![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2006 by the Genetics Society of America Analysis of Pyrimidine Catabolism in Drosophila melanogaster Using Epistatic Interactions With Mutations of Pyrimidine Biosynthesis and β-Alanine Metabolism Molecular and Cellular Biology Group, Department of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506 1Address for correspondence: Department of Biology, 101 T. H. Morgan Bldg., University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506. E-mail: jrawls/at/uky.edu Communicating editor: J. A. Birchler Received October 24, 2005; Accepted November 20, 2005. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract The biochemical pathway for pyrimidine catabolism links the pathways for pyrimidine biosynthesis and salvage with β-alanine metabolism, providing an array of epistatic interactions with which to analyze mutations of these pathways. Loss-of-function mutations have been identified and characterized for each of the enzymes for pyrimidine catabolism: dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), su(r) mutants; dihydropyrimidinase (DHP), CRMP mutants; β-alanine synthase (βAS), pyd3 mutants. For all three genes, mutants are viable and fertile and manifest no obvious phenotypes, aside from a variety of epistatic interactions. Mutations of all three genes disrupt suppression by the rudimentary gain-of-function mutation (rSu(b)) of the dark cuticle phenotype of black mutants in which β-alanine pools are diminished; these results confirm that pyrimidines are the major source of β-alanine in cuticle pigmentation. The truncated wing phenotype of rudimentary mutants is suppressed completely by su(r) mutations and partially by CRMP mutations; however, no suppression is exhibited by pyd3 mutations. Similarly, su(r) mutants are hypersensitive to dietary 5-fluorouracil, CRMP mutants are less sensitive, and pyd3 mutants exhibit wild-type sensitivity. These results are discussed in the context of similar consequences of 5-fluoropyrimidine toxicity and pyrimidine catabolism mutations in humans. URACIL is degraded to β-alanine in three enzymatic steps: dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD; E.C. 1.3.1.2), dihydropyrimidinase (DHP; E.C. 3.5.2.2), and β-alanine synthase (βAS; E.C. 3.5.1.6) (Figure 1
Erik Bahn and colleagues at the University of Copenhagen demonstrated that modified pyrimidine degradation can be studied in Drosophila through epistatic interactions with mutations of de novo pyrimidine biosynthesis (overview in Figure 1 Perturbations of uracil catabolism also can be studied through epistatic interactions with mutations affecting levels of the pathway end product, β-alanine. Uracil catabolism is the major source of β-alanine in flies (Ross and Monroe 1972) in which adult cuticle pigmentation is qualitatively dependent upon β-alanine levels in cuticle-forming cells (Wright 1987). For example, black (b) mutant animals display a uniformly black cuticle phenotype, low levels of β-alanine (Hodgetts 1972), and an abnormal increase in the catabolic enzyme β-alanine transaminase (Weber et al. 1992). The b phenotype is reversed by injection of uracil, dihydrouracil, ureidopropionate, or β-alanine (Hodgetts and Choi 1974; Jacobs 1974). Genetically, the b mutant phenotype is suppressed by a semidominant gain-of-function mutation of the r gene, rSu(b) (Pedersen 1982; Bahn and Søndergaard 1983). rSu(b) is a UTP feedback-insensitive mutation of the CAD protein that results in overproduction of pyrimidines, apparently enhancing β-alanine levels and thereby normalizing the pigmentation of rSu(b) b flies (Piskur et al. 1993; Simmons et al. 1999; Figure 1 The D. melanogaster genome database indicates a single gene for DHP (CG1411, CRMP; Gojkovic et al. 2000; Celniker et al. 2002). This gene was named CRMP on the basis of the sequence similarity of a CG1411 cDNA with chick CRMP-62, a protein implicated in neuronal growth cone dynamics (Goshima et al. 1995). In animals, a closely related gene family encodes DHP and CRMPs (Takemoto et al. 2000). A second objective of this study was to confirm that the single Drosophila DHP/CRMP gene, CG1411, encodes DHP and to develop an experimental system with which to dissect the role of this gene in the disparate processes of pyrimidine catabolism and neurogenesis. A final objective was to comprehensively assess the roles of pyrimidine catabolism in animal development. Therefore, βAS mutations were sought at the D. melanogaster pyd3 gene (Gojkovic et al. 2000; Celniker et al. 2002), thereby permitting comparisons of loss-of-function mutations of all three pyrimidine catabolic enzymes. MATERIALS AND METHODS Drosophila strains and transgenes: Most genes, markers, balancers, and strains are described at FlyBase (Drysdale et al. 2005; http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu). The EY04394 strain was provided by the Szeged Drosophila Stock Centre and contains a copy of the P{EPgy2} transposon inserted into the X chromosome, ~0.6 kb from the 3′-end of the DPD open reading frame (ORF) in CG2194 (Figure 2
