composed of double-stranded short tandem DNA repeats. Their linearity poses particular challenges in chromosome replication processes. an issue known as the end replication problem. 2008). Without sufficient telomere protection.. Since eukaryotic chromosomes are linear. Telomeres in the model organism for this study. telomeres have a 3’ strand rich in guanosine and lacking in cytosine. Blasco. shortening of telomeres can result in chromosome loss and end-to-end fusions (Evans and Lundblad.
the other end of the chromosome.1). 2005). 2007). Without the action of telomerase to lengthen the telomeric regions. 2009). permitting efficient telomere synthesis (Verdun and Kalseder. The sequence loss observed during cell replication is greater than that predicted by the end replication problem alone (Harley et al. De Boeck et al.2 (Blasco. the two copies of DNA will each contain one strand from the original chromosome and one daughter strand. It is proposed that the G-rich daughter strand overhang may be generated at the blunt end by nucleolytic digestion in the 5' to 3' direction. the process of DNA replication results in progressively shorter and shorter daughter molecules (Lander. this leaves a single-stranded overhang that cannot be filled by DNA polymerase. meaning that during each replication cycle. The progressing replication fork is supported by telomere proteins. But DNA polymerase can only synthesize the daughter strand in the 5’ to 3’ direction. Replication occurs continuously for one strand – the leading strand – and discontinuously for the other – the lagging strand (Lander. the enzyme primase synthesizes a singlestranded RNA primer at the 5’ end of replication. The formation of a functional telomere structure and the binding of the necessary proteins require a single-stranded overhang (Verdun and Kalseder. When the leading RNA primers at the 5’ end of the newly replicated chromosome are removed.. 2007).. in addition to the overhang resulting from the end replication problem. 2005. During DNA replication processes. 2008). 2005). . Duplicating chromosomes: the end replication problem The linear nature of eukaryotic chromosomes presents a grave problem for the maintenance of these genetic-programming structures. The chromosome replication machinery necessarily leaves a single-stranded overhang at each end after replicating the linear DNA (Figure 1. DNA polymerases then extend the strands initiated by RNA primers in the 5' to 3' direction. resulting from leading-strand synthesis. though no nuclease candidates have yet been identified (Verdun and Kalseder. a protrusion that is generally longer but more variable (50-500 nt) in mammals (Palm and de Lange. 2007). Detection of such long overhangs at both ends of a chromosome suggests that there are regulated processing methods for single-stranded overhang generation. will theoretically be blunt. DNA is replicated by a process described by Watson and Crick’s semiconservative model. 1990). At the end of replication.
3 Figure 1. Chromosome replication results in the end replication problem. .1. gradually shortening successive daughter strands without the remediative action of telomerase.
Double strand breaks activate the ATM pathway. 2005). Homologous repair occurs when the homologous region of a sister chromosome acts as a template to guide repair of the broken strand. In the absence of corrective telomerase action. a minimum of 78 bp (13 repeats) of TTAGGG sequence is required to prevent fusions of telomeres. 2008). is determined by the rate of shortening and the initial telomere length (Verdun and Kalseder. Because of this length requirement for functional protection. HR between sister telomeres. In humans. When telomeres are dysfunctional. This division boundary. When telomeres are left unprotected. embryonic-tissue derived human cells can only divide about 50 times before shortened telomeres cause the cell to permanently arrest division or die. telomere erosion limits the proliferative potential of cells through either apoptosis or senescence (Palm and de Lange. during each cell replication. Telomeres that become too short are detected by the cell’s damage response pathway as a double-strand break.. The protein complex shelterin that localizes to telomeres helps protect against the three kinds of HR: t-loop HR. 2008). 2009). Repair begins with the creation of a single-stranded overhang which then invades a homologous sequence to form a hybrid heteroduplex (De Boeck et al. telomeres are shortened as a result of the end replication problem. known as the Hayflick limit. and HR between a telomere and interstitial telomeric DNA (de Lange. DNA repair pathways Double strand DNA breaks in mammals are repaired by either nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology directed repair / homologous recombination (HR) (Palm and de Lange. 2005). As discussed above. chromosomes are threatened by these repair mechanisms.4 The DNA damage response The average lengths of telomeres are far in excess of those needed merely to protect chromosome function. Activation of DNA damage response pathways results in an arrest of cell proliferation (Palm and de Lange. 2007). or the telomere protection complex malfunctions. 2008). This leaves telomeres susceptible to inappropriate DNA repair or cells vulnerable to senescence. while the ATR pathway responds to the formation of single stranded DNA. .. A fully functional telomere can be developed from as few as 400 bp of TTAGGG repeats. the DNA damage response is initiated through one of two pathways dependent on one of the protein kinases. 2008). Telomere length must be reduced to less than 1000 bp to cause senescence in human tumor cell lines (Palm and de Lange. ATM or ATR. The pathways of cell senescence and apoptosis are associated with shortened telomeres (Lechel et al.
1999). implicating this protein in telomeric end-capping. an additional function to its role in repairing incidental DNA damage (Bailey et al. two double strand breaks are joined directly without regard for sequence homology (De Boeck et al. Double-strand breaks are recognized by the binding of the Ku70 and Ku80 proteins and the MRN complex. This necessitates some means by which to distinguish telomeric DNA from damaged DNA.5 In NHEJ.2. Inhibition of ATM kinase activity led to telomere dysfunction. . This structure may be responsible for telomere protection from both telomerase extension and enzymatic degradation.2). structure. The structure of telomeres leaves them vulnerable to these reactions to damage. 2005). The t-loop structure forms both in vivo and in vitro by invasion of the 3’ overhang into the double-stranded segment of telomeric repeats. T-loops: distinguishing chromosome breaks from telomere ends One possible mechanism by which the DNA damage response machinery distinguishes telomere ends from chromosome breaks in mammals is via telomere formation into the telomeric loop (t-loop). 2009).. The double-strand break repair protein DNA-PK has a dual function in capping telomere ends... resulting in inappropriate DNA repair or cell senescence. The invading 3’ G-strand overhang supplants the G-strand in that area to form the displacement loop. 2009). The association of these factors recruits the catalytic subunit of DNA protein kinase (DNAPK).. The t-loop at the ends of chromosomes is theorized to form via the invasion of the G-rich strand into the internal complementary sequence of the C-rich strand. 2008). which then initiates a pathway leading to repair of the break by DNA ligase (De Boeck et al. Cells lacking the catalytic subunit of the DNA-PK protein exhibited substantial numbers of inappropriate end-to-end fusions. ATM/ATR signaling is required for NHEJ to fuse chromosome ends (Palm and de Lange. Figure 1. suggesting that the formation of the chromosome end protection complex actually depends upon the post-replication DNA damage response at telomeres (Verdun et al. or D loop (Figure 1.
2003).. Nikitina and Woodcock. This speculation is corroborated by findings that telomere chromatin extracted from human. Furthermore. 2002). Though in vitro TRF2-dependent loop formation does not require the 3’ overhang that characterizes telomeres. with t-loops being generally a few kb shorter than the total telomeric DNA (Wei and Price. 2001). The tumor suppressor protein p53 also plays a role in in vitro t-loop formation. The characterization of another equally effective protective structure. 2004). Thus. . TRF2 mediates DNA loop formation at any point in the telomeric repeat sequence by forming a tetramer at the branching point of the loop. 2003)... as they lack the highly repetitive sequences that promote the invasion of one strand by another. 1999. the role of TRF2 in forming t-loops is unlikely due to its DNA binding function alone. and thus cells with highly degraded chromosomes will not be inappropriately protected from the natural course of the DNA damage response pathways (Griffith et al.6 Although this structure has been observed in vivo. Random breaks in the chromosome will be less capable of forming protective tloop structures.. reinforces the idea that t-loops are only one (albeit rather attractive) model for vertebrate telomere protection (Verdun and Kalseder.. Griffith et al. preferentially binding to the area between the single-stranded overhang and the duplex loop (Stansel et al. 2007). comprised of two proteins that bind the ends of chromosomes in Oxytricha nova. the formation of an end-loop (as opposed to a loop at any point in the repeat tract) requires the specific sequence of the overhang (Yoshimura et al. 1999). crystal studies of TRF2-DNA complexes indicate that the DNA binding domain of TRF2 binds double-stranded DNA without any major distortions of the DNA (Court et al. TRF2 is found at the loop junction.. The size of the loop varies by species and is correlated with overall telomere length. the t-loop model presents one possible mechanism for distinguishing telomeres from genuine double strand breaks. (1999) suggest that the t-loop may be responsible for protection from telomerase extension and enzymatic degradation in vivo. short telomeres will be less able to form t-loops. increasing the efficiency of TRF2 t-loop formation by two fold when it is present at the t-loop junction (Stansel et al. 1999). 2004). T-loop structure formation is mediated by the shelterin protein TRF2 (Griffith et al. mouse and chicken nuclei forms t-loops (Griffith et al.. However. However. 2004). t-loops can form from as little as 500 bp and range up to 18 kb in length in mammals (Wei and Price. there is no conclusive experimental evidence that it is necessary for protecting telomeres from the DNA damage response.
but it is undetermined whether this dimerization is a conserved or essential characteristic of the enzyme. Some minimal number of telomeric repeats is necessary for the foundation of the telomerase-shelterin complex that protects the telomere. 2004). Telomerase has a protein component (TERT) and an RNA sequence component (TR) that it uses to prime DNA synthesis. Telomerase releases this newly synthesized segment. A trinucleotide substitution in the TR template domain of S. which is then available either for further elongation by telomerase or for complementary lagging-strand synthesis of the C-strand using the newly synthesized Gstrand region as a template for primase-polymerase (as described above in the chromosome replication process) (Chan and Blackburn. 2004). T and A nucleotides using the TR RNA as a template. or accessible to telomerase. Telomerase appears to play an important role in preventing inappropriate repair by the DNA damage response. Telomerase uses an RNA template to synthesize replacement DNA repeats at the terminal ends of telomeres (Chan and Blackburn.7 Telomerase maintains telomere length Telomerase. this might imply the conclusion that telomerase has no function at telomeres until they reach a critically short length (Chan and Blackburn. it has been shown that TR RNA template mutations can have an effect on enzymatic function. while elongated telomeres are capped. it is in part the attendance of . Although the protein component of telomerase is responsible for catalyzing the polymerization reaction. indicating that the template region requires base-specific interactionsfor functional enzyme activity (Chan and Blackburn. telomerase forms a dimeric complex. The distal nucleotides of this strand base pair with the complementary TR component of telomerase. In this way. shortened telomeres are uncapped. initially known as telomeric terminal transferase. or telomeraseinaccessible. In humans and yeast. 2004). is a reverse transcriptase that extends the length of the 3’ G-strand following chromosomal replication. Rather than merely the presence of long telomeres and t-loops. The length of telomeric repeat tract seems to be one determinant of whether or not telomerase can access the chromosome end. the function of telomerase opposes the losses to telomere length due to the end replication problem and other DNA damage. 2004). The activity of telomerase is one example of a reversal of the central dogma of biology. cerevisiae destroys the enzymatic function of telomerase. However. this does not appear to be the whole story. The strand is extended by polymerization of additional G. which states that the directionality of synthesis proceeds from DNA to RNA to protein. Initially. Telomerase lengthens the 3’ single-stranded overhang of telomeric DNA.
A lack of telomerase activity in cells results in telomere shortening. and RAP1 (Figure 1. A complex called shelterin and other associated proteins bind to telomeres. and regulate their length (De Boeck et al.8 telomerase that protects telomeres from fusions. The limited amount of telomerase in human cells maintains telomeres at a certain equilibrium. These proteins are TRF1.. Instead of promoting end-joining. shelterin is a complex of six proteins that bind to telomeres. The shelterin complex also recruits other protein factors. TIN2. This explains the role of telomerase in maintaining adequate telomere length to ensure cell proliferation (Chan and Blackburn. among which is TRF1-interacting PinX1. chromosomes are regularly cycling through end-capped and -uncapped forms. including recruitment of telomerase to the replicating chromatin during interphase (Nishiyama et al. with the protein only disconnecting from the telomeres during mitosis. In one possible model. TPP1. reduced proliferation and. The shelterin complex and associated factors Also referred to as the telosome. Telomerase is expressed ubiquitously in X. and a low concentration of telomerase is critical for preferential lengthening of short telomeres. Even within a single cell. but the overall population of telomeres in a group of dividing cells is kept within limits specific to that cell type (Chan and Blackburn. 2004). laevis somatic cells.. 2004). 2004). the activity of telomerase was higher when associated with interphase chromatin than with mitotic chromatin. 2004). . 2006). This finding suggests that telomere chromatin is actively regulated by processes dependent on the timing of the cell cycle. POT1. TRF2. eventually. Telomerase activity is also connected with the cell growth and division cycle. the DNA damage response factors attracted to telomeres actually promote telomerase action (Chan and Blackburn. This equilibrium is maintained via the regulation of telomerase access to telomeres (Evans and Lundblad.3). protect them from recognition by double-strand break machinery. cell senescence. In Xenopus egg extracts. One in vivo study showed that overexpression of the limiting hTERT and hTR telomerase components resulted in a greater association of telomerase with telomeres and their consequent elongation at a constant rate independent of telomere length (Cristofari and Lingner. 2000). 2003). playing a role in telomere structure and in the regulation of telomerase.. telomere lengths are highly heterogeneous. 2009). 2006). with the DNA damage response as an important feedback mechanism for promoting telomerase activity (Chan and Blackburn. with differential activity in different tissues not solely due to differential amounts of diffusible telomerase inhibitor (Bousman et al.
