Protein phosphatase-2A (PP-2A) is a major serine/threonine phosphatase abundantly expressed in eukaryotes. PP-2A is a heterotrimer that contains a 65 kD scaffold A subunit, a 36 kD catalytic C subunit, and a regulatory B subunit of variable isoforms ranging from 54-130 kDs. The scaffold subunits, PP2A-Aα/β, act as platforms for both the C and B subunits to bind, and thus are key structural components for PP-2A activity. Mutations in both genes encoding PP2A-Aα and PP2A-Aβ lead to carcinogenesis and likely other human diseases. Our previous work showed that the gene coding for PP2A-Aα is positively regulated by multiple transcription factors including Ets-1, CREB, and AP-2α but negatively regulated by SP-1/SP-3. In the present study, we have functionally dissected the promoter of the mouse PP2A-Aβ gene. Our results demonstrate that three major cis-elements, including the binding sites for Ets-1, SP1/SP3, and RXRα/β, are present in the proximal promoter of the mouse PP2A-Aβ gene. Gel mobility shifting assays reveal that Ets-1, SP1/SP3, and RXRα/β all bind to PP2A-Aβ gene promoter. In vitro mutagenesis and reporter gene activity assays demonstrate that while Ets-1 displays negative regulation, SP1/SP3 and RXRα/β positively regulate the promoter of the PP2A-Aβ gene. Co-expression of the cDNAs encoding Ets-1, SP1/SP3, or RXRα/β and the luciferase reporter gene driven by PP2A-Aβ promoter further confirm their control over the PP2A-Aβ promoter. Finally, ChIP assays demonstrate that Ets-1, SP1/SP3, and RXRα/β can all bind to the PP2A-Aβ gene promoter. Together, our results reveal that multiple transcription factors regulate the PP2A-Aβ gene. Moreover, our results provide important information explaining why PP2A-Aα and PP2A-Aβ display distinct expression levels.

The mammalian small ubiquitin-like modifiers (SUMOs) are actively involved in regulating differentiation of different cell types. However, the functional differences between SUMO isoforms and their mechanisms of action remain largely unknown. Using the ocular lens as a model system, we demonstrate that different SUMOs display distinct functions in regulating differentiation of epithelial cells into fiber cells. During lens differentiation, SUMO1 and SUMO2/3 displayed different expression, localization, and targets, suggesting differential functions. Indeed, overexpression of SUMO2/3, but not SUMO1, inhibited basic (b) FGF-induced cell differentiation. In contrast, knockdown of SUMO1, but not SUMO2/3, also inhibited bFGF action. Mechanistically, specificity protein 1 (Sp1), a major transcription factor that controls expression of lens-specific genes such as β-crystallins, was positively regulated by SUMO1 but negatively regulated by SUMO2. SUMO2 was found to inhibit Sp1 functions through several mechanisms: sumoylating it at K683 to attenuate DNA binding, and at K16 to increase its turnover. SUMO2 also interfered with the interaction between Sp1 and the coactivator, p300, and recruited a repressor, Sp3 to β-crystallin gene promoters, to negatively regulate their expression. Thus, stable SUMO1, but diminishing SUMO2/3, during lens development is necessary for normal lens differentiation. In support of this conclusion, SUMO1 and Sp1 formed complexes during early and later stages of lens development. In contrast, an interaction between SUMO2/3 and Sp1 was detected only during the initial lens vesicle stage. Together, our results establish distinct roles of different SUMO isoforms and demonstrate for the first time, to our knowledge, that Sp1 acts as a major transcription factor target for SUMO control of cell differentiation.transcription regulation | eye development | crystallin gene expression T he conjugation of small ubiquitin-like modifiers (SUMOs) to protein substrates (named sumoylation) is a critical posttranslational modification with diverse cellular functions (1). Three major SUMO isoforms (SUMO1, -2, and -3) were identified in vertebrates. Although the mature SUMO2 and SUMO3 share a very high level of sequence identity (97%) and cannot be immunologically discriminated (thus referred to as SUMO2/3), they significantly differ from SUMO1, with only 45% identity (2, 3). Recent studies using proteomics revealed that SUMO1 and SUMO2/3 can be targeted to both distinct and overlapping sets of substrates (4). However, whether SUMO1 and SUMO2/3 have redundant or different functions in vivo is not clear because inconsistent results have been reported in SUMO1 knockout mice (5, 6). SUMO conjugation is executed by three enzymes. The activating enzyme E1, a heterodimer of SAE1 and SAE2, transfers SUMO to the single E2-conjugating enzyme Ubc9, which either sumoylates the substrate alone, or cofunctions with different E3 ligases. Sumoylation is highly dynamic and can be rapidly reverted by sentrin-specific proteases (SE...