Two P-element transposons containing rudimentary DNA were used. P{r+} [FlyBase designation P{rcSa}] contains a 11.5-kb r genomic DNA fragment from which r introns 3–7 have been deleted; thus, it encodes a normal r ORF under control of r 5′ and 3′ DNA sequences. P{rSu(b)} [FlyBase designation P{rSu(b).cSa}] is identical to P{r+} except that it contains the nucleotide substitution of the rSu(b) mutation; thus, it encodes a feedback-insensitive form of the r protein. Both of these transposons carry the w+ marker and are described elsewhere (Simmons et al. 1999). The P{PYD1+} transgene (Figure 2 P-element mobilization screens: Deletion mutations of the su(r) gene were generated by P{Δ2-3}-mediated imprecise excision of the P{EPgy2} transposon in the EY04394 strain. y w P{EPgy2}EY04394 rC/Y; In(3LR)TMS, Sb P{Δ2-3}99B/+ males were crossed to C(1)DX, y f/Y females and the wings of non-Sb male progeny were examined. To avoid isolating clusters of identical mutations, these crosses were performed using two males per vial and no more than one event was eventually isolated from any one vial. Of 324 vials, approximately one-half (171) yielded at least one male with visibly normalized wings; these males were individually crossed to attached-X C(1)DX, y f/Y females to retest and establish new mutant lines. Forty-five of these lines produced normal- or virtually normal-winged males, indicating full suppression of r by the excision product, and were studied further; a few lines were isolated that produced partially normalized wings, but these were discarded. Imprecise excision of the P{EP} transposon within the EP(3)3238 strain was used to create deletion mutations of the CRMP gene. w/Y; P{EP}3238/In(3LR)TMS, Sb P{Δ2-3}99B males were crossed to w rC; Df(3R)noi-B, e/TM3, Sb P{r+} e females [the P{r+} transgene fully complements the rC mutation, restoring female fertility] and the wings of non-Sb male progeny (i.e., w rC/Y; P{EP}?/Df(3R)noi-B, e) were examined for individuals with normalized wings. Exceptional males were mated with w rC; Df(3R)noi-B, e/TM3, Sb P{r+} e females to test for transmission of the suppression phenotype (seen as normalized wings of non-e progeny) and to establish strains. Because the wings of exceptional flies were invariably less than fully normalized (e.g., only partial suppression of r; see results) and because the r phenotype is inherently variable, this screen was clearly inefficient; numerous false positives were selected (i.e., failed to transmit the suppression phenotype) and subtle mutations were undoubtedly overlooked. However, a total of six independently derived suppressor mutations were isolated, three of which were characterized further: CRMPsupI2, CRMPsupI3, and CRMPsupB3. The CRMPsupA4 mutation was obtained by EMS mutagenesis, using a similar screen strategy. w/Y; ri pp males (isogenic chromosome 3) were fed 25 mm EMS (Lewis and Bacher 1968) and crossed to w rC; Df(3R)noi-B, e/TM3, Sb P{r+} e females. Among the non-Sb male progeny of this cross, individuals bearing normalized wings were selected and crossed to w rC; Df(3R)noi-B, e/TM3, Sb P{r+} e females to retest the suppression mutations and to create mutant strains. Mutations of pyd3 were created by imprecise excision of the P{GawB}2343 element of the NP2343 strain, selecting for mutations that blocked suppression of the black cuticle phenotype in rSu(b) b animals. w/Y; b; P{GawB}3238/In(3LR)TMS, Sb P{Δ2-3}99B males were crossed to w; b; Df(3R)dsx10M, P{rSu(b)}/TM3, Sb females and non-Sb progeny were examined for rare dark-cuticle individuals. Each presumptive new mutant fly was crossed to the maternal strain to retest and to create a balanced stock of the new mutation. Three new mutations, designated pyd3L2, pyd3L5, and pyd3L10, were obtained in this manner. Determining lesions in mutant DNAs: To determine the nature of the transposon excision events that generated each mutation, PCR analysis of mutant fly DNA was carried out using primers flanking the original insertion sites as well as primers from the P element borne by the progenitor chromosome. A battery of PCR reactions was performed to determine whether P-element DNA had been removed and, if so, the length of genomic DNA remaining at the site. PCR-amplified mutant genomic fragments were gel purified and sequenced using primers flanking the sites of the mutations (DNA Sequencing Facility of Cincinnati Childrens Hospital). 