2010
DOI: 10.1007/s10577-010-9172-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nuclear proteins: finding and binding target sites in chromatin

Abstract: Fluorescent protein labelling, as well as impressive progress in live cell imaging have revolutionised the view on how essential nuclear functions like gene transcription regulation and DNA repair are organised. Here, we address questions like how DNAinteracting molecules find and bind their target sequences in the vast amount of DNA. In addition, we discuss methods that have been developed for quantitative analysis of data from fluorescence recovery after photobleaching experiments (FRAP).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
37
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 106 publications
(122 reference statements)
1
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our FRAP data show that ELL-GFP mobility is much higher than the mobility of XPB-GFP and similar to that of Cdk7-GFP (Fig.1E). Although the nucleoplasm is not a homogenous medium, a clear relationship exists between molecular weight and diffusion speed (14,15). The fact that Cdk7 (∼40 kDa alone, ∼110 kDa within the CAK) diffuses much faster than XPB indicates that these proteins diffuse in the nucleus separately, but at the same time does not exclude that a fraction of these proteins are part of the same, much larger, complex, that is, TFIIH (>500 kDa) (15).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our FRAP data show that ELL-GFP mobility is much higher than the mobility of XPB-GFP and similar to that of Cdk7-GFP (Fig.1E). Although the nucleoplasm is not a homogenous medium, a clear relationship exists between molecular weight and diffusion speed (14,15). The fact that Cdk7 (∼40 kDa alone, ∼110 kDa within the CAK) diffuses much faster than XPB indicates that these proteins diffuse in the nucleus separately, but at the same time does not exclude that a fraction of these proteins are part of the same, much larger, complex, that is, TFIIH (>500 kDa) (15).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 This could be a characteristic feature of the search mechanism employed by a number of chromatin interacting proteins. [32][33][34] However, while both PCNA and ISWI remodelers fit into this scheme some specific features of chromatin remodelers can be identified from the comparative mobility study conducted here. In contrast to PCNA, ISWIs thoroughly probe a large number of nucleosomes by a continuous sampling mechanism, thus ensuring that potential targets are reliably identified.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Numerous studies have investigated gene‐specific functions of the complexes and genome‐wide approaches have been applied to define their binding sites. However, it has been shown that transcription‐associated proteins exhibit a broad range of mobility in the nuclei of living cells, with the stability of transcription factor‐chromatin interactions linked to function (van Royen et al , 2011), and this information was missing for SAGA and ATAC complexes. Our FRAP and FLIP analyses classified the two coactivators as highly mobile factors, with no detectable immobile fractions, suggesting transient chromatin associations for these complexes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%