Cited by 28DNA Repair MechanismsGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry

Transcription Factors and DNA Repair Enzymes Compete for Damaged Promoter Sites

Open access
Moore, Stephen P.G., Kruchten, Joshua, Toomire, Kimberly J., Strauss, Phyllis R.·2016·Journal of Biological Chemistry

Abstract

Transcriptional regulation is a tightly regulated, vital process. The transcription factor cyclic AMP-response element-binding protein 1 (CREB1) controls ∼25% of the mammalian transcriptome by binding the CREB1 binding site consensus sequence (CRE) sequence (TGACGTCA). DNA lesions within CRE modulate CREB1 binding negatively and positively. Because appropriate DNA lesions also interact with base excision repair proteins, we investigated whether CREB1 and repair glycosylases compete with each other. We incubated 39-mer CRE-containing double-stranded oligonucleotides with recombinant CREB1 alone or with UNG2 or OGG1, followed by EMSA. The CpG islet within CRE was modified to contain a G/U or 8-oxoG (°G)/C mispair. OGG1 and CREB1 reversibly competed for CRE containing an °G/C pair. Also, OGG1 blocked CREB1 from dimerizing by 69%, even when total CREB1 binding was reduced only by 20-30%. In contrast, bound CREB1 completely prevented access to G/U-containing CRE by UNG2 and, therefore, to base excision repair, whereas UNG2 exposure prevented CREB1 binding. CREB1 dimerization was unaffected by UNG2 when CREB1 bound to CRE, but was greatly reduced by prior UNG2 exposure. To explore physiological relevance, we microinjected zebrafish embryos with the same oligonucleotides, as a sink for endogenous CREB1. As predicted, microinjection with unmodified or lesion-containing CRE, but not scrambled CRE or scrambled CRE with a G/U mispair, resulted in increased embryo death. However, only the G/U mispair in native CRE resulted in substantial developmental abnormalities, thus confirming the danger of unrepaired G/U mispairs in promoters. In summary, CREB1 and DNA glycosylases compete for damaged CRE in vitro and in vivo, thus blocking DNA repair and resulting in transcriptional misregulation leading to abnormal development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1074/jbc.m115.672733

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 8oxoG can repress gene transcription through multiple mechanisms, including blocking transcription factor binding, recruiting chromatin remodelers that methylate gene promoters, and erroneous BER that can result in single nucleotide variations.

    “8oxoG is capable of repressing gene transcription through many mechanisms, including blocking transcription factor binding (Ghosh & Mitchell, 1999; Moore et al, 2016), recruiting chromatin remodelers that result in the methylation of gene promoters(Wang et al, 2018b; Xia et al, 2017, 4), and erroneous repair through BER, which could result in single nucleotide variations (SNVs).”

    From Mechanisms of DNA damage-mediated neurotoxicity in neurodegenerative disease (2022) · cites this paper as Moore et al, 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moore, S. P. G., Kruchten, J., Toomire, K. J., & Strauss, P. R.
Affiliations
Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Strauss, Phyllis R.
Venue
Journal of Biological Chemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-03
Volume
291
Issue
11
Pages
5452-5460
ISSN
0021-9258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2237137237
Cited by
28
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biological Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Foundation
  • Aid for Cancer Research
  • Northeastern University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Keywords
CREB1, base excision repair, UNG2, OGG1, 8-oxoguanine, CpG islands, transcriptional regulation, zebrafish embryonic development, embryonic lethality
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, DNA Damage, DNA Repair, Humans, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Recombinant Proteins, Zebrafish, Consensus Sequence, Cyclic AMP Response Element-Binding Protein, DNA Glycosylases, Protein Multimerization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review