![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2006, European Molecular Biology Organization Myc influences global chromatin structure 1Division of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA 2The Wistar Institute, Gene Expression and Regulation Program, Philadelphia, PA, USA 3Proteomics Facility, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA aDivision of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue N, Seattle, WA 98109-4417, USA. Tel.: +1 206 667 4445; Fax: +1 206 667 6522; E-mail: eisenman/at/fhcrc.org Received December 6, 2005; Accepted April 27, 2006. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract The family of myc proto-oncogenes encodes transcription factors (c-, N-, and L-Myc) that regulate cell growth and proliferation and are involved in the etiology of diverse cancers. Myc proteins are thought to function by binding and regulating specific target genes. Here we report that Myc proteins are required for the widespread maintenance of active chromatin. Disruption of N-myc in neuronal progenitors and other cell types leads to nuclear condensation accompanied by large-scale changes in histone modifications associated with chromatin inactivation, including hypoacetylation and altered methylation. These effects are largely reversed by exogenous Myc as well as by differentiation and are mimicked by the Myc antagonist Mad1. The first chromatin changes are evident within 6 h of Myc loss and lead to changes in chromatin structure. Myc widely influences chromatin in part through upregulation of the histone acetyltransferase GCN5. This study provides the first evidence for regulation of global chromatin structure by an oncoprotein and may explain the broad effects of Myc on cell behavior and tumorigenesis. Keywords: chromatin, epigenetics, histone modification, Myc, stem and progenitor cells Introduction The members of the Myc/Mad/Mnt superfamily of basic helix–loop–helix zipper (bHLHZ) transcription factors each heterodimerize with the bHLHZ protein Max and bind the E-box sequence CACGTG. Transcriptional activation by Myc proteins and repression by Mad/Mnt proteins, at E-box binding sites, are involved in regulation of cell growth, proliferation, and apoptosis (Eisenman, 2001). Targeted disruption of c-myc, N-myc, or max in the mouse leads to embryonic lethality (Stanton et al, 1992; Davis et al, 1993; Shen-Li et al, 2000), whereas overexpression of myc genes is strongly associated with the genesis of diverse cancers in many species (Lutz et al, 2002). Myc activates transcription through recruitment of chromatin-modifying complexes. For example, interaction with the coactivator TRRAP mediates Myc's association with histone acetyltransferases (HATs) GCN5 and Tip60 (McMahon et al, 1998, 2000; Frank et al, 2003). Myc also interacts with CBP and the chromatin-remodeling complex containing Ini1 (Cheng et al, 1999; Vervoorts et al, 2003). By contrast, Mad proteins recruit histone deacetylases (HDACs) via the corepressor mSin3 (Ayer, 1999; Knoepfler and Eisenman, 1999). The complexes recruited by Myc–Max and Mad–Max induce distinct chromatin modifications within the regulatory regions of shared target genes, leading to activation or repression (Eisenman, 2001; Frank et al, 2001; Fernandez et al, 2003). The notion that Myc is a typical transcription factor regulating the expression of a small number of target genes has been challenged by recent findings indicating that DNA binding and gene regulation by Myc are both surprisingly widespread (Fernandez et al, 2003; Li et al, 2003; Orian et al, 2003; Cawley et al, 2004; Patel et al, 2004). To study potential global gene regulatory functions of Myc, we focused on myc loss-of-function mutations in cells and tissues normally dependent on Myc activity. Results Altered nuclei and histone modifications in N-myc null cells We previously demonstrated that N-myc is essential for normal nervous system development (Knoepfler et al, 2002) by using nestin-cre to generate a nervous system-specific conditional knockout of N-myc in the mouse (N-myc NS null). In N-myc NS null E12.5 embryos, we observed that neural stem and progenitor cell (NPC) nuclei were abnormally small, round, and dark when stained with either H&E or methyl green (compare control and N-myc null nuclei in Figure 1Ai–ii