2008). SANT/Myb DNAbinding domain (green) TRF2: GAR(Gly/Arg-rich) domain. TRF1-binding domain (blue) TPP1: OB fold / potential telomerase interacting motif (red). TERT nucleolar localization domain (white). Domain structure acronyms for each protein are as follows. TRFH (TRF Homology) self-dimerization domain (blue).3. also known as the basic domain (white). TRF2 interaction domain (brown) PinX1: G-patch (glycine-rich RNA-interacting domain) (white). also known as the acidic domain (white). Domain diagrams of human shelterin and PinX1 proteins. TPP1-binding domain (yellow) TIN2: TPP1 and TRF1 interaction domain (purple and orange). TID (telomerase inhibitory domain) (white) . Palm and de Lange.9 Figure 1. TIN2 interaction domain (purple) RAP1: BRCT (BRCA1 C-terminal) protein interaction domain (white). Matching colors correspond to either similar domain structures or protein-protein interaction domains (de Lange. TIN2 interaction domain (orange). 2005. Ser-rich region (white). POT1 interaction domain (yellow). SANT/Myb DNA-binding domain (green) POT1: OB (oligonucleotide/oligosaccharide/oligopeptide binding) folds (shades of red). from the N terminus to the C terminus: TRF1: Tankyrase-binding D/E-rich domain. Myb domain (green). RAP1 interaction domain (brown). TRFH (TRF Homology) dimerization domain (blue).
is responsible for this binding of TRF1 to double-stranded DNA. and POT1 for the telomeric repeat sequence TTAGGG (Figure 1. The dimerization and Myb domains are joined by a highly flexible linker of about 100 aa (Court et al.. Shelterin specifically binds telomeric DNA due to the specificity of its proteins TRF1. de Lange. Bianchi et al.. 2000). The C-terminal Myb-like domain.. TRF2. 2008). Although TRF1 is able to bind DNA as a monomer.4) (Palm and de Lange. The protein components of the shelterin complex bound to the telomeric overhang (used with permission. TRF1 binds double-stranded telomeric DNA as a homodimer. Even in the absence of telomeric DNA in nuclear cell extract isolations. prevent DNA damage response signaling.10 The proteins interact with each other and numerous other factors to regulate the actions of telomerase. Figure 1. 1998). shelterin forms a stable complex (Palm and de Lange. TRF1 (Telomeric Repeat binding Factor 1) TRF1 is a 56 kDa telomeric protein that recruits shelterin-associated factors and negatively regulates telomere length. POT1 binds the single stranded region of the G-strand overhang and in the D-loop within the t-loop structure. TRF1 and TRF2 bind the duplex region of telomeres and recruit the other four components of the shelterin complex. 2005).. The Myb domain recognizes two repeats of the GGGTTA sequence for selective binding (Konig et al.. 1998). and maintain telomere structure. TRF1 binds double-stranded DNA in vivo (Smogorzewska et al.. and TRF1 homodimers require the Myb domains of both proteins for high-affinity binding (Bianchi et al. 2008). 1997)... 2005). followed in sequence by a TRF homology (TRFH) dimerization domain near its N-terminus and a C-terminal DNA-binding SANT-Myb-like domain (Chong et al. consisting of residues 371–433 in human TRF1 (Hanaoka et al. 1997). formed by the interaction of the .4. The mammalian protein has an acidic domain at its N-terminus. two Myb-like domains can bind 6 bp apart (Konig et al. 1995. 2004).
tankyrase. TRF1 is a negative regulator of telomere length. As a consequence of this interaction. allowing access to telomerase and thereby promoting telomere elongation (Smith et al.. The Myb domain is characterized by 76% identity to human TRF1 Myb domain (Smogorzewska and de Lange. 1998). Human tankyrase binds the human TRF1 (hTRF1) sequence RXXPDG contained within the D/E-rich acidic domain (Sbodio and ChiDagger. TRF1 regulates telomerase via physically preventing access to the telomere.. the TRF1 homodimer bends the site of its telomeric DNA to an angle of approximately 120º (Bianchi et al. 2001).. This function could contribute to the overall structure of the telomeric complex (Bianchi et al.11 TRFH/dimerization domains of each protein. 2004).. Tankyrase removes TRF1 from telomeres. 1997). Xenopus laevis and Xenopus tropicalis both have homologs of TRF1 with substantially shorter D/E-rich acidic domains (Crumet et al. and the dimerization domain shares 49% identity and 68% similarity with the human equivalent (Crumet et al. 1997). 2000). TRF1 is itself regulated by the ADP-ribose polymerase. 1997)... Overexpression of dominant-negative TRF1 causes increased telomere elongation in cultured human cells... 2006. 1997). 2006). A TRF1 clone lacking DNA binding ability was created via deletion of the Myb domain. as it does not contain the RXXPDG sequence. the presence of TRF1 does not directly mediate the formation of tloops (Yoshimura et al. But the surprising finding that deletion of the first exon of mouse TRF1 results in rapid embryonic lethality suggests an essential function for TRF1 that is independent of its role in telomere length . This truncated acidic domain has implications for the regulation of Xenopus TRF1 by tankyrase. 2002). Though there may be some cooperative interaction between TRF2 and TRF1 in end loop formation. resulting in lengthening of telomeres (van Steensel and de Lange. This dominant-negative mutant heterodimerizes with coexpressed wild-type TRF1 and prevents it from binding telomeric DNA.. One study in human cell lines showed that preventing TRF1 binding prompts telomere lengthening. while TRF1 overexpression in telomerase-positive cells causes telomere shortening. Cell viability is not affected by the inhibition of human TRF1 with a dominant-negative allele (van Steensel and de Lange. the most distantly related vertebrate genes from mammals that have been characterized to date (Crumet et al. The two Myb-like domains of dimerized TRF1 can independently bind two recognition sites with great spatial flexibility (Nishikawa et al. Nishiyama et al. 2006). rather than by affecting telomerase expression levels (Smogorzewska et al. 2006). 2004). The 49 kDa Xenopus TRF1 protein has previously been cloned and characterized..
This is consistent with the finding presented earlier that the activity of Xenopus telomerase is higher in associations with replicating interphase chromatin than with mitotic chromatin. TRF1 has additional functions in the cell cycle. 2004). TRF1 deletion results in a loss of TIN2 and TRF2 association with the telomere (Iwano et al. TRF1 associates with mitotic chromatin. Xenopus TRF1 dissassociates from chromatin during the transition into interphase. TRF2 is a recruitment protein for the shelterin complex and a negative regulator of telomere length.. 2006). In Xenopus embryos. This interaction between ATM kinase and TRF1 is notable because DNA damage response factors recruited to telomeres also promote telomerase action (Chan and Blackburn. as the presence of TRF1 throughout mitosis would exclude telomerase association (Nishiyama et al.. a process coupled with reduced Cdc2 kinase activity and increased telomerase activity. inhibiting TRF1/Pin2 from carrying out its normal function of mitotic induction (Kishi et al. 2001b). an interaction promoted by TRF1 phosphorylation by the mitotic kinase Plx1. and then an approximate 20% decrease in binding in G2 (Verdun et al. Chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments showed that hTRF1 shows a 50% decrease in telomere binding at the start S phase. This finding stands in contrast to other studies that have shown that hTRF1 associates with telomeres throughout the cell cycle. Recruitment by TIN2-TRF1 is crucial for POT1 to repress the ATR response (Sfeir and de Lange. 2005). 2004). It could be this loss of TRF2 that causes embryonic lethality as a result of TRF1 deletion.. Another possible lead on this telomere-length-independent function is the role TRF1 plays in preventing activation of the ATM DNA damage response pathways. TRF2 binds double-stranded DNA in .. 2006). unpublished data in Palm and de Lange. TRF2 (Telomeric Repeat binding Factor 2) Like TRF1. an increase in binding at the end of the S phase. ATM kinase phosphorylates TRF1/Pin2 in vitro and in vivo. TRF1/Pin2 (very similar proteins likely encoded by the same gene) coimmunoprecipitates with ATM kinase. One reason this may differ from the TRF1-telomere associations in Xenopus is because Xenopus embryos alternate between S and M phases without the G1 or G2 growth cycles of human somatic cells (Nishiyama et al. Deletion of TRF1 results in activation of the ATRdependent DNA damage response because of its role in recruiting other shelterin factors.12 regulation (Kalseder et al. Like TRF1.. This may imply some involvement of ATM damage response factors in regulating TRF1’s function as a negative regulator of telomerase. 2003). 2008)..
. TRF2 also functions as a telomerase regulator. 2008). 2008). 1999)... TRF2 is implicated in the formation of t-loops. 2007). 2004). 2008). 2003). Palm and de Lange... 2005). POT1 (Protection of Telomeres 1) POT1 is a negative regulator of telomerase activity. which are also common to many other single-stranded DNA binding proteins (Kerr et al... TRF2 also binds DNA as a homodimer. It also shares the TRFH-hingeSANT/Myb domain structure of TRF1. 2005. 2005). mediated by ATM as the signal transducer (Karlseder et al. The presence of TRF2 is dependent on telomere length. 2005).13 vivo (Smogorzewska et al. As discussed above. Xin et al. 2005.. TRF1 and TRF2 do not heterodimerize (Broccoli et al.. 2005. POT1 is characterized by several OB (oligonucleotide/ oligosaccharide/ oligopeptide binding) folds.. Deletion and dominant-negative mutation of TRF2 are lethal because they activate the p53/p21 DNA damage response pathway.. TRF2 binds ATM in vitro and inhibits the autophosphorylation of ATM on S1981. 2000). The involvement of the tumor suppressor protein p53 at the t-loop junction with TRF2 is notable given the interaction of these proteins in the DNA damage response pathway (Palm and de Lange. 2000).. 2008).. The ability of POT1 to regulate telomere length requires the interaction with both single-stranded telomeric DNA and TPP1 (Kelleher et al. The TRFH site of TRF2 interacts with the shelterin accessory factor Apollo (Chen et al. t-loops) or through abrogating a more downstream step in the response pathway (Palm and de Lange. providing one possible mechanism for preventing the response of the ATM kinase to DNA damage (Karlseder et al. Xenopus TRF2 has been found to associate with telomeric chromatin throughout the cell cycle (Nishiyama et al.. Thus. preventing telomerase access to the telomere when the tract is long. inhibiting the enzyme by restricting access to the 3’ priming single-stranded overhang (Kelleher et al. The role of TRF2 in averting the action of the ATM kinase may be either through maintaining the higherorder telomere structure (for example. Overexpression of TRF2 causes telomere shortening (Smogorzewska et al. Hockemeyer . Unlike TRF1. 2006). However. POT1 binds single-stranded DNA and negatively impacts telomerase activity in vitro (Kelleher et al.. the telomerase-regulating activity of POT1 is dependent upon its ability to bind single-stranded telomeric DNA (Kelleher et al. with a basic Gly/Arg-rich domain at the Nterminus instead of the acidic domain of TRF1 (de Lange. 1997). 1998). A dominant-negative mutant of TRF2 lacking the basic and myb domains removed endogenous TRF2 from telomeres and caused telomere end-toend fusions (van Steensel et al. recognizing the same TAGGG sequence as TRF1 (Hanaoka et al.
2004).. this linkage is crucial for the recruitment of POT1 to telomeres. named for its former identities as TINT1. and PIP1. The recruitment and regulation of telomerase by TPP1 provides a balance to the negative regulation performed by the capping function of the TPP1-POT1 complex (Xin et al. is another component of the shelterin complex (Palm and de Lange. TPP1 (TINT1 / PTOP / PIP1) TPP1. This repression capability is also dependent upon the association of POT1 with TPP1.. In its interaction with POT1. 2008). POT1 is implicated in the regulation of the terminal specificity of telomeres. POT1 is the crucial player in the repression of the ATR pathway at telomeres. As mentioned above.. Impaired function of TPP1 results in deprotection of telomeres and subsequent lengthening consistent with POT1 loss phenotypes. 2007).3).. Hockemeyer et al. 1999). TIN2 (TRF1-Interacting Nuclear protein 2) TIN2 is a negative regulator of telomere length due to its interaction with TRF1 (Kim et al.14 et al. 2008). providing a physical association between telomerase and potentially recruiting it to the telosome. as POT1 knockdown cells show randomization of the typically conserved ATC-5’ terminal nucleotide sequence. and a deficiency in POT1 initiates the DNA damage response (Wu et al. 2006). TPP1 is also necessary for the nuclear localization of POT1 (Palm and de Lange. 2006). This protein bridges TIN2 with POT1 through its C-terminal TIN2 interaction domain and its central POT1 interaction domain (Figure 1.. 2004. The N-terminal OB fold of TPP1 interacts with telomerase. TPP1 plays a critical role in capping the ends of telomeres by protecting the single-stranded overhang. RNA interference of TPP1 function or a point mutation in the TPP1binding domain of POT1 impedes POT1 localization to telomeres (Liu et al. as the deletion or mutagenesis of TPP1 results in POT1 depletion from telomeres (Liu et al. TIN2 protects TRF1 from poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation in vitro and theoretically from subsequent removal from telomeres by tankyrase (Ye and Lange. 2007). 2007). Diminished TIN2 function endangers the end-capping function of TRF1. resulting . 2005). POT1 mutants without the TPP1 interaction domain are not recruited to the nucleus (Palm and de Lange. PTOP... Inhibition of POT1 causes chromosome ends to behave as sites of DNA damage (Hockemeyer et al.. 2008).. 2004). TPP1 is also critical to the interaction of TRF1 and TRF2 through TIN2 by regulating the connectivity of TRF1 and TRF2 subcomplexes and directly regulating the TRF1-TIN2 interaction (O'Connor et al.