No abstract

DRD3 Ser9Gly polymorphisms are significantly associated with the therapeutic efficacy of pramipexole in Chinese patients with PD. A large-scale and multi-dose group study in patients with PD is necessary for evaluating the impact of the genetic polymorphisms of the dopamine receptor on the therapeutic effects of pramipexole.

Background: Aspirin is a frequently prescribed drug for primary and secondary prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death. However, aspirin resistance may affect up to 45% of the population. Little is known on the role of genetic factors that contribute to resistance or augmented response to aspirin in different human populations. Methods: In a large sample of nonsmoker, medication-free healthy volunteers from mainland China (n = 323; age: 22.1 ± 2.0 years) (mean ± standard deviation), we determined the frequency of polymorphisms in cyclooxygenase 1 (COX1) (A-842G and C50T), glycoprotein IIIa (GPIIIa) (PLA1/A2) and purinergic receptor P2Y (P2Y1) (C893T and A1622G) genes. These candidate genes were chosen on the basis of their impact on platelet physiology and aspirin mode of action. A four panel P2Y1 genotype-stratified sample of healthy volunteers (n = 24 in total), identified from the large study sample above, prospectively received a 100 mg daily oral dose of aspirin for 7 days. We measured changes in platelet aggregation before and after aspirin treatment. As a comparison reference group, 6 out of 24 subjects in the prospective aspirin trial had the P2Y1 CT893/AG1622 genotype that displays a low frequency (<7%) in the Chinese population. Results: COX1 A-842G, C50T and GPIIIa PLA1/A2 genetic polymorphisms were not observed in our sample from mainland China. Allele frequencies of P2Y1 893T and 1622G were 3.5 and 30.6%, respectively. The heterozygosity for the P2Y1 A1622G polymorphism observed in the present study was different to Caucasians; Chinese displayed a higher allele frequency for the 1622G allele. After aspirin treatment, the net decrease in arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation was significantly larger in the P2Y1 CT893/AG1622 genotype panel (83.4 ± 3.7%, net reduction by aspirin expressed as percentage of baseline) compared with CC893/GG1622 (68.2 ± 13.5%), CC893/AG1622 (68.9  ± 9.6%) and CC893/AA1622 (65.1 ± 9.1%) genotypic groups (p = 0.012, 0.025 and 0.004, respectively; statistical power = 77%). There was no significant difference in antiplatelet effect of aspirin among the CC893/GG1622, CC893/AG1622 and CC893/AA1622 genotypes (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The COX1 A-842G, C50T and GPIIIa PLA1/A2 polymorphisms are rare in Chinese. In contrast to previous studies in Caucasian populations, these candidate functional polymorphisms are unlikely to be significant contributors to aspirin pharmacodynamics in Chinese persons. Importantly, the presence of the P2Y1 893CC genotype appears to confer an attenuated antiplatelet effect during aspirin treatment in healthy Chinese volunteers. These data collectively underscore the importance of population-to-population variability in clinical pharmacogenetics research and provide a basis for further long-term studies of aspirin response and P2Y1 genetic variation in patients with cardiovascular risk.

Low-grade glioma (LGG) is a highly aggressive disease in the skull. On the other hand, anoikis, a specific form of cell death induced by the loss of cell contact with the extracellular matrix, plays a key role in cancer metastasis. In this study, anoikis-related genes (ANRGs) were used to identify LGG subtypes and to construct a prognostic model for LGG patients. In addition, we explored the immune microenvironment and enrichment pathways between different subtypes. We constructed an anoikis-related gene signature using the TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) cohort and investigated the differences between different risk groups in clinical features, mutational landscape, immune cell infiltration (ICI), etc. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that the characteristics of ANRGs in the high-risk group were associated with poor prognosis in LGG patients. The risk score was identified as an independent prognostic factor. The high-risk group had higher ICI, tumor mutation load (TMB), immune checkpoint gene expression, and therapeutic response to immune checkpoint blockers (ICB). Functional analysis showed that these high-risk and low-risk groups had different immune statuses and drug sensitivity. Risk scores were used together with LGG clinicopathological features to construct a nomogram, and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) showed that the model could enable patients to benefit from clinical treatment strategies.

No abstract

No abstract