Transcriptional activity of chromatin is associated with specific histone modifications, including acetylation and methylation (Strahl and Allis, 2000), implicated in local gene-specific effects as well as global chromatin structure (Vogelauer et al, 2000; Rea et al, 2000; Berger and Felsenfeld, 2001; Kurdistani et al, 2004; Schubeler et al, 2004). To determine if disruption of Myc function induces changes in histone modifications consistent with chromatin inactivation, we first employed immunohistochemistry (IHC) to assess global levels of acetylated histone H3 and H4 (AcH3, AcH4) in the developing nervous system of control, N-myc NS null (Knoepfler et al, 2002), and nestin-N-myc transgenic (Tg) E12.5 embryos (Figure 1Av–viii We next asked whether acute disruption of N-myc would also alter histone acetylation. Using cultured N-mycflox/flox cerebellar granule neural progenitors (CGNPs), N-myc was acutely disrupted by infection with MSCV Cre-IRES-GFP (Cre-GFP), a retroviral vector expressing Cre and GFP (Figure 1B Myc is required for maintenance of normal histone methylation patterns To determine whether the decreased histone acetylation observed in N-myc null cells correlates with altered histone methylation patterns (Rea et al, 2000), we began by staining CGNPs for methylated H3-K9. Control (N-mycflox/flox) CGNPs displayed only faint speckled staining for both H3-diMeK9 (Figure 3A
Reintroduction of Myc restores altered histone acetylation in N-myc null cells To ascertain if the decreased levels of histone acetylation represent an irreversible cellular response to N-Myc loss, we examined N-myc null (N-mycflox/flox nestin-cre+) neurosphere cultures derived from E12.5 whole embryonic brains. Overall IF analysis indicated that such N-myc null neurosphere cultures exhibited very low or undetectable nuclear histone acetylation compared to N-mycflox/flox controls (Figure 1G
Quantitative analysis of chromatin changes Because quantitative analyses require more chromatin than can be readily obtained from our primary murine neuronal cell cultures, we turned to the well-characterized c-myc null rat fibroblast cell line, HO15.19 (Mateyak et al, 1997). As in the neuronal cells, HO15.19 cells lacking c-myc (hereafter ‘c-myc null' and which do not express N- or L-myc) (Mateyak et al, 1997) are hypoacetylated at H3 and H4 compared to the TGR wild-type (WT) parental control line when assayed by IF (Figure 2A
Histone modification changes associated with loss of myc were also studied by mass spectrometric (MS) analysis of acid extracts from parental control TGR cells and c-myc null fibroblasts (Figure 2D and E Myc influences global histone modification, nuclear size, and heterochromatin We consistently observe a correlation between levels of N-Myc, nuclear size, and acetylated H3 and H4 in neural progenitors. Figure 3A Loss of Myc leads to decreased DNA accessibility To address whether myc levels influence chromatin structure, we conducted micrococcal nuclease (MNase) accessibility assays (Weintraub and Groudine, 1976) using the well-established Tet-Off Myc B (P493-6) cell system (Schuhmacher et al, 1999) in which Myc can be reproducibly turned off by the addition of tetracycline. The P493-6 cells exhibit the same type of chromatin changes upon Myc downregulation as observed in myc-deficient neuronal cells and fibroblasts (see below). Intact living cells were permeabilized so as to minimize effects on chromatin structure (Zaret, 1999) and cells were treated with increasing amounts of MNase (Figure 3C Loss of Myc rapidly alters histone modifications in a cell cycle- and differentiation-independent manner To assess the kinetics of chromatin changes associated with loss of Myc, we analyzed Tet-Off Myc B cells (Schuhmacher et al, 1999) in which introduction of tetracycline shuts down c-Myc expression. Expression of endogenous Myc proteins is undetectable in these cells, and introduction of tetracycline rapidly (within 16 h) leads to strong downregulation of the c-Myc transgene (Grandori et al, 2003). Introduction of tetracycline for 72 h in a serum-free context resulted in loss of Myc (data not shown) as well as the same general pattern of changes we observed in neuronal cells and fibroblasts upon Myc disruption: decreased histone