The PinX1 Nterminal (aa 1-142) and C-terminal (aa 254-328) domains both interact with hTERT. and so it is designated the telomerase inhibitory domain (TID). human telomerase is composed of the catalytic subunit. 2006).. Because these two interactions each depend on different domains. they can take place concurrently. allowing TIN2 the ability to bridge TRF1 and TRF2 and stabilize the complex (Ye et al. RAP1 (Repressor/Activator Protein 1) The human ortholog of the yeast Repressor/Activator Protein 1 (RAP1) is recruited to telomeres via its interaction with TRF2. a Myb domain that may interact with another unknown protein. 2008). Far-Western assays and a gel-filtration chromatographic analysis identified a C-terminal motif of TRF2 and the N-terminal residues of TIN2 that mediate the interaction between those two proteins (Chen et al. hTERT. This C-terminal region interacts with the hinge domain of TRF2. TIN2 also recruits TPP1 to shelterin via a distinct N-terminal protein interaction domain (Palm and de Lange. 2000). identified by crystal structure..15 in activation of the ATR damage response pathways at telomeres (Palm and de Lange. 2009). though the exact mechanism for its regulation is unknown (De Boeck et al. 2008).. Yeast RAP1 binds to telomeric DNA via a second Myb domain. In contrast. only the C-terminal region appears to be responsible for telomerase inhibition. but mammalian RAP1 lacks this direct binding capability. As described in detail above. This TPP1 binding is necessary for effective TRF2-TIN2-TRF1 interaction. hTR. Rap1 is a negative regulator of telomerase length. Mammalian RAP1 is therefore dependent upon TRF2 for its interaction with the telosome complex (Palm and de Lange. The TRFH dimerization domain of TRF1 interacts with a FxLxP motif in the Cterminal region of TIN2. The TIN2-TPP1 interaction appears to be a crucial factor in overall shelterin stability (O'Connor et al. 45kDa protein that interacts with TRF1 and inhibits telomerase in vivo and in vitro. Overexpression of the PinX1 C-terminal TID substantially reduces the replicative capacity of a cell population by hindering the telomere-lengthening function of telomerase. RAP1 has a BRCT motif at its Nterminus. However. Depletion of endogenous PinX1 by RNA interference causes an increase in the enzymatic activity of telomerase . PinX1 is a TRF1-interacting telomerase inhibitor PinX1 is a 328 amino acid. and the template RNA.. 2008). and a Cterminal RCT domain (Li et al. 2008). 2004)..
the yeast Gno1p does not act in vivo as a negative regulator of telomerase activity like its human homologue. Yeast PinX1p (also known as Gno1p) has functions in both telomerase regulation and snRNA/rRNA processing. the yeast homologue is not known to interact with any other telomeric proteins. The N-terminal (aa 2-252) region of PinX1 is unable to bind hTR. Unlike human PinX1. The yeast PinX1p is involved in pre-ribosomal RNA (rRNA) processing and end-trimming of two small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs). This artifact effect is more probable in light of a study overexpressing yeast PinX1 in wild-type cells that found a consequent shortening of telomeres. The binding of PinX1 to hTR is thus not attributable to the general RNA binding ability of PinX1 (Banik and Counter. 2004). In fact. 2004). PinX1 binds to the region of hTERT that also interacts with the hTR template RNA. a glycine-rich domain widely conserved among eukaryotes (Aravind and Koonin. Rather. 2001). this effect may be an artifact of slow growth in the mutant phenotype (Guglielmi and Werner.16 and a lengthening of telomeres. 2007). Telomerase activity is repressed in vivo by the PinX1 TID binding to the assembled hTERT-hTR complex (Banik and Counter. implying that even though the hTERT binding regions for PinX1 and hTR overlap. This is important to note considering the overlaps of the hTR and PinX1 binding regions of hTERT. Still. depletion or mutation of the yeast Gno1p in this study resulted in slightly shorter telomeres. 2002). The mutation or absence of the hTR RNA subunit did not reduce the PinX1-hTERT interaction effect (Banik and Counter. A study by Guglielmi and Werner (2002) asserts that though it does have a function in telomere length regulation. Both human and yeast PinX1 homologues are nucleolar proteins (Lin et al. but not without the presence of hTERT. The Gpatch RNA binding domain is essential for both of these functions.. PinX1 also binds hTR in vivo in telomerase-positive cells. 2004) via its G-patch. binding of PinX1 does not obstruct the interaction of the telomerase components in vivo. Cell extracts with yPinX1 overexpression exhibited decreased telomerase activity when compared to those cells . 1999). However. The PinX1-interacting hTERT fragments (aa 17-546 and aa 523-924) overlap with the hTERT N-terminal RNA-binding domain (aa 326-620). The C-terminal (aa 253-328) region of PinX1 also binds directly to the telomerase hTR subunit in vitro. as shown by a standard TRAP assay (Zhou and Lu. it is likely that PinX1 accomplishes its function as a telomerase inhibitor via its interaction with the assembled hTERT-hTR holoenzyme. in contrast to the lengthening of telomeres caused by depletion of hPinX1. hTERT immunoprecipitates with hTR in the presence of PinX1.
This stands in contrast to the yeast PinX1 homologue. 2004). laevis tissues.. There have been preliminary investigations into the function of X. 2009). laevis PinX1 as a telomerase inhibitor. This does not conclusively refute the possibility for rat PinX1 inhibition of telomerase. however. supporting the possibility for conservation of function among other vertebrates. it is safe to conclude that sub-nuclear shuttling and telomerase regulation are directed by different domains of hPinX1. showing that yeast PinX1 directly decreases telomerase enzymatic activity in vitro. There is differential PinX1 expression among X. 2007). exhibiting a negative relationship between PinX1 abundance and telomerase activity (Gaubatz. However. A substantial fraction of cells coexpressing hTERT and the central region of the hPinX1 polypeptide (aa 142-254) showed nucleolar concentration. along with the above identification of the TID by Zhou and Lu (2001). TRAP assays comparing overexpression of wild-type PinX1 and this mutated PinX1 with a vector control do not show dramatic telomerase inhibition with either PinX1 as effectively as the authors claim (Lin et al. but no observable impact on telomerase activity. Cellular overexpression of rat PinX1 in mouse cells caused gradual telomere shortening. Overexpression of hPinX1 does force hTERT to translocate from the nucleoplasm into the nucleolus. though there is no conclusive evidence thus far (Constant. The model for human regulation of telomerase is different. with this data on the overexpression of the central hTERT subnuclear localization domain. Xenopus laevis PinX1 has been previously cloned and its expression in various tissues characterized. Lin et al. which purportedly accomplishes telomerase regulation via the mechanism of nucleolar sequestering. . 2007). Those cells coexpressing hTERT with either the hPinX1 N-terminal (aa 1-142) or C-terminal terminal TID (aa 254-328) domain showed no such effects on subnuclear localization patterns of hTERT. the centrally located domain of hPinX1 that mediates nucleolar localization of hTERT is functionally and structurally separated from the C-terminal TID. assert that their results show that a double mutation affecting the nucleolar localization capacity of PinX1 does not impact telomerase inhibition. The function of PinX1 as a nucleolar protein that regulates telomere length is conserved in the rat. Still. 2007).17 with vector-only control.. as a recombinant protein may be necessary for detection of this effect (Oh et al. The nucleolar localization function of PinX1 is also conserved in the rat. One resulting model proposes that yPinX1 homologue regulates telomerase by sequestering the reverse-transcriptase protein subunit TERT (Est2p in yeast) in a nucleolar inactive complex lacking the RNA component (Lin and Blackburn.
This blockade to nucleolar localization would. was further confirmed via coimmunoprecipitation and colocalization experiments (Zhou and Lu. structurally identical apart from an internal 20 aa deletion.18 The roles of telomeres. disrupt the ability of PinX1 to sequester hTERT in the nucleolus (Lin et al. TRF1 and PinX1 have implications in the proliferative potential of cancerous cells. 2007). These observations suggest that PinX1 may be a tumor suppressor in humans. avoiding senescence caused by the gradual telomere shortening that occurs during successive cell replication (Verdun and Kalseder.. in turn. Overexpression of human PinX1 decreases telomerase activity and therefore also reduces the proliferative potential of cancerous cells. though it does not have this affect in cells with long telomeres. Mutations of two residues that are found commonly in human hepatocarcinoma patients were introduced to an hPinX1 construct. A mutant version of hPinX1 reported in some cancers does not have the capacity for this hTERT nucleolar localization. Telomerase-activity-linked expression of hTERT occurs in about 85% of cancerous cells. Such expression is thus the best available marker for cancer detection (De Boeck et al. Overexpression of human PinX1 forces hTERT to translocate from the nucleoplasm to the nucleolus of cancer cells. Continuous activity of telomerase causes these cells to be immortal. Because of their regulatory effects on telomerase.. Overexpression of the TRF1 isoform Pin2 induces apoptosis in cells with short telomeres.. disrupting the ability of the mutant construct to accumulate in the nucleolus. The interaction of PinX1 and Trf1 PinX1 was first identified as a TRF1/Pin2-interacting protein in a human HeLa cell yeast two-hybrid cDNA library screen (Zhou and Lu. Pin2 is 5-10 fold more abundant in cells than TRF1 (Shen et al. The expression of the human telomerase TERT component in fibroblasts results in telomere elongation. Depletion of PinX1 expression increases telomerase activity and tumorigenicity (Zhou and Lu. suggesting that this down-regulation is key for the proliferative capability of tumor cells (Kishi et al. The interaction of PinX1 and TRF1/Pin2. Down-regulation of TRF1/Pin2 permits the maintenance of long telomeres by allowing greater telomerase access to the chromosome ends. 2001). . Pin2 is a splice variant of TRF1. 2001a). TRF1/Pin2 abundance is significantly lower in cancerous tissues. 2001). 2009). 1997). TRF1 and PinX1 in oncogenesis Because of their role in maintaining chromosome integrity and facilitating cell proliferation. defective telomeres play a crucial role in oncogenesis.. both in vivo and in vitro. 2007).
This PinX1 binding region contains the conserved motif F/Y-X-L-X-P. The X. telomerase is not expressed in most somatic tissues. 1998).. As discussed in more detail above. in that telomeres in Xenopus somatic cells are no shorter than germ cells (Bassham et al.. Xenopus telomere length regulation is different from that observed in humans... and a clone is readily available in the lab for further manipulations. make X. laevis and X. 2003) and developing embryos (Mantell and Greider.. The PinX1 R291-L and the TRF1 R142-F residues were crucial to this interaction in mutagenesis studies (Chen et al. The hTRF1 motif. tropicalis have homologs of TRF1 with a truncated D/E-rich acidic domain. suggesting that telomere length is actively regulated by cell cycle dependent recruitment of TRF1 to telomeres (Nishiyama et al. Xenopus laevis TRF1 (xlTRF1) has previously been sequenced and characterized. also found in the TRFH-interacting domains of TIN2 and Apollo. 2006).19 2001). This lack of telomerase causes telomeres to shorten and cells to senesce after a certain quantity of divisions (Chan and Blackburn. This high identity within the X. 2006). Xenopus as a model organism X. laevis is an especially ideal model for studying cellular and developmental genetics. 1998). Both X. the activity of telomerase is higher when associated with interphase than with mitotic chromatin. as its embryos are particularly large and manipulable.. which may have implications for xlTRF1 regulation. 1994). This interaction was confirmed by ITC (isothermal titration microcalorimetry) using TRF2 as a non-binding control. Progeny are quickly generated from in vitro fertilizations and embryos have easily identifiable developmental stages. laevis TRFH dimerization domain may have implications for the interaction of this region with PinX1. In Xenopus egg extracts. RXXPDG. Xenopus laevis is an ideal model organism for the study of telomere function because it exhibits constitutive telomerase activity in all somatic tissues (Bousman et al. These characteristics. The TRFH domain of human TRF1/Pin2 binds the R284-E-G-R-D-F-T-L-K-P-KK-R-R-G-R299 fragment of PinX1. 2004). that interacts with the hTRF1 regulator tankyrase is not present in this shortened acidic domain. along with differences in telomere length and patterns between individuals. laevis dimerization domain shares 49% identity and 68% similarity with the human equivalent (Crumet et al. In humans. 2008). laevis an interesting model for the study of telomere variation (Bassham et al. .
laevis telomerase has been cloned (Kuramoto et al. 2001). at least in one aspect.20 Xenopus laevis PinX1 (xlPinX1) has previously been cloned and is readily available in the lab. Xenopus TRF1 has exhibited very similar structure and functions to those of humans and other vertebrates (Crumet et al. This study aims to use epitope tagged clones of the xlTRF1 and xlPinX1 proteins to investigate interaction in a coimmunoprecipitation assay. laevis tissues (Gaubatz. One possible hypothesis is that the X. laevis regulates its abundant telomerase. laevis proteins TRF1 and PinX1 will exhibit the same interaction as they do in humans. laevis proteins are found to interact. The amount of identity in these regions between species (discussed further in the results and discussion section . The differential telomerase activity among tissues is not due only to diffusible inhibitors of telomerase. A previous study found a negative relationship between endogenous PinX1 abundance and telomerase activity in X. laevis that TRF1 does in fact form a homodimer. Human PinX1 interacts with the hTERT regions aa 17-546 and aa 523-925 (Banik and Counter. Another possible hypothesis is that X. 2001) and characterized previously. laevis PinX1 and TRF1 will be shown not to interact. laevis and humans. This interaction has previously been established with the human homologues of these proteins (Zhou and Lu. 2006. 2007). Ascertaining whether the Xenopus proteins interact in a similar fashion will provide another building block towards using Xenopus as a model organism for the study of telomeres and telomeric regulation. laevis telomere regulation that is. 2006). substantially different from that for humans. 2003). As it has not yet been confirmed in X. Nishiyama et al. Experimental goals and design This study strives to investigate the in vitro interaction of TRF1 and PinX1 in Xenopus laevis. as shown by mixing experiments combining extracts from tissues with high and low telomerase activity (Bousman et al... Such a finding would move toward a model for X. this outcome would be in line with the trend of intra-species conservation of telomeric protein function among vertebrates. The TERT unit of X. This hypothesis can first be refined by probing the conservation of the interacting domains of PinX1 and TRF1 between X. Finding that the proteins do not interact would imply the evolution of some other mechanism by which X. the experiment will also test this potential in parallel. 2004)... If the X. through coimmunoprecipitation assays with epitope-tagged full-length xlTRF1 and the xlTRF1 dimerization domain.
But if the domains are not highly similar between species and the proteins are still shown to interact.21 below) could provide a refined hypothesis of the likelihood that PinX1 and TRF1 interact. . this finding would provide valuable information as well in the quest for better understanding of the relationships of protein interactions among and within species.