5-fluorouracil toxicity assay: Ten pairs of parental adults were placed in vials containing standard culture medium (Lewis 1960) supplemented with 5-fluorouracil. After 3 days, the parents were discarded and emerging adult progeny were scored. Cultures were maintained at 25° throughout. For su(r) mutant tests, parents were su(r)/Y or P{EPgy2}EY0439/Y [non-su(r)] males and C(1)DX, y f/Y (su(r)+) females, producing progeny of the same genotypes, which should occur in equal numbers. For CRMP tests, parents were CRMP/TM3 or CRMP+/TM3 males and Df(3R)noi-B/TM3 females, producing hemizygous mutant [CRMP/Df(3R)noi-B] and heterozygous wild-type [CRMP/TM3 and Df(3R)noi-B/TM3] progeny (controls). These two classes of zygotes should be produced in a 1:2 ratio. pyd3 tests were performed similarly by crossing pyd3/TM3 or P{GawB}2343 (non-pyd3)/TM3 males and Df(3R)dsx10M/TM3 females, yielding pyd3 hemizygotes [pyd3/Df(3R)dsx10M] and heterozygous controls [pyd3/TM3 and Df(3R)dsx10M] at a predicted ratio of 1:2. RESULTS su(r)1 is a mutation of the Drosophila DPD gene: The D. melanogaster genome database indicates a single DPD gene (CG2194) located within cytogenetic region 8D (Gojkovic et al. 2000; Celniker et al. 2002), a site that corresponds closely to the recombination map position (1-27.7) reported for the su(r)1 mutation by Bahn (1972). To test whether CG2194 and su(r) are the same gene, an attempt was made to “rescue” the su(r)1 mutant phenotype with a transgene containing a 7358-bp segment of wild-type DNA that spans the CG2194 genomic region (Figure 2
The su(r)1 mutation results from substitution of a highly conserved amino acid residue within DPD: To identify the su(r)1 mutation, genomic DNA of mutant flies was PCR amplified and a 4591-bp segment was sequenced, extending from 596 bp 5′ to the apparent translation initiation codon for DPD to 609 bp 3′ to the translation termination codon (Figure 2 Gly203 is conserved among all known DPD protein sequences (Figure 4
Isolation and properties of su(r) null mutations: To isolate unambiguously null mutations of su(r), deletions were created by imprecise excision of a nearby P-element insertion, the P{EPgy2}04394 transposon that is inserted 639 bp 3′ to the translation termination codon of the DPD ORF (Figure 2 For each deletion, hemizygous males and homozygous females are viable, fertile, and morphologically normal. A variety of crosses were performed to confirm that these new mutations [designated su(r)new] are recessive, loss-of-function alleles of su(r)1: su(r)1 rC/su(r)new rC females have normal wings, whereas su(r)+ rC/su(r)new rC females invariably display severe r wings; su(r)1/su(r)new; b/b; P{rSu(b)}/+ females have typical black cuticle, whereas su(r)+/su(r)new; b/b; P{rSu(b)}/+ females have normal cuticle pigmentation (suppressed black). Finally, the P{PYD1+} transgene invariably complements all su(r)new mutations: su(r)new rC/Y; P{PYD1+}/+ males have severely rudimentary mutant wings and su(r)new/Y; P{PYD1+} b/b; P{rSu(b)}/+ males have normal cuticle pigmentation. Isolation of CRMP mutations that suppress rudimentary phenotypes: DHP mutations were screened on the basis of the prediction that, like su(r) mutations, loss-of-function CRMP mutants might also accumulate elevated levels of pyrimidines and thereby suppress the r wing phenotype. Accordingly, genetic screens were carried out using the Df(3R)noi-B deficiency chromosome (which lacks the CRMP gene) to screen for new CRMPsup mutations. Screens of EMS-treated chromosomes resulted in recovery of one mutation, CRMPsupA4. Mobilization of the P{EP}3238 transposon, inserted near the predicted 5′-end of the CRMP gene (Figure 5 To confirm that these suppressor mutations are alleles of the CRMP gene, the P{PYD2+} transgene that includes 10.8 kb of wild-type genomic DNA spanning the CRMP gene was created (Figure 5 Sequencing of CRMP DNA identified each of these mutations. CRMPsupA4 contains a single A → T nucleotide substitution that corresponds to a Asp430 → Val change in the mutant DPD protein. The Asp430 residue lies within a strongly conserved segment of the wild-type protein and is invariant in all known DHP proteins, as well as in all known CRMP proteins (Figure 6