H3 K9 acetylation and K4 methylation as well as increased levels of H3-diMeK9, and nuclear condensation (Supplementary Figure S4; not shown). Initial changes were detectable as early as 6 h after introduction of tetracycline (Supplementary Figure S4) and downregulation of Myc (data not shown), whereas more substantial changes were evident after 24 and 72 h. Thus, changes in histone modifications occur rapidly following alterations in Myc levels. Further, the changes in chromatin do not appear to be secondary to changes in cell cycle status because the chromatin alterations are observed with loss of Myc in a system in which there are no cycling cells (serum-free conditions) (Schuhmacher et al, 1999). Several additional lines of evidence argue against the possibility that the changes in histone modifications are secondary consequences of cell cycle arrest upon Myc loss. The c-myc null HO15.19 fibroblasts, which exhibit decreased acetylation (Figure 2
The Myc antagonist Mad1 suppresses widespread histone acetylation: a role for the global balance of HDACs and HATs Mad-related proteins exhibit widespread genomic binding in Drosophila overlapping with dMyc binding sites (Orian et al, 2003) and antagonize some Myc functions through shared target genes in mammalian cells (Iritani et al, 2002). We asked whether Mad1 also influences widespread chromatin modification. Mad1 overexpression in control neurospheres (not shown) and murine fibroblasts resulted in a pronounced reduction in global AcH4 (Figure 2B We hypothesized that the widespread alterations in chromatin owing to changes in Mad or Myc could be due to a large-scale imbalance in the overall levels of HATs and HDACs. The HDAC inhibitor TSA reversed histone hypoacetylation in N-myc null neurospheres (Supplementary Figure S6A), suggesting that loss of Myc may cause chromatin changes in part by shifting the balance of HDACs and HATs toward HDACs. This notion is also supported by our observation that overexpression of HDAC1 in fibroblasts phenocopies loss of Myc (Supplementary Figure S6B) in terms of nuclear condensation as well as histone hypoacetylation. Furthermore, introduction of the HATs GCN5, MOF, or TIP60 reverses the histone hypoacetylation observed in N-myc null neurospheres (Figure 5G GCN5 is a direct Myc target gene One mechanism by which Myc could control the overall equilibrium of histone-modifying enzymes is by regulation of their expression. In order to address this possibility, levels of chromatin-modifying enzymes in Tet-Myc cells or in primary cells with and without Myc were analyzed by IF, immunoblotting, and RT–PCR (Figure 5 Reduction of endogenous GCN5 levels interferes with Myc-induced hyperacetylation To more directly assess a potential functional role for GCN5 in Myc's global regulation of chromatin, we employed RNAi to KD endogenous GCN5 utilizing a set of five independent unique GCN5 shRNA constructs (sequence search verified no off-site targets for any of the five constructs), along with a nonspecific control shRNA. The five independent GCN5 RNAi constructs exhibited a range of inhibitory activity that correlated well with reduction in endogenous GCN5 by IF and by Western blot (Figures 6A
If GCN5 is required for Myc's ability to regulate global chromatin, then KD of endogenous GCN5 should block the ability of reintroduced N-Myc to restore the histone acetylation in N-myc null neurospheres. Consistent with a critical role for endogenous GCN5 in Myc's global chromatin function, the five GCN5 RNAi constructs interfered with the ability of reintroduced N-Myc to reverse histone hypoacetylation in proportion to their GCN5 KD effectiveness (Figure 6B and C Discussion The notion that Myc is a general chromatin regulator, while to our knowledge unprecedented for an oncoprotein, is nonetheless consistent with several recent observations concerning Myc function. First, a series of independent expression microarray studies have collectively identified an unexpectedly large group of potential genes (representing about 5% of all genes) that are transcriptionally regulated by Myc (Zeller et al, 2003). Second, recent experiments directly assessing genomic binding by Myc suggest binding to thousands of sites throughout the genome encompassing approximately 15% of genes as well