. and chicken (ACD68268). Xenopus tropicalis (NP_001137394). Sequence data was retrieved from the NCBI Entrez Nucleotide database (http://www. PCR primers used to create Myc-tagged xlTRF1dd construct.1).ch. The full-length xlTRF1 protein sequence of the clone of study is available in Figure 3.1. Gaubatz. Crumet and Shampay. Table 2. PCR construction of Myc-tagged xlTRF1dd Primer design Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) primers were designed to amplify the gene of interest with epitope tag sequences (Table 2. unpublished). Primer name xlTRF1dd-F (w/ MluI site. Myc tag) xlTRF1dd-R (w/ NotI site) 5’ 3’ Sequence ACGCGTaccatgggcGAACAGAAGTTGATTTCCGAAG AAGACCTCgatgacacggccGCTGTTG GCGGCCGCttaCTGAATATCCAGTTCTTCTTTTGCT . Xenopus tropicalis (translation from mRNA EU520259).Materials & Methods Sequence alignment analysis Preliminary analyses were performed to visually compare TRF1 and PinX1 gene and protein sequences between different species. Xenopus laevis (sequence of clone available in lab. The PinX1 protein sequences used were human (AAS19507).ncbi.1. The TRF1 sequences used were human (AAB54036).genome.embnet. mouse (NP_082504) and rat (ABO28828).4 (Institut Jean Roche) to check for potential primer-dimer complications and to anticipate annealing temperatures for PCRs. France) was used to reverse translate epitope tag sequences into DNA primer sequence. Primers for xlTRF1dd sequences were obtained from IDT. 2006) clone already available. kozak sequence. Xenopus laevis (sequence of clone available in lab.html) was then used to shade the sequences in a visually logical pattern corresponding to similarity and identity of individual residues. The primers were designed using gene sequences of an xlTRF1 (Crumet et al. 2007). The program DNA Strider (CEA. Primers were designed using the program AmplifX v.org/software/ BOX_ form. mouse (NP_033378).nlm.jp/).nih.gov/sites/entrez?db= nuccore) and aligned using the program Multiple Sequence Alignment by ClustalW (http://align.1. The program BoxShade (http://www.
Shampay). PCRs included the following reagents. Step # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Purpose Initial Denaturation Denaturation Annealing Extension Repeat steps 2-4 Denaturation Annealing Extension Repeat steps 6-8 Final Extension Hold Temperature 98ºC 98ºC 50-58ºC gradient 72ºC Duration 30 sec 10 sec 30 sec 20 sec (5 cycles total) 98ºC 64-72ºC gradient 72ºC 10 sec 30 sec 20 sec (25 cycles total) 72ºC 4ºC 10 min ∞ .1 plasmid clone available (Crumet et al.2. 2006).1 plasmid DNA template (generous gift of J. as specified in Table 2. Each 25 µL PCR was run in a thin-walled PCR-specific 0. Finnzymes). Reactions were run under cycle conditions with two different annealing temperatures. 0. Finnzymes). 100 pg T16 xlTRF1 pCR®2.25 µM final.5 µL dNTPs (200 µM final each of dATP. dTTP.24 Amplification of desired construct PCR was used to amplify the dimerization domain from the xlTRF1 T16 pCR®2. dCTP. and 18. IDT).25 µL each of forward and reverse primers (0. Such optimization was crucial due to the particularly lengthy nature of the xlTRF1dd-F primer. New England Biolabs).2. PCRs were performed in a MJ PTC-200 Peltier Gradient Thermal Cycler (MJ Research).2 mL tube. Conditions for the PCR program were optimized by first running several reactions over a gradient of annealing temperatures to find the optimal temperatures of 50ºC (first 5 cycles) and 64ºC (final 25 cycles) for xlTRF1dd amplification.25 µL Phusion™ HighFidelity DNA Polymerase (2 U/µL. 0..25 µL nanopure H2O to bring to final volume. 5 µL 5X Phusion™ High-Fidelity buffer (1X final. Table 2. dGTP. Cycling program for amplification of xlTRF1dd. each an aliquot from a master mix designed for multiple reactions: 0.
25 To ensure the production of appropriately sized products, a portion of each PCR product was analyzed on 1% SeaKem LE agarose gel in 1X TBE buffer (ISC). Gels were run at 106 V for approximately 45 minutes. A 100 bp DNA ladder (New England Biolabs) was used as a size marker for product comparison. Gels were stained for 15-30 minutes in ethidium bromide (1 µg/mL) and de-stained for 10-20 minutes in deionized water. Gels were visualized via trans-UV illumination in a Kodak EDAS 290.
Subcloning of xlTRF1dd PCR product into intermediate vector
PCR product purification PCR products were purified to stop the action of the Phusion™ polymerase in preparation for topoisomerase-mediated subcloning of the xlTRF1dd gene. The products from multiple PCRs were pooled in one vial. Nanopure water was added to bring the total volume to 100 µL. An equal volume (100 µL) of phenol:chloroform:IAA was added to the vial and the reaction was shaken until cloudy. The sample was then spun for 10 minutes at 2000 xg and the aqueous phase was transferred to a clean tube. To this aqueous phase, 1/10 volume (10 µL) of 3 M NaCl was added, followed by 2.5 volumes (250 µL) of cold (-20ºC) 95% EtOH. The reaction was vortexed briefly, then placed on ice for 20 minutes. The tube was centrifuged at 12000 xg for 15 minutes. Excess EtOH was removed by pipetting, leaving a pellet of DNA in the bottom of the vial. The pellet was dried at room temperature for about 20 minutes before proceeding with the next step. The dried DNA pellet was resuspended in 21.5 µL of nanopure H2O with 2.5 µL of 10X Taq buffer (New England Biolabs) and 0.5 µL Taq polymerase (New England Biolabs) to add an A overhang for TOPO® cloning. The reaction was incubated for 10 minutes at 72 ºC before proceeding immediately to TOPO® cloning. Products from the Taq polymerase A overhang addition were confirmed by visualization on a 1.0% agarose gel. Subcloning and transformation of E. coli Subcloning of xlTRF1dd was performed using the TOPO® TA Cloning® kit (Invitrogen). Four microliters of purified PCR product with A overhangs was combined with 1µL TOPO® kit salt solution and 1µL pCR®8/GW/TOPO® vector (hereafter abbreviated TOPO® vector). The reaction was mixed gently and incubated for 5 minutes at room temperature and then placed on ice. These clones were then transformed into One Shot® chemically competent E. coli cells (Invitrogen). For each reaction, one vial of One Shot® cells was thawed on ice and
26 divided into two 25 µL aliquots. Subsequently, 1.5 µL of the TOPO® cloning reaction product were added to one of these 25 µL aliquots of cells. The other aliquot was used as a positive control for transformation by addition of 10 pg of pUC19 vector, a supercoiled control plasmid. Cells were mixed gently with these vector additions and incubated on ice for 30 minutes. Cells were heat shocked for 30 seconds in a 42ºC water bath and immediately returned to ice. Next, 250 µL of room temperature S.O.C. medium (2% tryptone, 0.5% yeast extract, 10 mM NaCl, 2.5 mM KCl, 10 mM MgCl2, 10 mM MgSO4, 20 mM glucose) was added to these cells. The vials were capped and shaken horizontally at 200 rpm in a 37ºC incubator for one hour. Reactions utilizing the xlTRF1dd transformants in the pCR®8/GW/TOPO® vector were plated on LB agar plates containing 100 µg/mL spectinomycin. Transformants with the pUC19 control plasmid were selected for on 100µg/mL ampicillin LB agar plates. Each reaction was plated in two different amounts of 10 µL and 290 µL to ensure at least one plate with a good distribution of colonies. Plates were incubated overnight at 37ºC. Small plasmid DNA isolations Plasmid-containing bacteria were grown overnight in 2 mL LB liquid cultures inoculated with appropriate selection antibiotic, shaking at 200 rpm in a 37ºC inclubator, slanted for aeration. From each of these cultures, 500 µL were transferred into plastic reaction tubes and centrifuged at 12,000 xg for 1 minute. The supernatant was removed and the cells were resuspended in 100 µL STET buffer (5% Triton X-100, 8% w/v sucrose, 50 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris (pH 8.0)). Following suspension, 10 µL of freshlyprepared lysozyme solution (10 mg/mL) was added to each sample. Samples were boiled for 45 seconds then immediately centrifuged for 10 minutes at 12,000 g. The resulting large, balloon-like pellets of cellular detritus and chromosomal DNA were then removed from the samples and discarded. To the remaining supernatant, 100 µL of cold isopropanol was added. The samples were then vortexed and chilled at -20ºC for 30 minutes. DNA was collected by centrifugation for 10 minutes at 12,000 g. The supernatant was removed from each sample and the remaining pellets were resuspended in 25 µL RNase A solution (50 µg/mL in TE buffer). Samples were incubated for 30 minutes at 37ºC, and stored at 4ºC for later use. Analysis of isolated plasmid DNA TOPO® plasmid isolations were checked for proper size of insert with double digests with MluI and NotI restriction enzymes. DNA was treated with a master mix (1x
27 final concentration NEBuffer 3, 0.1 mg/mL final concentration bovine serum albumen) and cut with five units (0.5 µL each) of MluI and/or NotI enzymes (New England Biolabs). Reactions were incubated overnight at 37ºC. Restriction digest products were visualized by electrophoresis in 1.0% SeaKem LE agarose in 1X TBE buffer. Samples of plasmid DNA were purified by polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation. An equal volume of 13% PEG in1.6 M NaCl was added to plasmid DNA preparations. The reaction was placed on ice for 20 minutes, then centrifuged at 12,000xg at 4ºC for 15 minutes. The resulting pellet was rinsed with cold 70% EtOH and suspended in 20 µL nanopure H2O. DNA concentration was quantified on 0.8% SeaKem LE agarose in 1X TBE buffer by comparison with lanes of λ-phage DNA cut with HindIII (25ng and 75ng; New England Biolabs). Sequencing was performed following procedure outlined below.
Construction of pTNT™ in vitro translation clone
Ligation into pTNT™ vector Proper clones containing both the xlTRF1dd and Myc-tag epitope sequences were cut out of the TOPO® vector using the same restriction digestion protocol outlined above. The pTNT™ in vitro translation vector (Promega) was cut in its multiple cloning site using these same MluI and NotI restriction enzymes, using the procedure described above for TOPO® clone analysis. DNA was treated with a master mix (1x final concentration NEBuffer 3, 0.1 mg/mL final concentration bovine serum albumen) and cut with five units (0.5 µL each) of MluI and/or NotI enzymes (New England Biolabs). The samples were then heat inactivated for 20 minutes at 65ºC. Samples of each of the digestion products (3 µL each of MluI- and NotI-digested pTNT™ vector and TRF1ddTOPO vector) were run on a 0.8% agarose gel and quantified by comparison with lanes of λ-phage DNA cut with HindIII (25ng and 75ng). The xlTRF1dd-Myc clones were then ligated into the pTNT™ in vitro translation vector, using an approximately 2-to-1 ratio of insert to vector to produce optimal ligation results. The reaction combined 12 µL double-digested TRF1dd-TOPO® plasmid DNA (approximately 150-200 ng), 2 µL double-digested pTNT™ vector (approximately 65 ng), 2.5 µL T4 DNA ligase buffer with 10mM ATP (1X final; New England Biolabs), 1 µL T4 NA ligase (400 units/µL; New England Biolabs), and nanopure H2O to a final volume of 25 µL. The ligation reaction was incubated overnight at 17.5ºC.
The culture was divided into two 50 mL conical tubes and centrifuged at 3000xg at 4ºC for 30 minutes.5 µL) was digested with 4 units each of MluI and NotI restriction endonucleases (New England Biolabs) in NEBuffer3 and BSA (1X final each. The solution was centrifuged at 15. The supernatant was decanted and the pellet dried for 10 minutes. The QIAfilter cartridge outlet nozzle tip was removed. the plunger was inserted. The reactions were then plated on LB agar plates with 100 µg/mL ampicillin. The culture was grown overnight at 37ºC shaking at 300 rpm. coli with pTNT-xlTRF1dd vector The ligation product was transformed into One Shot® chemically competent E. The pellet was redissolved in 100 µL nuclease-free TE. 4 mL of Buffer P2 was added and the solution was mixed by inversion before incubation at room temperature for 5 minutes. The lysate was allowed to enter the tip resin by gravity.000xg for 10 minutes at 4ºC. One vial of One Shot® cells was thawed on ice and divided into two 25 µL aliquots. coli cells (Invitrogen). A large 100 mL of ampicillin-selective (100 µg/mL) LB medium culture was inoculated with 200 µL of starter culture from the initial ligation products. poured into the QIAfilter cartridge.28 Transformation of E. Subsequently. A positive control reaction and transformation procedures were performed as outlined above for E. and incubated at room temperature for 10 minutes. To the lysate was added 4 mL chilled Buffer P3. Plates were incubated overnight at 37ºC. The DNA was eluted into a glass centrifuge tube with 5 mL Buffer QF. then the tip was washed with two 10 mL volumes of Buffer QC. mixed. A QIAGEN-tip 100 was equilibrated by gravity flow of 4 mL of Buffer QBT through the tip. The lysate was mixed by inversion. and the lysate was filtered into the equilibrated tip. . One of the resulting pellets was resuspended by vortexing in 4 mL Buffer P1 with RNase A (final 100 µg/mL). 25 µL and 240 µL.5 µL of the pTNT-xlTRF1dd ligation product were added to one of these 25 µL aliquots of cells. The supernatant was decanted and the pellet was washed with 2 mL of room temperature 70% EtOH. Plasmid DNA was isolated and analyzed by restriction digestion. and centrifuged at 15. Next. Control pUC19 transformations were plated with 10 µL and 265 µL.5 mL of room temperature isopropanol. 3. A sample of this DNA (0. The pTNT-xlTRF1dd transformation reaction was plated in three different amounts of 10 µL.000xg for 30 minutes at 4ºC. pTNT-xlTRF1dd plasmid purification The pTNT-TRF1dd plasmid was purified using the QIAfilter Midi Plasmid Purification Kit (all components from Qiagen unless otherwise noted). The eluate was precipitated with 3. coli transformation with TOPO® clones.
