2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2013.01.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural Basis of the Interaction of the Breast Cancer Oncogene LMO4 with the Tumour Suppressor CtIP/RBBP8

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
12
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
4
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the dysregulation of LMO4 has been implicated in the carcinogenesis and metastasis of a variety of human cancers. Studies have indicated that LMO4 overexpression may disrupt the normal tumor suppressor activities of Tip, promoting breast cancer progression (2), and affecting lung cancer patient survival (3). A number of studies have found LMO4 highly expressed at sites of active epithelial-mesenchymal interactions, and LMO4 can interact with signaling pathways involved in epithelial-mesenchymal signaling (4), leading to an increase in stromal cell invasion and migration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, the dysregulation of LMO4 has been implicated in the carcinogenesis and metastasis of a variety of human cancers. Studies have indicated that LMO4 overexpression may disrupt the normal tumor suppressor activities of Tip, promoting breast cancer progression (2), and affecting lung cancer patient survival (3). A number of studies have found LMO4 highly expressed at sites of active epithelial-mesenchymal interactions, and LMO4 can interact with signaling pathways involved in epithelial-mesenchymal signaling (4), leading to an increase in stromal cell invasion and migration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5A). In terms of the LIDs from LIM-7 and ISL1, the sequence identity is low, and it is not easy to confidently predict binding registers for LIM-LID interactions 43, 44 . However, the SWISS-MODEL prediction was identical to our manual alignment (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another characteristic feature of LIM-LID interactions 26 that is conserved in this model is the burial of the LIM-7 V353 and LIM-7 I368 sidechains in between the two zinc-binding modules in each LIM domain of CEH-14. Note that although these features are structurally conserved, mutation of these buried residues can have surprisingly little effect, possibly due to plasticity in the hydrophobic pockets 31, 44 .
Figure 5Conserved and unusual features of LHX3-Islet family LIM-HD interactions in C. elegans proteins. ( A ) Overlay of the LHX3 LIM1+2 (black ribbon/transparent grey surface representation)–ISL1 LID (cyan) crystal structure (1RGT Chain B) and a simple homology model of CEH-14(orange)–LIM-7(purple).
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, tethered complexes are not amenable to standard quantitative binding studies. Yeast‐two hybrid (Y2 H) assays suggest that the interactions of LMO4 with CtIP and Deaf1 are significantly weaker than with LDB1 ,. Homologous competition ELISA experiments using complexes in which the tether has been cut by a protease yielded estimates of LDB1 LID :LMO2/4 LIM1+2 affinity ( K d =20 and 10 n m respectively), but are not suited to weaker interactions due to multiple washing steps.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…FRET‐dilution assays in which concentrated samples of cut complexes were serially diluted gave affinity estimates of K d =1.4±0.3 n m and 31±3 n m for LMO4 LIM1+2 binding to LDB1 LID (WT) and the I322A mutant, respectively (Figure A and Table S1), in good agreement with the competition experiments. Attempts were made to assess the weaker binding of CtIP LID to LMO4 LIM1+2 . We modified the dilution experiment by spiking in YFP‐CtIP LID to promote complex formation, with the resultant estimate of affinity measured as K d =9±2 μ m (Figure A).…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%