Each of the mutations created by mobilization of the P{EP}3238 transposon are deletions of the transposon and varying extents of flanking genomic DNA (Figure 5 CRMPsup mutations are epistatic to rSu(b): Crosses were performed to test whether CRMPsup mutations block suppression of the black body phenotype by the rSu(b) mutation. rSu(b) b CRMPsupA4 animals (Figure 7C
Isolation of pyd3 mutations: Whereas suppression of the r wing phenotype was a successful criterion for selection of su(r) and CRMP mutants, similar screens to isolate mutations in the pyd3 gene were unsuccessful. Thus, an alternative strategy was developed on the basis of the ability of pyrimidine degradation pathway mutations to block the interaction of rSu(b) and b. By screening for imprecise excision events of the P{GawB}2343 transposon in a b P{rSu(b)} background, excision derivatives were obtained that produced black cuticle flies in Df(3R)dsx10M hemizygotes. The pyd3La2 and pyd3Lb5 mutations are deletions extending from the transposon insertion site and removing, respectively, 1088 and 1338 bp of 5′ flanking sequences of the pyd3 gene (Figure 8 Each of the new pyd3 mutations is viable and fertile as homozygotes and no morphological changes are evident in these flies. The ability of each mutation to disrupt the suppression of b by rSu(b) was fully complemented by a single copy of the P{PYD3+} transgene containing wild-type DNA spanning the pyd3 gene: b/b; P{rSu(b)} pyd3/pyd3 animals display dark cuticle, whereas P{PYD+} b/b; P{rSu(b)} pyd3/pyd3 animals have normalized cuticle. Thus, these mutations are indeed loss-of-function alleles of pyd3. However, pyd3 mutations do not suppress the r mutant wing phenoptype: the wings of rC/Y; pyd3/pyd3 and rC/Y; pyd3/+ males are indistinguishable and similar to those in Figure 3A su(r), CRMP, and pyd3 mutants differ in their sensitivities to dietary 5-fluorouracil: Experiments were performed to determine whether DPD, DHP, and βAS deficiencies in Drosophila result in enhanced toxicity to 5-FU by rearing animals on standard medium containing a range of concentrations of the compound and measuring survival to adulthood. To test DPD deficiency, su(r)/Y males were mated with attached-X females, crosses that yield the same male [su(r)] and female [su(r)+] zygotes. P{EPgy2}04394 flies [non-su(r)] were insensitive to 5-FU, displaying similar survival at all concentrations (Figure 9A
To test DHP deficiency, heterozygous CRMPsup/TM3 and Df(3R)noi-B/TM3 parents were mated, a cross that should yield hemizygous CRMPsup/Df(3R)noi-B (mutant) and heterozygous TM3 controls (CRMP+) (TM3/TM3 zygotes die). At 0 and 10 μm 5-FU, CRMPsup mutants emerged in numbers similar to those of CRMP+ hemizygotes (Figure 9B βAS deficiency was assayed by crosses of pyd3/TM3 and Df(3R)dsx10M/TM3 flies, creating pyd3/Df(3R)dsx10M hemizygotes and TM3 heterozygotes. As shown in Figure 9C DISCUSSION Results provided here unambiguously identify su(r) to be the Drosophila DPD gene, as originally proposed by Bahn (1972). Loss-of-function su(r) mutations are readily identified by their epistatic interactions with mutations of de novo pyrimidine biosynthesis (e.g., suppression of the r mutant wing phenotype) (Bahn 1972; Figure 3 The consequences of DPD deficiency in flies are comparable to those seen in humans in which genetically determined DPD deficiency and numerous functionally significant polymorphisms have been described. Most cases have been identified among patients showing severe toxic reactions to pyrimidine analogs, especially 5-FU, which is one of the most frequently prescribed chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of cancer (Gross et al. 2003; van Kuilenburg 2004). DPD deficiency also has been discovered among patients with clinical presentations ranging from convulsive disorders, motor and mental retardation, to other growth and development problems (van Kuilenburg et al. 1999, 2002). The causal relationships between DPD deficiency and 5-FU toxicity are clearly