A parallel control reaction was performed to translate luciferase. 0.29 New England Biolabs) in a final volume of 20 µL. The TNT® T7 quick master mix was rapidly thawed then placed immediately on ice. The components were gently mixed by pipetting and then incubated at 30ºC for 90 minutes. RNasin® ribonuclease inhibitor. France). Jin (cloning described in Jin. These samples were sent to the Vollum DNA sequencing core facility. Text files of each of the sequences were created in DNA Strider (CEA. Sequencing was performed following the procedure below. http://www.geospiza. TNT® reaction buffer.com/Products/finchtv. and amino acid mixture minus methionine).0 µL Transcend™ tRNA. and 1. These text files were then aligned in the DNA anti-parallel method and analyzed for inconsistencies between forward and reverse sequences.2 mL PCR tubes. The reaction was assembled with the following components: 20 µL TNT® T7 quick master mix (containing TNT® rabbit reticulocyte lysate. The xlTRF1-Flag plasmid template was the generous gift of J. Reactions used for immunoprecipitation and coimmunoprecipitation procedures contained the following components (double these volumes for co-IP): 40 µL TNT® T7 . 2009). and nuclease-free H2O to a final volume of 25 µL. approximately 150-300 ng of purified template DNA were combined with either 3.2 µL.0 µL Transcend™ tRNA. The resulting sequence files were visualized with FinchTV software (Geospiza.6 µg plasmid DNA template. Sequence analysis of plasmid DNA For sequencing of both TOPO® and pTNT™ clones.5 µL.0 µL uncut.5 µg/µL).5 µL methionine (1 mM).8% SeaKem LE agarose gel in TBE and quantified by comparison with lanes of λphage DNA cut with HindIII (25ng and 75ng). 0.2 pmol of the appropriate forward or reverse primer to a final volume of 9 µL in 0. and 1µL and 3µL restriction digested) were run on a 0. 1. ~0. 1 µL luciferase control DNA template (0. These samples of the purified DNA (0. TNT® T7 RNA polymerase amino acid mixture minus leucine. The resulting sequence data was compared with published sequences to ensure the construct was properly inserted without mutations or deletions.shtml). In vitro expression of proteins Protein products were created using the TNT® coupled reticulocyte transcription/translation kit (all reagents from Promega except plasmid templates).5 µL methionine (1 mM). The reaction was assembled with the following: 20 µL TNT® T7 quick master mix. and nuclease-free H2O to a final volume of 25 µL. 1. 0.
pH 7. Next. gently mixing the contents each time then removing the supernatant after pulling the beads to the side with the magnet. 150 mM NaCl.0 µL 7X protease inhibitor (Roche). 1. 25 µL of fresh Protein A Magnetic Beads were added and gently mixed. Then. 1. 100 mM DTT).0 µL methionine (1 mM). The protein and antibody was eluted from the beads by incubating suspension at 70 ºC for 5 minutes. 2% SDS. The contents were gently mixed and incubated as above at 30ºC for 90 minutes.) to pull the beads to the side of the tube. To do this. Ten percent of each in vitro translation reaction was set aside to serve as an input comparison in SDS-PAGE analysis of IP results. Inc. Constant (cloning and expression described in Constant. 0. Immunoprecipitation Immunoprecipitation (IP) was performed to isolate the proteins of interest. The protein beads were washed four times with 500 µL of TBS (25 mM Tris base.8). and nuclease-free H2O to a final volume of 50 µL. 2. and the solution was then incubated for 1 hour at 4 ºC with rotation. a 100 µL . the magnetic field was applied to the side of the tube and the supernatant set aside for later comparison. The mixture was again gently mixed and incubated for 2 hour at 4 ºC with rotation. and the supernatant was transferred to a clean tube. Protein A Magnetic Beads (New England Biolabs) were precleared for nonspecific binding from the translation reaction reticulocyte lysate. The beads were kept for later comparison with elutions of desired IP product. This supernatant contains the immunoprecipitated protein and was run on SDS-PAGE gels in various dilutions.1% bromophenol blue. The bead pellet was resuspended in 30 µL 1X SDS sample loading buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 6. Coimmunoprecipitation Purified xlPinX1-His protein was the generous gift of D. 10% glycerol. Following incubation.2 µg purified plasmid DNA template.0 µL Transcend™ tRNA. First. The magnetic field was applied again and the supernatant removed.6). A magnetic field was applied with a BioMag® Microcentrifuge Tube Separator (Polysciences. 4 µg of the appropriate antibody for each construct was added to the supernatant. The mixture was mixed gently and incubated for 1 hour at 4 ºC with rotation. 5. 2009).30 quick master mix. A xlPinX1-His mixture had to be developed that mimicked the in vitro translated xlTRF1full-Flag protein. 25 µL of Protein A Magnetic Beads were added to the remaining 45 µL of the in vitro translation product. To do this.
one each to have a co-IP performed with either the Flag or His antibody (Sigma). 2% SDS. IP experiments were performed in parallel with the other 50 µL from each of the in vitro xlTRF1full-Flag and mock-in vitro xlPinX1-His solutions created above. 10% SDS. Just as for the IP. 250 mM glycine. Gels were run in 1X Tris-Glycine Electrophoresis buffer (25 mM Tris base. 10% glycerol. and the rest was split into two 40 µL. 0. 50 µL of this xlPinX1-His mixture was combined with 50 µL of in vitro translated xlTRF1full-Flag product. a portion of the mixture was then set aside for an input comparison. Excess stain . starting with the step intended to preclear the Protein A Magnetic Beads from nonspecific binding. 1. tetramethylethylenediamine) along with unstained and stained protein standards (Bio Rad Precision Plus) brought to a final volume of 15 µL with 1X SDS sample loading buffer. 70 ºC incubation at the end of the IP procedure serves to similarly denature IP and co-IP protein samples.10% SDS) at a constant 200 V until all dyes from the loading buffers had run off the bottom of the gel. Visualization of proteins SDS-PAGE separation of protein products Samples were prepared in 15 µL final volume of 1X SDS sample loading buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 6. The rest of the co-IP procedure copies that of the IP. one half of a gel with duplicate samples was visualized using Coomassie Fluor™ (Invitrogen). Visualization of total protein For initial detection of total protein and standards. Input protein samples were denatured in this buffer volume for 10 minutes at 60ºC.8).1% bromophenol blue. A schematic of the experimental design for the IP and co-IP reactions and visualization procedures for each antibody can be found in Figure 3.8).12. 100 mM DTT). (The 5 minute. 10% ammonium persulfate. only without any plasmid template. 0. This solution was incubated for 30 minutes at 30 ºC. Gel was incubated in 30 mL Coomassie Fluor™ in a covered dish for 1 hour with gentle shaking.5 mM Tris (pH 6.31 reticulocyte transcription/translation reaction was performed as outlined above. The mixture for this reaction was incubated at 30 ºC for 90 minutes in parallel to mimic the translation conditions of the xlTRF1full-Flag reaction.) Samples were run on two halves of a 15% denaturing polyacrylamide gel (40% acrylamide/bisacrylamide. For co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP).
6 mL pre-mixed Western Lightning™Plus-ECL (PerkinElmer Life Sciences. The Genie Blotter (Idea Scientific Company) transfer apparatus was assembled with the gel was sandwiched next to the membrane in between thin blotting paper. Standards and other transferred proteins were visualized by staining in Ponceau for 5 minutes. Gel was visualized and photographed via trans-UV illumination in a Kodak EDAS 290. the membrane was washed twice for 10 minutes each in 15 mL TBST with shaking. The membrane was blocked in TBST (TBS pH 7. The membrane was washed in H2O for several minutes to stop the development reaction and then air-dried for storage. Excess Western Lightning™ substrate was drained and the membrane was placed between two transparency sheets with occasional rocking.6.5 mM Tris. The membrane was washed twice in 15 mL TBST for 1 minute each.5% Tween 20) for anywhere from an hour to overnight. Detection of His-tagged protein on western blot A western was performed to visualize IP and co-IP reactions precipitated with a His antibody. Color signal was developed by incubating in 5 mL Western Blue® Stabilized Substrate for Alkaline Phosphatase (Promega) for 515 minutes until the bands reached a desired intensity.) equal parts oxidizing and enhanced luminol reagents for 5 minutes. then twice in 15 mL water for 1 minute each. 10% methanol). The membrane was removed from the device. The protein was transferred for 1 hour at 12 V. Following electroblot transfer to a nitrocellulose membrane and blocking in 3% BSA in TBST. The membrane was washed four times in 15 mL TBST for 10 minutes each. The probe was detected by incubating in 1. Detection of biotin labeled amino acids Colorimetric detection was performed to visualize Transcend™ biotin labeled amino acids incorporated into in vitro-expressed proteins. Electroblotting Proteins were electroblotted to a nitrocellulose membrane. sponges and two electrodes.32 was rinsed off in H2O for 5 minutes. The membrane was . 0. Inc. 96 mM glycine. The blocked membrane was incubated with 6 µL Streptavidin Alkaline Phosphatase (Promega) in 15 mL TBST for 1 hour with shaking. The membrane was incubated in 10 mL His-probe (Pierce) working solution (1/5000 dilution of His probe in TBST with 3% BSA) for 1 hour with shaking. The membrane and adjacent components were submerged in ½X Transfer buffer / 10% methanol (12. Major transferred bands were marked with a permanent pen and membrane was destained in H2O.
. fixed in GBX Fixer and Replenisher (Kodak) for 5-10 minutes. rinsed for 30 seconds. washed in running water for 5-10 minutes and hung to dry.33 exposed to Blue Lite Autorad Film (ISC) in a light-tight folder for periods ranging from 30 seconds to 10 minutes. The film was developed in GBX Developer and Replenisher (Kodak) for 5-10 minutes.
the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of TRF1 and PinX1 proteins were compared. The dimerization domain of human TRF1 (hTRF1) comprises residues 72-265. respectively). . and a Myc-tagged xlTRF1 dimerization domain. In silico protein sequence analyses As a preliminary analysis and to aid in the development of primers. The X. with the exception of a high inter-species identity in the C-terminal Myb domain. This chapter first outlines the cloning and expression of the xlTRF1 dimerization domain (xlTRF1dd) protein with a unique Myc epitope tag. laevis sequence that aligns with this region of hTRF1 – the putative xlTRF1dd – stretches from residues 15-211 (based on TRF1 sequence available in lab). The putative xlTRF1dd is further towards the Nterminus than its human homologue in because xlTRF1 is characterized by a truncated Nterminal acidic domain (Crumet et al. a Flag-tagged full-length xlTRF1. laevis and human sequences of the TRF1 dimerization domain.. Next. The dimerization domain region shows more significant identity between species than most of the rest of the TRF1 sequence. laevis PinX1 and full-length TRF1 have previously been cloned. it describes preliminary experiments to test the interaction of xlPinX1 and xlTRF1. There is significant identity between X. 2006). The xlTRF1 Myb domain is characterized by 76% identity with the hTRF1 Myb domain. The constructs involved in the study were a His. TRF1 sequence analysis A species comparison of TRF1 protein sequences is presented in Figure 3.1.and GFP-tagged xlPinX1. These alignments make evident the regions of similarity and divergence between the homologues of the proteins of study in different species..Results & Discussion Overview The present study endeavored to express three proteins in vitro in order to study the interaction of Xenopus laevis TRF1 and PinX1 (hereinafter abbreviated xlTRF1 and xlPinX1. and the dimerization domain shares 49% identity and 68% similarity with the human equivalent (Crumet et al. indicating a good chance that the domain’s function and interaction characteristics will be conserved between species. X. 2006).
chicken (ACD68268). Star indicates conserved residue R142-F. mouse (NP_033378). Xenopus laevis (sequence of clone available in lab. This region was the sequence cloned in the xlTRF1dd Myc-tagged construct.36 Figure 3. Line indicates the region corresponding to the human TRF1 dimerization domain. Sequences used for alignment are human (AAB54036). unpublished). laevis proteins lends credence to the possibility of similar domain interaction functions in the . Crumet and Shampay. and Xenopus tropicalis (NP_001137394). This high sequence similarity of the dimerization domain between human and X.1. TRF1 amino acid sequence alignment among species.
and Xenopus tropicalis (translation of mRNA EU520259). The sequence with the R27-T residue was used for the alignment in Figure 3. as this is the sequence in the available clone. PinX1 amino acid sequence alignment among species. Xenopus TRF1 exhibits a polymorphism at residue 27. is conserved across all species aligned.. Furthermore.. Line indicates region of human PinX1 found to bind the TRF1 homology / dimerization domain. . with some clones exhibiting an A (Crumet et al. Protein sequences used are mouse (NP_082504). accession numbers AAH75168. rat (ABO28828). 2007).2. PinX1 sequence analysis A cross-species comparison of PinX1 protein homologues is presented in Figure 3. the TRF1 residue found to be essential for interaction with PinX1 in humans. DQ000293). R142-F (Chen et al. and others a T (Crumet et al.37 two species. unpublished observations). 2008). 2006.2. Gaubatz. laevis. Figure 3. further supporting the potential for X. Xenopus laevis (sequence of clone available in lab. human (AAS19507).. including X. laevis TRF1-PinX1 interaction.1.
