2019
DOI: 10.1101/gad.330837.119
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural basis for distinct roles of SMAD2 and SMAD3 in FOXH1 pioneer-directed TGF-β signaling

Abstract: TGF-β receptors phosphorylate SMAD2 and SMAD3 transcription factors, which then form heterotrimeric complexes with SMAD4 and cooperate with context-specific transcription factors to activate target genes. Here we provide biochemical and structural evidence showing that binding of SMAD2 to DNA depends on the conformation of the E3 insert, a structural element unique to SMAD2 and previously thought to render SMAD2 unable to bind DNA. Based on this finding, we further delineate TGF-β signal transduction by defini… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
102
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(108 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
1
102
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The new code is applied to evaluate transcription regulatory elements, which have known DNA nucleotide complementary base pairs. For example, an enhancer box or E-box [14] has been correlated to gene expression in neurons, muscles, and other tissues. The DNA base sequence for the E-box is generally considered to be CACGTG.…”
Section: E-boxmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The new code is applied to evaluate transcription regulatory elements, which have known DNA nucleotide complementary base pairs. For example, an enhancer box or E-box [14] has been correlated to gene expression in neurons, muscles, and other tissues. The DNA base sequence for the E-box is generally considered to be CACGTG.…”
Section: E-boxmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Actually, the DNA-binding capacity of SMAD2 depends on the conformation adopted by the E3 insert ( Figure 5). An open conformation allows SMAD2 to contact DNA while a closed one hinders the β-hairpin structure from interacting with the DNA [154]. Interestingly, it was recently described that this intrinsic structural difference between the two proteins, plays also a role in their subcellular distribution as SMAD3 appears to be mostly nuclear in the absence of ligand while SMAD2 is cytoplasmic and thus becomes more efficiently activated upon TGF-β stimulation [155].…”
Section: Smads In Transcriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All clones were confirmed by DNA sequencing. All protein constructs were expressed in E. coli BL21 (DE3) Rosetta following standard procedures as previously described (22)(23)(24). Unlabeled samples were prepared using Luria Broth (LB) (Melford) and minimal media M9 with 15 NH4Cl and/or D- Purified proteins were verified by Liquid chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) using an ACQUITY UPLC Binary Sol MGR LC system (Waters) equipped with a BioSuite Phenyl 1000Å column (Waters, 10 μm RPC 2.0x75 mm) at a flow rate of 100 µL/min.…”
Section: Protein Expression and Purificationmentioning
confidence: 99%