established (Heggie et al. 1987); however, the consequences of human DPD deficiency upon normal development and metabolism is unclear. It has been proposed that the etiology of DPD deficiency may be perturbations in uracil, β-alanine, and/or β-aminoisobutyrate homeostasis, but direct evidence is lacking (van Kuilenburg et al. 2004). Some DPD-deficient individuals are asymptomatic and the broad range of the clinical presentations of others suggests that DPD deficiency alone does not determine abnormality; rather, DPD deficiency may synergistically interact with other genetic and metabolic factors to yield clinically manifested disorders. Transcripts of the D. melanogaster su(r) gene exhibit daily cycles of abundance in fly heads under the control of photoperiod, diet, and function of the period gene (called Dreg-3; Van Gelder et al. 1995). Similar rhythmic, cyclic variations have been reported for DPD and its mRNA in a variety of animals (Grem et al. 1997; Porsin et al. 2003). The biological role of such oscillations is unknown; however, their wide conservation suggests an important process. Drosophila offers a model system for understanding the basis and role of this phenomenon in animals. The consequences of DHP deficiency and βAS deficiency in Drosophila appear to be similar to, although quantitatively different from, DPD deficiency. Like su(r) mutants, CRMPsup and pyd3 mutants develop essentially normally although, again, cryptic phenotypes may have been overlooked so far. CRMPsup and pyd3 mutations block rSu(b) suppression of the b phenotype to a degree indistinguishable from the action of su(r) mutations, a similarity that agrees with the prediction that all of these mutations of pyrimidine catabolic steps should equally block β-alanine formation from uracil (Figure 1 DHP is a member of a closely related protein family that includes bacterial hydantoinases and animal CRMP proteins (Takemoto et al. 2000; Gojkovic et al. 2003). CRMPs modulate axonal growth cone dynamics in cultured neurons through mediation of signal transduction and/or microtubule dynamics (reviewed in Castellani and Rougon 2002; Deo et al. 2004). In vertebrates, separate genes encode DHP and at least four CRMPs; however, the D. melanogaster genome contains a single gene (CRMP). Thus, it will be interesting to determine if and how this gene encodes both DHP and CRMP, two structurally similar yet functionally divergent proteins. The CRMPsup mutants described here exhibit no obvious neurogenic or neurological defects and their phenotypes are entirely explained as consequences of DHP deficiency. However, a role for this gene in neurogenesis cannot be ruled out at present for at least two reasons. First, all of these CRMPsup mutations were obtained in screens in which DHP deficiency (suppression of the r wing phenotype) was the foremost criterion; thus, it is conceivable that these mutations might selectively disrupt DHP activity without disrupting CRMP function. A second possibility is that CRMP function is impaired in one or more of these mutations but that the CRMP loss-of-function phenotype is relatively cryptic. Elucidating DHP and CRMP functions of CRMP will require additional discerning mutations (e.g., unambiguous knockouts, gain-of-function mutations) and measurements of more subtle phenotypes among those mutations (e.g., growth cone dynamics in embryogenesis, behavior, and longevity). Acknowledgments Thanks go to the Bloomington Stock Center, the Kyoto Drosophila Genetic Resource Center, the Szeged Drosophila Stock Centre, Exelixis, E. Bahn, and D. Pauli for providing fly strains; to the BACPAC Resources Center for BAC clones; to Kentucky Biomedical Research Infrastructure Network students Tommy Antony, Joey Kolb, Jersy Napoleon, Shingirirai Nyamwanza, Lindsay Poling, Emily Steinmetz, Angie Thacker, and Ali Wright for assistance in the mutant screens. This work was partially supported by grant 2 P20 RR-16481 from the National Institutes of Health. Notes References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Int J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun; 8(3):127-31.
[Int J Clin Oncol. 2003]Eur J Cancer. 2004 May; 40(7):939-50.
[Eur J Cancer. 2004]Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Sep; 63(3):717-26.
[Am J Hum Genet. 1998]Hum Genet. 1999 Jan; 104(1):1-9.
[Hum Genet. 1999]Biochem J. 2002 May 15; 364(Pt 1):157-63.
[Biochem J. 2002]Hereditas. 1970; 66(2):205-14.