7% similarity. and spans X. tropicalis. though an additional 3 aa do have functional similarity to their corresponding human residues.3B. There are two possibilities for homologous sequences in X. One X. (2008) in their analyses. 2008). Both Xenopus species have two 9-12 aa inserts in the middle of the protein.9% identity and 55.3A) is what results from aligning the full-length PinX1 sequences (Figure 3. Five of the 14 (36%) residues exhibit exact identity in this alignment. a residue essential for TRF1 interaction in humans. The other option for PinX1 interaction domain alignment is presented in Figure 3. laevis and human PinX1 alignments exhibit 42. In humans. This is a manual alignment of a short peptide only. Thus. (B) Segment alignment based on KPKKR motif. Of note is the difference between the hPinX1 sequence published online and supported by Zhou and Lu (2001) and that sequence used by Chen et al. with only occasional differences in sequence up through residue 153. laevis sequence (Figure 3. it does impact their sequence similarity. and spans X. Alignment of PinX1 domains found to (in human) or purported to (in Xenopus) interact with the TRF1dd.2). prioritizing the nearby KPKKR residues. Alignments of the PinX1 interaction domains.. Only 3 of the 14 (21%) residues exhibit exact identity between human and Xenopus sequences (when the Chen human sequence is used as the more generous comparison). neither of these alignments exhibit particularly high identity between the protein sequences of this PinX1 interaction domain in the two species. including the domain in X.3. (A) (B) Figure 3. The X. The FxLxP domain is indicated with a line above both alignments. laevis that correspond to the TRFH-interacting human PinX1 fragment. (A) Segment alignment based on alignment of full-length PinX1 sequences (Figure 3.38 The N-terminus of PinX1 exhibits significant identity among the five species presented. sequence replaces the R285-S at the N-terminus of the segment with a R285-E residue. are presented in Figure 3. laevis residues 305-320. Though this difference has no effect on the alignments of the human and X. Star indicates R291-L.3 Cross-species alignment of domain of PinX1 that interacts with TRF1dd. with an additional two sharing similarity (50% total). the R284-S-G-R-D-F-T-L-K-P-K-K-R-R-G-R299 fragment of PinX1 interacts with the TRFH/dimerization domain of TRF1 (Chen et al. The Chen et al. laevis sequences. laevis residues 311-324.1). .
or (2) the X.4). and restriction enzyme recognition sites were added to Gaubatz’ clone to produce a His-GFP-xlPinX1 protein construct via E. Design of experimental constructs PinX1 construct design The xlPinX1 clone used in this study was originally obtained by J. a Kozak consensus sequence. Gaubatz (2007). PinX1 R291-L (Chen et al.39 The FxLxP domain found to be critical for the interactions of many proteins with TRF1 in humans is not conserved in Xenopus in either alignment. it was necessary to position the primers to anneal 12 nt to the 5’ end of the start of the dimerization domain and 30 nt past the 3’ end of the dimerization domain. Overall. laevis PinX1 and TRF1 may not interact due to the lack of conservation in this critical domain. laevis PinX1 interacting domain is adequately homologous to facilitate an interaction similar to that between hPinX1 and xlTRF1. coli expression and purification (Constant. fulllength xTERT shares 38% identity and 53% similarity with the human homologue (alignment not shown).1. The N-terminal region of hTERT shares only 27% identity and 40% similarity with that of xTERT (Xenopus TERT). A His-tag.. and a Myc-epitope tag (Figure 3. 2009). a consensus sequence. is not conserved in the Xenopus sequences in either alignment alternative. any interaction found between xlPinX1 and xlTRF1 must be facilitated by some other feature of the proteins. Interaction with xTERT Human PinX1 interacts with the hTERT N-terminal 17-546 aa and C-terminal 523-925 aa (Banik and Counter. In order to prevent primer dimers and other PCR artifacts. a GFP-coding motif. or (3) if this homology is inadequate for interaction. 2006) and to add on to it sequences containing MluI and NotI restriction enzyme sites. while the Cterminal region exhibits 52% identity and 70% similarity between species. And the particular residue found by mutagenesis studies to be crucial for the PinX1-TRF1 interaction in humans. The dimerization domain of the xlTRF1 protein amplified by the primers is identified by the red line in Figure 3. This suggests one of three possible outcomes from this lack of homology: (1) X. 2004). 2008). Primers amplify dimerization domain from full-length xlTRF1 clone PCR primers were designed to amplify the dimerization domain from an available full-length xlTRF1 clone (Crumet et al.. It was also necessary to introduce a translation stop codon as the natural stop codon for the .
The vector is supplied in a linear form with a single 3’ thymidine overhang on each end. these larger PCR artifacts did not pose a significant challenge to acquiring the desired insert in the following steps. including the MluI and NotI restriction sites. the construct can be inserted in the vector in either direction. However. The resulting plasmids formed by the complementation of these overhangs include ones containing the xlTRF1dd-Myc insert with MluI and NotI restriction sites (Figure 3. Numbers between regions indicate nt positions of region start and end. This process is ideal because the restriction sites lie at the terminal ends of the desired construct. which complements the single adenosine overhang formed by the terminal transferase activity of Taq polymerase during PCR. Cartoon is not to scale.40 TRF1 protein falls far beyond the amplified region. Topoisomerase-mediated cloning was used as an intermediate step between PCR and restriction enzyme-based plasmid ligation and provides a simple insertion process that does not require cutting PCR products with restriction enzymes. PCR products were analyzed on an agarose gel to ensure appropriate size products. Thus. . The gel showed a band around the expected size (683 bp). and confirmation of successful cleavage at these sites before insertion into the in vitro expression vector. the desired construct was cloned into the pCR®8/GW/TOPO® intermediate vector (hereafter abbreviated TOPO® vector) (Figure 3. since shorter pieces of DNA are more likely to ligate into vectors.5).4.5). Figure 3. The final sequence of the xlTRF1dd section is available in Appendix A. Because the thymidine overhangs of the vector and the adenosine overhangs of the construct complement each other indiscriminately. this intermediate cloning process allows for sequencing of the PCR primer-created construct. as well as four other main bands of larger sizes (results not shown). Intermediate subcloning of xlTRF1dd-Myc construct Following amplification by PCR. Myc-tagged xlTRF1dd construct resulting from amplification by designed primers.
41 Figure 3.6. Insertion of xlTRF1dd-Myc construct in intermediate cloning vector. Diagrams show different potential orientations of MluI and NotI recognition sites at the 682 bp and 1357/9 bp locations. with a length of 675 bp after restriction digest. lane 3). coli transformants was analyzed to confirm the expected insertion. The xlTRF1dd insert lies between restriction sites at 682 bp and 1357/9 bp. as is the 675 bp band that represents the desired xlTRF1dd construct. a double digest of this construct with these enzymes yields four different fragments. The 1441 bp.5).5. The xlTRF1dd construct should contain three MluI and one NotI restriction sites (Figure 3. Luckily. coli. Arrows indicate direction transcription and translation would read along construct transcript. Transformed bacteria contain intermediate vector with insert DNA from E. only one of which is the desired xlTRF1dd clone. . the four fragments are easily distinguished by size on an agarose gel (Figure 3. Thus. The TOPO® vector contains a spectinomycin resistance selectable marker for selection in E. 932 bp and 452 bp bands are all present in the gel visualization.
. Lane 5: pTNT™ vector linearized by overnight digestion with MluI and NotI restriction enzymes. This concentration was used to determine the amount of the TOPO-xlTRF1dd digestion to include in the ligation reaction. Though many products were possible from the ligation (discussed below).7 and as sequence data in Appendix A.6. Analytical gel to confirm restriction digests and estimate concentration of purified TOPO-xlTRF1dd DNA. the cut TOPO-xlTRF1dd and in vitro translation vectors were ligated. and the resulting products were used to transform E. Lanes 6 and 7: Two ladders. were included for sizing. Gel was 0.8% SeaKem agarose in TBE. Lane 3: TOPO-xlTRF1dd construct digested overnight with MluI and NotI restriction enzymes. the desired plasmid construct resulting from ligation is presented as a graphic in Figure 3. Lanes 1 and 2: HindIII-cut λ phage DNA (25 ng and 75 ng. coli. 100 bp and 1kb respectively. respectively) was included for estimation of sample DNA concentration. Purified xlTRF1dd-Myc construct inserted into in vitro translation vector The concentration of purified TOPO-xlTRF1dd plasmid DNA was estimated to be 15-20 ng/µL by comparison with known amounts of HindIII-cut λ DNA (Figure 3.6).42 Figure 3. Lane 4: Uncut purified TOPO-xlTRF1dd plasmid DNA.
Restriction digest reactions were visualized on an agarose gel (Figure 3. The expressed protein (light pink) should contain an N-terminal Myc epitope tag (grey) followed by the dimerization domain (dark pink). A Kozak sequence (green) contains a start codon for translation of the protein construct. Desired pTNT-xlTRF1dd-Myc in vitro translation construct.0 (Dong et al. coli with ligation was successful. Such analysis was necessary to distinguish between the ligation products of several different possible inserts resulting from the multiple cut sites on the TOPO-xlTRF1dd vector constructs (Figure 3. Plasmid DNA was isolated from cultures grown from individual colonies. .8). T7 and SP6 transcription promoters (green). coli.5)..43 Figure 3. Diagram was created using PlasMapper 2. The vector contains a ampicillin resistance gene (orange) to be used as a selectable marker for transformation into E. yielding colonies resistant to ampicillin. Insertion of the desired xlTRF1dd insert was confirmed by restriction digest analysis.7. 2004). Transformed bacteria contain expression vector with desired insert Transformation of E. and a T7 transcription termination sequence (not shown). The construct was inserted into the pTNT™ vector using MluI and NotI restriction enzymes (sites red).
Only clones j. Clones g. This gel analysis revealed that only pTNT-xlTRF1dd clones j.5A or a NotI-MluI digest of the plasmid in Figure 3. In the far right lane. as well as a band that could be the 1441 bp restriction product from the MluI-NotI digest of the vector pictured in Figure 3. consistent with ligation of the 452 bp fragment product of a double-MluI digest of the plasmid in Figure 3. l. . HindIII-cut λ phage DNA (25 ng) was included for estimation of sample concentration. k. Gel was 1% SeaKem agarose in TBE. These products are likely due to double ligations of multiple TOPO-xlTRF1dd restriction products into the in vitro translation vector.5B.5A or the MluI double digest of that in Figure 3. m. A100 bp ladder was used for sizing in the left-most lane. Clones g. j. m and n seem to contain no insert. Restriction enzyme analysis of clones obtained from plasmid purification of pTNT-xlTRF1dd samples.44 Figure 3. h. n and p were digested with NotI and MluI for 1 hour 15 minutes prior to gel analysis. as the only band in each of those lanes represents the vector at its original size of 2871 bp. l and p contained the desired insert length of 683 bp.5B. l and p contained the desired construct for future use.8. Clone h contains this same 452 bp band. Clone k contains an insert between 400-500 bp.
insertions or deletions introduced during PCR amplification of the product. A double restriction digest with MluI and NotI followed by agarose gel analysis was used to confirm that the purified plasmid still contained the desired insert and to quantify DNA . Construct was sequenced as insert in both intermediate and in vitro translation vectors. and restriction sites that were not a part of the original TRF1 clone sequence but rather incorporated by the primer design. The confirmed sequence of the dimerization domain inserts in both TOPO-xlTRF1dd and pTNT-xlTRF1dd clone j is available in Appendix A. pTNT-xlTRF1dd clone j used for in vitro translation Clone j was chosen for further amplification and plasmid purification.45 Sequence analyses confirm no mutations in xlTRF1dd construct Plasmid isolations at both stages were both further analyzed to ensure the proper gene and epitope had been cloned.9. The sequence of the inserted construct was found to be identical to the expected sequence of the Myc-tagged xlTRF1dd construct with added MluI and NotI cut sites (Figure 3. The xlTRF1dd-Myc construct was sequenced to ensure that there were no mutations. TAA stop codon. Alignments with the expected sequence verify that there were no mutations or frame shifts introduced in the final construct. Blue highlighted regions indicate MluI and NotI restriction sites at each terminus. Sequenced 5’ and 3’ terminal fragments of xlTRF1dd-Myc construct.9). Myc tag. Inconsistencies between the forward and reverse sequence reads were resolved by determining which sequence had the stronger quality peak at the location of the questionable nucleotide. Sequences were obtained from the Vollum DNA Sequencing Core and peaks were visualized using FinchTV (Geospiza). Figure 3. The sequence data (not shown) confirms successful integration of the Kozak sequence.
the biotin-detected membrane (Figure 3. Similar experiments were performed with products from xlTRF1dd-Myc and xlTRF1full-Flag translation products.10A visualizes total protein from the translation reaction. The translation detection system incorporates a biotinylated lysine residue into newly synthesized proteins during in vitro translation. The xlTRF1full-Flag reaction also served as a control for proper translation technique.46 concentration for further steps (results not shown). 2009). and this gel is typical of results from other experiments. The other half of the gel was electroblotted to a nitrocellulose membrane. obscuring the potential presence of xlTRF1dd-Myc or xlTRF1full-Flag. Two identical sets of the protein samples were run on two halves of the gel. Flag-tagged pTNT-TRF1full was also used in an identical in vitro transcription/translation reaction to express the protein needed for further studies. Visualizing this many protein bands is to be expected. one from an earlier reaction originally run alongside the luciferase control and the second from a reaction performed concurrently with the xlTRF1full-Flag reaction. The high background is representative of that found in the xlTRF1dd-Myc and luciferase reactions above. Visualization of protein products Protein products of both the xlTRF1dd-Myc and luciferase control reactions were then visualized using SDS-PAGE denaturing protein gels. Multiple bands were visualized in both TRF1dd and luciferase reactions. Figure 3. This purified plasmid was used in the in vitro transcription/translation reaction using biotin labeled amino acids to allow for detection of newly synthesized proteins.10B) shows a large number of bands in all reaction lanes. which can then be visualized using a specialized chemical interaction with these incorporated residues. since attempts to express the full-length protein had previously been successful in the lab (Jin. including all those endogenous proteins necessary for the in vitro transcription/translation machinery. blocked and stained to visualize the labeled amino acids. The first of these gel sections was stained to visualize total protein in each lane and to identify protein standard size marker locations. making it impossible to confirm production of the expected proteins (data not shown). and in all other analysis . Membranes were expected only to exhibit bands representing proteins synthesized from the added templates. A reaction with a plasmid containing the luciferase gene was used as a control for successful protein expression. Two samples of xlTRF1dd-Myc translation products were included. However.