as intergenic regions (Fernandez et al, 2003; Li et al, 2003; Orian et al, 2003; Cawley et al, 2004; Patel et al, 2004). Finally, although many Myc target genes are transcribed by RNA polymerase II, Myc has also been shown to directly stimulate both RNA polymerase III and RNA polymerase I transcription (Gomez-Roman et al, 2003; Arabi et al, 2005; Grandori et al, 2005). Thus, the widespread binding of Myc complexes to DNA appears to be linked to pervasive effects on gene expression. The data presented in this report demonstrate that both loss and gain of Myc function substantially influence widespread histone modifications. Disruption or downregulation of myc expression leads to decreased active and increased repressive chromatin marks, an effect that appears to be reversible by overexpression of myc. The changes in histone modifications upon loss of myc correlate with decreased accessibility of DNA, increases in heterochromatic regions, and decreased nuclear size. We show that these reversible effects are unlikely to be secondary consequences of apoptosis, senescence, differentiation, or loss of proliferative capacity. How does Myc regulate chromatin on a broad scale? The widespread binding of Myc to genomic DNA and Myc's recruitment of chromatin-modifying complexes to bound loci are likely to contribute to the observed activity. However, widespread binding by Myc is unlikely to fully account for the large-scale effects we observe on chromatin and we believe that additional mechanisms must come into play. Importantly, we have shown that the gene encoding the HAT GCN5 is transcriptionally regulated by Myc and that GCN5 expression is required for introduced Myc to fully reverse the loss of acetylation observed in myc null cells. Myc itself recruits GCN5 to its binding sites (McMahon et al, 2000); however, we have demonstrated that increased levels of GCN5 alone can strongly augment acetylation in myc null cells (Figure 5G Although we also do not know the precise temporal order of the changes we observe, we hypothesize that loss of Myc induces a widespread state of histone hypoacetylation followed by increases in repressive methylation and ultimately nuclear condensation. As recent studies indicate that H3-K4 methylation may direct subsequent histone acetylation, the loss of H3-K4 methylation we observe with disruption of Myc could precede decreased histone acetylation as well (Dou et al, 2005; Pray-Grant et al, 2005; Wysocka et al, 2005)—in this regard, it will be interesting to determine whether Myc recruits histone methyl transferases. There is considerable interest in possible chromatin-based therapies for cancer (Egger et al, 2004) and two recent papers have demonstrated substantial changes in histone modifications associated with specific tumors (Fraga et al, 2005; Seligson et al, 2005). Because Myc deregulation is linked to the etiology of many different types of tumors, our data suggest a mechanism by which Myc may drive initial changes in chromatin during tumorigenesis. There is currently no evidence that other oncoproteins or transcription factors similarly influence large-scale chromatin structure; however, we would expect that a subset of regulatory proteins with ubiquitous binding sites on DNA might behave like Myc. Thus, our studies provide an example of how other transcription factors and oncoproteins may regulate chromatin on a global scale. Materials and methods IHC Staining of tissue sections was conducted as described (Knoepfler et al, 2002). A 1:200 dilution of all antibodies was used. Immunofluorescence studies Staining of cultured cells was conducted as described (Knoepfler et al, 2002) except that cells were blocked in 5% BSA, 3% NGS, and 0.3% Triton X-100; antibody incubations were conducted in 3% NGS and 0.3% Triton X-100 in PBS. All antibodies were from USB (AcH3: 06-942, AcH4: 06-866, diMeK9: 07-212, triMeK9: 07-422, triMeK4: 07-473, HP1α: 05-689, p300: 05-257, TIP60: 07-389, CBP: 06-294), except N-Myc (Santa Cruz; SC-791 and SC-142), GCN5 (Abcam 18381), and mAb AcH3 (Abcam 12179). A 1:500 dilution was used in each case. Mean fluorescence intensity was determined using Photoshop by subtracting the value of background fluorescence (areas with no nuclei) from fluorescence from nuclei. Electron microscopy Cultured