[Hereditas. 1970]Hereditas. 1974; 78(2):157-68.
[Hereditas. 1974]Genome Biol. 2002; 3(12):RESEARCH0083.
[Genome Biol. 2002]J Insect Physiol. 1972 Aug; 18(8):1593-7.
[J Insect Physiol. 1972]Adv Genet. 1987; 24():127-222.
[Adv Genet. 1987]J Insect Physiol. 1972 May; 18(5):937-47.
[J Insect Physiol. 1972]Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992 Jan 23; 1115(3):181-6.
[Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992]Nature. 1974 Dec 20; 252(5485):710-1.
[Nature. 1974]J Mol Biol. 2000 Jan 28; 295(4):1073-87.
[J Mol Biol. 2000]Genome Biol. 2002; 3(12):RESEARCH0079.
[Genome Biol. 2002]Gene. 2000 Dec 31; 261(2):259-67.
[Gene. 2000]J Mol Biol. 2000 Jan 28; 295(4):1073-87.
[J Mol Biol. 2000]Genome Biol. 2002; 3(12):RESEARCH0079.
[Genome Biol. 2002]Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Jan 1; 33(Database issue):D390-5.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2005]Genetics. 2004 Jun; 167(2):761-81.
[Genetics. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 29; 93(22):12418-22.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Mar 28; 97(7):3347-51.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Genesis. 2002 Sep-Oct; 34(1-2):58-61.
[Genesis. 2002]J Mol Biol. 1999 Mar 26; 287(2):277-85.
[J Mol Biol. 1999]Gene. 1988 Dec 30; 74(2):445-56.
[Gene. 1988]Science. 2000 Mar 24; 287(5461):2271-4.
[Science. 2000]J Mol Biol. 2000 Jan 28; 295(4):1073-87.
[J Mol Biol. 2000]Genome Biol. 2002; 3(12):RESEARCH0079.
[Genome Biol. 2002]Genome Biol. 2002; 3(12):RESEARCH0079.
[Genome Biol. 2002]EMBO J. 2001 Feb 15; 20(4):650-60.
[EMBO J. 2001]Genetics. 2004 Jun; 167(2):761-81.
[Genetics. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Mar 28; 97(7):3347-51.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]J Mol Biol. 2002 Jun 28; 320(1):143-56.
[J Mol Biol. 2002]EMBO J. 2004 Jan 14; 23(1):9-22.
[EMBO J. 2004]J Insect Physiol. 1972 May; 18(5):937-47.
[J Insect Physiol. 1972]Nature. 1974 Dec 20; 252(5485):710-1.
[Nature. 1974]J Insect Physiol. 1974 May; 20(5):859-66.
[J Insect Physiol. 1974]J Insect Physiol. 1972 Aug; 18(8):1593-7.
[J Insect Physiol. 1972]Eur J Cancer. 2004 May; 40(7):939-50.
[Eur J Cancer. 2004]Hum Genet. 1999 Jan; 104(1):1-9.
[Hum Genet. 1999]Biochem J. 2002 May 15; 364(Pt 1):157-63.
[Biochem J. 2002]Cancer Res. 1987 Apr 15; 47(8):2203-6.
[Cancer Res. 1987]Biochem J. 2004 Apr 1; 379(Pt 1):119-24.
[Biochem J. 2004]Curr Biol. 1995 Dec 1; 5(12):1424-36.
[Curr Biol. 1995]Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1997; 40(2):117-25.
[Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1997]Eur J Cancer. 2003 Apr; 39(6):822-8.
[Eur J Cancer. 2003]Eur J Cancer. 2004 May; 40(7):939-50.
[Eur J Cancer. 2004]Gene. 2000 Dec 31; 261(2):259-67.
[Gene. 2000]Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Mar 15; 31(6):1683-92.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2003]Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2002 Oct; 12(5):532-41.
[Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2002]EMBO J. 2004 Jan 14; 23(1):9-22.
[EMBO J. 2004]Genome Biol. 2002; 3(12):RESEARCH0079.
[Genome Biol. 2002]Genetics. 2004 Jun; 167(2):761-81.
[Genetics. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 29; 93(22):12418-22.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996]Genome Biol. 2002; 3(12):RESEARCH0079.
[Genome Biol. 2002]Genome Biol. 2002; 3(12):RESEARCH0079.
[Genome Biol. 2002]Genesis. 2002 Sep-Oct; 34(1-2):58-61.
[Genesis. 2002]