Visualizations of protein products from in vitro transcription/translation reactions of xlTRF1dd-Myc and xlTRF1full-Flag. as that is around . data not shown). Lane 1: Dual color protein standard.10. Proteins were run on a 15% SDSPAGE gel. (B) Electroblotted membrane with colorimetric visualization of biotin labeled amino acids. sample from earlier reaction originally performed alongside the luciferase control reaction. there are particularly strong background bands around 30 kD in all lanes (including the luciferase control. Lane 5: xlTRF1full-Flag protein expression product. In particular. (A) Coomassie Fluor™ stained gel showing total protein present after in vitro reaction. The high background around 50 kD and slighly larger is equally problematic. Lane 3: xlTRF1dd-Myc protein expression product. Lane 2: Unstained protein standard. Since the xlTRF1dd domain is 25 kD. with the biotin labeled residues it may weigh approximately 30 kD and be easily concealed by these background bands.47 attempts of in vitro translation products. Numbers to left of each figure indicate protein standard size in kDa. Lane 4: xlTRF1dd-Myc protein expression product. Figure 3. The background bands are suspected to be the result of incorporation of the labeled amino acids into expression of the endogenous transcripts present in the lysate of the transcription/translation kit. The especially problematic characteristic of these background bands is not their frequency but their intensity at particular sizes.
Both xlTRF1dd-Myc and xlTRF1full-Flag in vitro translation products were immunoprecipitated with the corresponding Myc and Flag antibodies. there are very prevalent 50 kD bands in both the ½ IP and ¼ IP lanes. The background is so intense in these areas that it is impossible to discern any differences in protein signal between the lanes at the sizes where the newly synthesized plasmid proteins might be expected.] It is possible that the 25 kD could be the xlTRF1dd-Myc protein of interest. What is surprising about this visualization is the presence of the ~50 kD bands in the fifth and sixth TRF1dd IP lanes (indicated by the top white arrow). Furthermore. in the sixth ¼ IP of xlTRF1dd-Myc lane a band of size slightly larger than 25 kD. running slower on the gel because the incorporated biotins in the labeled amino acids add mass to the in vitro expressed protein. And the identical nature of the 50 kD bands in both the xlTRF1dd-Myc and xlTRF1full-Flag IP lanes disallows any claim to the successful isolation of xlTRF1full-Flag in lanes 7-10. . The products from the IP reactions were run on a denaturing gel. blotted to a membrane. and since the same bands appear in both sets of lanes. Still. with a 50 kD band isolated in the IP. even if this is the dimerization domain. A replication of this experiment using freshly translated protein and a new set of IPs returned the same confusing results. the 50 kD bands still remain unexplained. respectively. this band did not appear in the replication of this experiment. making TRF1 production unconfirmable. Immunoprecipitation Since the studies of total protein from the in vitro translation reaction could neither confirm nor reject the presence of the TRF1 proteins of interest.11). This blot does also show. however. Instead. it seems odd that it should appear in the ¼ IP lane but not in the ½ IP lane. The results for TRF1full-Flag appeared to be as expected.48 the expected size for biotin-labeled full-length xlTRF1-Flag. as it would be expected that any bands would only show up darker in the more concentrated IP lanes. perhaps closer to 30 kD (indicated by the bottom white arrow). and visualized using detection of the biotin labeled amino acids (Figure 3. immunoprecipitation (IP) reactions were performed to isolate the TRF1 proteins from the total reaction. where one would expect to find only ~25 kD bands representative of the xlTRF1dd-Myc expressed protein. it is impossible to confirm the production or isolation of either of the two proteins. The xlTRF1dd-Myc lanes are also serving as a negative control for xlTRFfull-Flag. [However.
Lanes 5.49 Figure 3. 7: One-half. and visualized via colorimetric detection of labeled amino acids. Image contrast has been adjusted to make bands easier to view. 10: One-half. Coimmunoprecipitation experimental design A coimmunoprecipitation (co-IP) experiment was performed to test for in vitro interaction (or lack thereof) between xlTRF1full and xlPinX1. Lanes 8. laevis telomeric protein in the lab (Jin. prior to IP. Numbers along left side are protein standard values in kDa. one-quarter. respectively. Lane 2: Unstained protein standard. electroblotted to a membrane. 6. electroblotted to a membrane. and one-eighth volumes from anti-Flag IP of xlTRF1fullFlag translation reaction. Proteins were run on a 15% SDS-PAGE gel. and one-eighth volumes from anti-Myc IP of xlTRF1dd-Myc translation reaction. prior to IP. 9. 2009). Lane 3: Input sample from xlTRF1dd translation reaction. Biotin labeled amino acids obtained from immunoprecipitation. despite the unexpected IP results. The IP and co-IP using the anti-His antibody were run on a denaturing gel. Flag-xlTRF1 and His-GFPxlPinX1 were each immunoprecipitated and coimmunoprecipitated with their appropriate antibodies. Lane 4: Input sample from xlTRF1full translation reaction. one-quarter. and visualized by colorimetric detection of incorporated .11. Full-length Flag-tagged xlTRF1 was used instead of xlTRF1dd-Myc because the former had previously been successfully expressed and coimmunoprecipitated with another X. Lane 1: Dual color protein standard.
One should see 67 kD bands in both the xlPinx1-His input lane 2 and the co-IP input lane 3. These input lanes serve to ensure that the protein product in each mixture can be visualized. and so should not be visible on the western blot. The antibody should successfully extract xlTRF1dd-Flag from the total reaction. Ideally. If the xlTRF1full-Flag and xlPinX1-His proteins interact. a different pattern among input bands should be visible. but even in the previous detections such discernment was not possible because of this background. In lane 1 the xlTRF1full-Flag should not react with the His probe. and then visualized using a His-probed western blot. Lanes 4 and 5 contain proteins immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag antibody. indicating the presence of the His-tagged protein in each. The anti-Flag antibody should not successfully pull down xlPinX1-His. one would expect to see all of the bands indicated in the gel diagrams in the lower section of Figure 3. . thus serving as a negative control and source for background comparison for the other input bands. Schematic representations of this experiment and of the band locations that would corroborate a PinX1-TRF1 interaction are shown in Figure 3. but this IP should not react with the His-probe. Lane 2 should be empty in the biotin visualized gel because xlPinX1-His was not expressed in vitro with labeled amino acids. Inputs in lanes 1. so any signal should be attributed to background from reactivity with the in vitro translation kit reagents.12. The IP and Co-IP using the anti-Flag antibody were run on a denaturing gel in the same manner. Nothing should appear in the IP lanes in either cases of PinX1-TRF1 interaction or non-interaction. when visualizing the labeled amino acids.12. In the western blot (left panel).50 labeled amino acids. Ideally. positive controls for the efficacy of the translation and detection systems. in the absence of substantial background. so there should be nothing in lane 5 to be visualized with the His probe (except background). Input lanes should show which proteins were present in the mixture before the IP or co-IP reactions were performed. one would be able to view a distinct 50 kD band in lanes 1 and 3 indicating production of the xlTRF1full-Flag protein. this lane would serve as an internal negative control to ensure that the biotin labeled residues being visualized in lanes 1 and 3 are not merely artifacts of proteins endogenous to the in vitro translation system. 2 and 3 in the biotin visualization (right panel) may exhibit substantial background due to the problem of translation of endogenous proteins discussed earlier.
. one each using antibodies to Flag or His. Schema of experimental design for IP and co-IP reactions. These reactions were split in half.51 Figure 3. Top two “tubes” represent inputs of in vitro translated xlTRF1full-Flag and E. one half for IPs and one half for interaction experiments. White circles represent lanes included in both analyses. Dark grey circles correspond to lane numbers visualized using colorimetric detection of biotin labeled amino acids. Light grey circles correspond to lane numbers visualized on western blot using His probe. which then was split for two co-IPs. Lower “tube” represents incubation of PinX1 and TRF1 together.12. coli expressed xlPinX1-His (mixed with reticulocyte transcription/translation reagents as described in the methods) proteins.
no bands were visible in the co-IP lanes where they were expected to be present if xlTRF1full-Flag and xlPinX1-His interact. certain co-IP results would be expected. it will not be visible with the colorimetric detection system used on this membrane. the anti-His antibody should interact with xlPinX1-His. the IP lanes serve as negative controls in each membrane to ensure that none other but the targeted proteins of interest are being detected in the co-IP reactions. the input lanes of protein products from the translation reaction before the IP processes were significantly fainter than input lanes in previous gels. However. Advances with this investigation . and the input lanes in the membrane utilizing biotin detection exhibited only dim background. The western blot was completely blank. one would expect to see neither of these bands in the co-IP lanes 8 and 9 but still to see the bands in the input lanes. Lane 8 in the His-probe detected western blot (left panel) should exhibit a band at 67 kD. but since this protein was not expressed in vitro using the biotin labeled amino acids. exhibiting no background or expected bands in the input lanes (results not shown). where xlTRF1full-Flag interacted when xlPinX1-His was isolated with anti-His antibody in the co-IP. laevis. Coimmunoprecipitation attempt The co-IP experiment outlined above was attempted. In the colorimetric detection of the labeled amino acids (results not shown). Conclusions and recommendations for further study Because the western blot of the co-IP experiment did not show any signal. Lane 9 in the biotin visualized membrane should exhibit a band at 50kD. If the proteins do not interact in X. This may indicate that either in vitro protein expression or colorimetric detection may not have been very efficient in this particular experiment. laevis. Further experiments should first seek conclusive confirmation that xlTRF1 is being produced in vitro. anti-His should not interact with xlTRF1dd-Flag. so any of this protein in the reaction should not bind to the protein beads and thus should not be visible in lane 6. This band would result from the detection of xlPinX1-His that interacted with xlTRF1full-Flag when xlTRF1full-Flag was isolated with anti-Flag antibody. In lane 7. Thus. Here. It cannot be determined from these results whether or not TRF1 and PinX1 interact in X. If the proteins interact. these results are inconclusive.52 The IP reactions in the membrane visualized with the biotin detection system (right panel) utilized the anti-His antibody. should any be detected.
. this interaction could then serve as a positive control for testing the TRF1-PinX1 interaction. One missing control in the above is a successful co-IP with proteins that are known to interact as a comparison for a potential negative result suggesting that xlTRF1full-Flag and xlPinX1-His do not interact.53 should continue with efforts towards a rigorous co-IP experiment with appropriate controls. If TRF1 is found to homodimerize in X.1) suggests that such an interaction is likely. Such a positive control would be essential for making confident conclusions about whether xlTRF1 and xlPinX1 do or do not interact. Co-IP studies could investigate the interaction of xlTRF1full-Flag and xlTRF1dd-Myc. laevis. With a little more preliminary work. Although TRF1 has not yet been shown to homodimerize in X. the xlTRF1dd clone created in this study may be useful for this purpose. the high similarity of human and X. laevis. laevis TRFH protein sequences (Figure 3.
sequence coding for Myc epitope tag (uppercase). A diagram of the regions of this sequence is presented in Figure 3. 12 nt leading up to dimerization domain (lowercase). Kozak consensus sequence. 30 nt past the 5’ end of the dimerization domain (lowercase). xlTRF1 dimerization domain (uppercase). including -atg. The putative sequence was confirmed by sequencing of the construct in both the pCR®8/GW/TOPO® and pTNT™vectors.start codon (lowercase). and NotI restriction site (lowercase).4 Nucleotide sequence of full xlTRF1dd construct.Appendix A: Sequence of Myc-tagged xlTRF1dd protein construct Sequence of xlTRF1dd as confirmed in both TOPO® and pTNT™ vectors. stop codon (uppercase). including untranslated regions: The sequence is a composite of: MluI restriction site (uppercase). ACGCGTaccatgggcGAACAGAAGTTGATTTCCGAAGAAGACCTCgatgacacggccGCTGTTGCTACTA ACTGGATGTGCGACTTCATGTTCACCAGCATGTGTTTCTACTTCAGAGAAGATCGAACGGAGG ATTTCCAGAGAAGCACACACATGCTGGAATGGCTGCTAGAGGGTTCTCAAAAAATAGACGCT CACAGGAAGACAATACCTATTGCGCAGTTTCTTATGCGAGTGGCTGAAGGAAAAAATCTGGA TTCTCAGTTTGACACGGATGAGAGCCTTACACCTTTAGAAACCGCTTTAATGGCTTTTAATCAA ATTGAAGAAGAGGAGGATCTGAAGCATCTCCATGAAGAAATTGAACTGCTTTTGAAAGTGCA GGCAGTGGTCACTTGCATGGAAAAAGGAAGATTTAAGCTGTCCGCAGAAATCCTCGACAGAC TTTTTAAAGAATCTGGGTCAAACAAGTATTTGAGAATGAAGTTAACAATGCTGATAGAGAAG AAAGATCCATATCATGAGTTTCTACAAAATTTCACTTATGCTCAAATGATGAAGAAAATAAAA TCGTATATCGCCCTTAAGATGAAGGAAAGGCCATCTGTTTTTCTCTTAAAGGCAGCAGCCAAG GTGGTGGAAgctacagcaaaagaagaactggatattcagTAAgcggccgc DNA sequence of TRF1dd construct with accompanying translation: .
Crumet. Trans. L. T. and Lingner. Broccoli. A Human Telomeric Protein. laevis PinX.. pp. Chen..E.M. pp. Chong. 1092-1096. Molecular and Cellular Biology 18 (1998). L. 1785-1794. E. Chong. Nature Genetics 17 (1997). and Rhodes. Schneider. 611-622. pp. Shelterin: the protein complex that shapes and safeguards human telomeres.. Science 319 (2008).d.. Banik.. D. S. R.: Production and purification of X.. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 279 (2004). 109-121. pp.d. Elias. L. Journal of Pathology 217 (2009). Telomeres and Human Disease: Ageing. TRF1 and TRF2. and Hogendoom. Journal of Experimental Zoology 295B (2003). A. G. Gene 369 (2006). H. The EMBO Journal 25 (2006). 16631667. pp. Tempst. and Goodwin. Hanish. Meyne. J. T. M. A Shared Docking Motif in TRF1 and TRF2 Used for Differential Recruitment of Telomeric Proteins.V.C. de Lange. pp. D. J.. E. and Shampay. Soc... C. Biology. G-patch: a new conserved domain in eukaryotic RNAprocessing proteins and type D retroviral polyproteins. Bousman. Yang. L. Science 270 (1995). A. J. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 24 (1999). P. J. Nature Reviews Genetics 6 (2005). Cristofari. Bailey. pp. Li. 342-344. Baciu. A. R. R. pp. Telomere length homeostasis requires that telomerase levels are limiting. Telomerase Activity Is Widespread in Adult Somatic Tissues of Xenopus. 231-235. P. A truncated acidic domain in Xenopus TRF1. Portland. and Counter. 39-45. Smith. 20-26. and Lei.. Reed College.. PNAS 96 (1999). pp. van Steensel. pp. Fairall. a. L. De Boeck. Chan. Court. The EMBO Journal 16 (1997). and de Lange. Chapman. S. Kurimasa. S. Characterization of Interactions between PinX1 and Human Telomerase Subunits hTERT and hTR.C. S.H. M. Forsyth. Beam. G. B.A. Telomere Variation in Xenopus laevis.. Praet. S. and Lange. Bianchi. Lehnert.. P. Telomeres and telomerase. T.. L.. Broccoli.M. B. Telomere-associated proteins: cross-talk between telomere maintenance and telomere-lengthening mechanisms. and Blackburn. 14899-14904. Human telomeres contain two distinct Myb-related proteins. van Overbeek. Donigian. D. pp. Cancer and Beyond. M. S. 2100-2110. J. M. pp. R. TRF1 is a dimer and bends telomeric DNA. and Shampay. Constant. pp.. and Shampay.. J. . S.. 82-86. Lond 359 (2004).. EMBO reports 6 (2004). D. D. and Koonin. N. pp.. 269-275. de Lange...Bibliography Aravind. A. Chen.. Smorgorzewska. How the human telomeric proteins TRF1 and TRF2 recognize telomeric DNA: a view from high-resolution crystal structures.. T. 565-574. P. Genes & Development 19 (2005).. 51745-51748.J. a putative telomerase inhibitor. Blasco. pp. Y. Carlson. Phil. G. OR (2009).R. Chong.. 327-344. Drutman. T.G. pp.. Y. DNA double-strand break repair proteins are required to cap the ends of mammalian chromosomes.H. G.. Erdjument-Bromage. Bassham.S. J. and Lange.R.E.
M. Nucl. pp.W.D. and Shinkai. S. 13211325. and Lingner. Telomeres shorten during ageing of human fibroblasts. C.H..M.. Petrini.-P. 2667-2678. and Lange. and Lange. Ye.E.... T..K. Takai. X. D.d. J. Kurth.d. Bakkenist.. P. Blankenfeldt. and de Lange. Keegan.. Portland. Nat Struct Mol Biol 14 (2007). C. TIN2. The telomeric protein TRF2 binds the ATM kinase and can inhibit the ATMdependent DNA damage response.M.. Griffith. W660-W664. Moss. M.. Palm. Tachibana. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277 (2002).Z.I. Portland. Reed College. pp.. Hockemeyer. Daniels. pp.-h. J. 2561–2570. T. pp. Targeted Deletion Reveals an Essential Function for the Telomere Lenth Regulator Trf1. Kelleher. J. Telomere protection by mammalian Pot1 requires interaction with Tpp1. T. Science 283 (1999). Kim. and Hammer. O. I. Insights into ssDNA recognition by the OB fold from a structural and thermodynamic study of Sulfolobus SSB protein. M.. 458-460. S.and ATM-Dependent Apoptosis Induced by Telomeres Lacking TRF2. pp. 503-514. Nature 345 (1990).. Broccoli. J.B. C. Mercer. Wright. Kerr.d.. Positive and negative regulation of telomerase access to the telomere. Wadsworth.S. Importance of TRF1 for Functional Telomere Structure. T. I. pp.. H. S.D.. 3357-3364. T. K. 405-412. Y. Stothard. . K.. T.. G. Jin. Bianchi. and Lange. W.F. pp.. L. D. C. Rosenfield. Naismith. Hoke.B. Kaminker.D.S. Mirzoeva. pp. Hingorani. S.J. I.. P. A. Journal of Cell Science 113 (2000). and Werner. R. Kalseder.. Stansel. and Greider. J. Cell 97 (1999). Comparison between TRF2 and TRF1 of their telomeric DNA-bound structures and DNA-binding activities. 35712-35719. Hardy. D. Forsythe. and Lange. Nature Genetics 23 (1999). Takai. Y. Gaubatz. Biology. Not in Telomere Elongation Inhibition..: Is the interaction between human telomere proteins TIN2 and TRF1 conserved in Xenopus laevis?. and Wishart. POT1 protects telomeres from a transient DNA damage response and determines how human chromosomes end. The EMBO Journal 24 (2005). PLOS Biology 2 (2004).. Mammalian Telomeres End in a Large Duplex Loop. Guglielmi.E. de Lange. The EMBO Journal 22 (2003). J.. Acids Res. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 279 (2004). Karlseder. T.. Jacks. A. 754-761.K.W. pp.. Molecular and Cellular Biology 23 (2003). M.. C. E240. Reed College. T. J.T. Karlseder. A. Comeau. T. Harley.. 14421448. 32 (2004). H.. pp. Sfeir.. The Protein Society 14 (2005). a new regulator of telomere length in human cells. Futcher. Shay. W. Iwano. J. p. Hockemeyer. Biology. 6533-6541. Dai. 1150-1156. OR (2007). Cubeddu.58 Dong.d. 119-130. 49.. J. pp.. PLOS Biology 2 (2005).. S.. PlasMapper: a web server for drawing and auto-annotating plasmid maps.. L.. pp. K. p53.J.: PINX1: A potential telomerase inhibitor in Xenopus laevis. J. Y. W. OR (2009). pp. B.. M. V. L. R. Kastan. J. A. J. Evans. Reth. S. Human protection of telomeres 1 (POT1) is a negative regulator of telomerase activity in vitro. Kachatrian. and Lundblad. pp. The Yeast Homolog of Human PinX1 Is Involved in rRNA and Small Nucleolar RNA Maturation.. Else. and White. Nagadoi. and Nishimura. D.. pp. J. Hanaoka. and Campisi..
Telomerase activity in germline and embryonic cells of Xenopus. Closed chromatin loops at the ends of chromosomes. and Lu. Qin. M.W.K. p. Kishimoto. Huang. and Rudolph. L. G. Rudolph. T. R. H. Lander. A. N. T. Oncogene 20 (2001a).. H. B.W. and Greider. Nishikawa. A. Cellcycle-dependent Xenopus TRF1 recruitment to telomere chromatin regulated by Polo-like kinase... The cellular level of telomere dysfunction determines induction of senescence or apoptosis in vivo. Bai. E. T. A. Nucleolar protein PinX1p regulates telomerase by sequestering its protein catalytic subunit in an inactive complex lacking telomerase RNA... A. M. D. and Reece. pp.A. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (2006). S. J. J. Chen.. Mantell. Nature Cell Biology 6 (2004).. Y. Ju.. Safari. O'Connor. The EMBO Journal 5 (2006). Liu. Y.U. Y. Kuramoto. pp. Nishiyama. S. PTOP interacts with POT1 and regulates its localization to telomeres. pp.. S. K. pp. 26 (1998). K.. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 353 (2007). Zhang. pp.X.E. A critical role for TPP1 and TIN2 interaction in high-order telomeric complex assembly.. Identification and analyses of the Xenopus TERT gene that encodes the catalytic subunit of telomerase. P. Nucl. San Francisco (2005). A. S. Y. Nagadoi. 29282-29291.L.. L. Genes & Development 18 (2004).s). 293-308. R. S. 101-119. J. Malek. D.. Muraki. Okamura. Gene 277 (2001). D. Cell Biol.: Genetics: The Molecular Basis of Inheritance. Telomeric Protein Pin2/TRF1 as an Important ATM Target in Response to Double Strand DNA Breaks.X. Z. Yang. and Blackburn. Ohsumi.S. pp... and Songyang. F. Natl.. T. Saito. and Woodcock. J. Wulf.. C. Safari.B. Xie. 11874-11879. D. Lin. N... pp.. . pp. R. and de Lange. D. Y.L.Z.R. J. pp.. M. P. Shiloh.. Buer.S. C.59 Kishi. Khoo. Satyanarayana. 1237-1251. Biology. K.. EMBO reports 6 (2005). Lechel.P.P. 70497053. and Lu. M. X. G. Laegeler. pp.A. Acids Res. Manns. J. 1403-1406. P. USA 86 (1989). (Campbell. 166 (2004).B. Chan. and Songyang. Plentz. and Ishikawa. E. The EMBO Journal 13 (1994). 1497. H. J. Saretzki. 275-281. B.. K.. Cell 101 (2000). Jin. N. C. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276 (2001b). O'Connor. Characterization of a novel effect of hPinX1 on hTERT nucleolar localization.. Schaetzlein. Konig.... Liu. L. K. Nikitina. A. R. Structure 9 (2001). Z. Ohsumi. F. C. Z. In: Campbell. M... Oestreich. 161-165. Benjamin Cummings.. Proc. T. 946-952. Wilkens. Ziv. A. Telomeric protein Pin2/TRF1 induces mitotic entry and apoptosis in cells with short telomeres and is down-regulated in human breast tumors. Hill. pp. and Rhodes.. Zhou. C. Solution structure of a Telomeric DNA Complex of Human TRF1. D. Sequence-specific DNA recognition by the myblike domain of the human telomere binding protein TRF1: a model for the protein-DNA complex.. Xin. J. Ratliff. 471-483. and Huang. Meyne.B. Sci.H.L. 3211-3217.. Kishimoto... M.. K. Fairall. and Reece.A.(Campbell. Nakamura. N... Identification of Human Rap1: Implications for Telomere Evolution.P. Konig. J. Li. and Ishikawa.L.. pp... and Nishimura. Acad.. Rhodes. 1731-1740.P. 387-396 Lin. J.. and Reece.. pp. Conservation of the human telomere sequence (TTAGGG)n among vertebrates. and Moyzis. pp. Wiemann. Kishi.
. He.-K. Annual Review of Genetics 42 (2008). Ye.R. Nature 385 (1997).d. pp.D. 1484-1487.. S. and Griffith. Vogt.. and Songyang. N.. Verdun. Subramanian. O/'Connor. 177-208. Gene 400 (2007). The EMBO Journal 20 (2001). L.. 740-743.. J.. D. Schmitt. Xin.M. Annual Review of Biochemistry 73 (2004). R. Cell 126 (2006). and de Lange..R. H. B. J. and Lange. A. C. pp. W. and de Lange. Cosme-Blanco. Pot1 Deﬁciency Initiates DNA Damage Checkpoint Activation and Aberrant Homologous Recombination at Telomeres. Sun. C. Protecting the terminus: t-loops and telomere end-binding proteins.-W. Palm. Nature 445 (2007). and de Lange.R. and Griffith.. 551-561. Wu. C. Sbodio. Bianchi. 2283-2294.. Oelmann. Kim. Nature 447 (2007). Y. Functional Human Telomeres Are Recognized as DNA Damage in G2 of the Cell Cycle.. Stansel. B. R.. Stansel.. Wan. Shen. 31887-31892. Smogorzewska. K.. A. and Kalseder. pp.. T. Regulation Of Telomeraase by Telomeric Proteins. Deng. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277 (2002). Bachilo. van Overbeek. A. Characterization and cell cycle regulation of related human telomeric proteins Pin2 and TRF1 suggest a role in mitosis. 55325540. H. A.-M. How Shelterin Protects Mammalian Telomeres. pp. Control of Human Telomere Length by TRF1 and TRF2. L.. J. USA 94 (1997). pp. Y. 559-562.N. B. a Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase at Human Telomeres. Molecular Cell 20 (2005). O. pp.. 924-931. and Lu. Tahara. R. Identification of a Tankyrase-binding Motif Shared by IRAP. T. S. Yoon. van Steensel. Deng. Smith. van Steensel. Bailey. pp. 49-62.. T.D. T.. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences (CMLS) 60 (2003). Rat homolog of PinX1 is a nucleolar protein involved in the regulation of telomere length.N. pp.-S. Deng. Safari. Loayza. T-loop assembly in vitro involves binding of TRF2 near the 3' telomeric overhang. Wei. B. S. J. p53 Binds Telomeric Single Strand Overhangs and t-Loop Junctions in Vitro. 47264-47271. M.E. R. and Karlseder. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279 (2004). T.M.. Behringer. W. and ChiDagger. . and Lange.. M. Chait. Smogorzewska.v. Luo. D. B. pp. TRF2 Protects Human Telomeres from End-to-End Fusions.M. D. and Park.I. W. I. Y. Tankyrase. Multani. pp. M... pp.S. C.d. Verdun... Crabbe. A. Krutchinsky. Molecular and Cellular Biology 20 (2000). H. A. pp. pp. and Price. Replication and protection of telomeres. TAB182.. Haggblom. Cell 92 (1998). J.. 35-43.. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277 (2002). 1659-1668. M. S. Giriat. Donigian. Haggblom. Acad...T.M. S. 11625-11628. Smogorzewska. TPP1 is a homologue of ciliate TEBP-β and interacts with POT1 to recruit telomerase.. and de Lange. M. Lange. H. Pathak. 401-413. A. Steensel. T. S. and Human TRF1 but Not Mouse TRF1. TIN2 Binds TRF1 and TRF2 Simultaneously and Stabilizes the TRF2 Complex on Telomeres.....E. Lee. pp. M.60 Oh.. Liu. pp. Control of telomere length by the human telomeric protein TRF1. and de Lange.. J..Z. Hunter. Science 282 (1998). Sci. Z.. T. G. T. Proc. Natl. M.d. and Chang.S. J. Schaefer. R.-H. Schnapp.. Y. A. T. J.
J.-S.61 Ye. and Takeyasu. Maruyama.Z. and Lu. F. 618-623. T. 205-218. and Lange. Genes to Cells 9 (2004). Molecular mechanisms of DNA end-loop formation by TRF2. 347-359.P.Z. pp. . Yoshimura. pp. Cell 107 (2001). Ohki. K. pp.H. Ishikawa. The Pin2/TRF1-interacting: Protein PinX1 is a potent telomerase inhibitor. Zhou. X.d. S. R. TIN2 is a tankyrase 1 PARP modulator in the TRF1 telomere length control complex.... Nature Genetics 36 (2004). K. H.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.