CGNPs were embedded in Epon. Processing and imaging was conducted as described (Morrish et al, 2003). Preparation, culture, and transfection/infection of cells CGNPs were isolated and cultured as described (Kenney et al, 2003). Neurospheres were isolated and cultured as described (Knoepfler et al, 2002). Virus was produced as described (Knoepfler et al, 2002) except that the helper plasmid was VSV-G and the virus was concentrated by centrifugation at 30 000 g for 30 min. Neurospheres were transfected with Fugene-6. In the rescue experiment in neurospheres, N-MycER and N-MycERΔMBII were used with tamoxifen treatment or WT N-Myc was used. TSA treatment of cells was at 100 ng/ml for 20 h. In the experiments looking at induction of GCN5 by Myc, c-MycER was used as described (Zhang et al, 2005). Knockout and transgenic mice The production and use of the N-myc and c-myc conditional knockout mice have been described (de Alboran et al, 2001; Knoepfler et al, 2002). Although derived from the same ES cell line, the N-mycflox/flox mice used in the current study do not retain a neo cassette. The same nestin-cre Tg mice were used as before (Knoepfler et al, 2002). As the nestin-cre Tg activity is moderately leaky in gametes, some mice used in these studies are flox/flox and some are flox/null, but there is no consistent phenotypic difference between flox/flox and flox/null mice. The N-myc Tg mice were produced by pronuclear injection of a Tg vector designed to express N-MycER-IRES-GFP. Nine founder strains were established; data are from Tg embryos from two founders. Immunoblotting/ChIP Equal amounts of total protein from acid-extracted histones, prepared as described (McKittrick et al, 2004), were used. Blots were probed with the indicated antibodies and analyzed using the Odyssey system as directed by the manufacturer (LI-COR). Quantitative data for relative histone acetylation are the mean from two separate experiments on unique extracts, whereas data for methylation are from one experiment. Antibody dilutions were 1:1000 for all antibodies with the exception of 1:5000 for triMeK9 and triMeK4. ChIP was conducted as follows. NHDF (2091) cells were plated on 15-cm dishes, incubated for 24 h, and then deprived of growth factors for a subsequent 24 h by incubation in 0.1% serum-containing medium. After 0 or 2 h of serum stimulation (10%), cells were fixed in 1% formaldehyde. Chromatin was sheared to an average size of 500–1000 bp by sonication (6–8 times with 10-s pulses, 30% output on a Branson Model 250). Lysates corresponding to 5–10 million cells were rotated at 4°C overnight with 2 μg of polyclonal antibodies specific for c-MYC (sc-764, Santa Cruz Biotechnology). Precipitated DNA fragments were quantified by using qPCR. Experiments were performed in triplicate, and normalized by input DNA. RNAi Five independent shRNA expression plasmids targeted against mGCN5 were used according to the manufacturer's instructions (Sigma). RNAi constructs #1–5 are shRNAs with a 21 bp stem (6 bp loop) with homology against mGCN5 sequences beginning at the following base-pairs of the coding region: (1) 280, (2) 841, (3) 941, (4) 1770, and (5) 1996. For specific sequences of each construct and other details, see http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/SIGMA/SHDNA-NM_020004. Verification of the absence of off-site targets was conducted by blastn search of the non-redundant database (Altschul et al, 1990). The control RNAi was an shRNA against the empty vector pBS. The plasmids were transiently transfected into N-myc null neurospheres using Fugene-6. After 24 h, cells were transfected with either empty vector or N-Myc, and then 48 h after the second transfection, cells were harvested. Effectiveness of KD of GCN5 was analyzed by IF staining for GCN5, whereas blockage of rescue was gauged by double IF staining for AcH3 and N-Myc. Four randomly selected sets of 10 clearly N-Myc-transfected cells (strongly N-Myc positive N-myc null cells) of each type were analyzed by AcH3 levels and scored as rescued if they exhibited AcH3 levels clearly above the surrounding untransfected cells. RNAi against c-Myc was conducted as described (Zhang et al, 2005). MNase accessibility assay Assays were conducted as described (Zaret, 1999). Briefly, living cells were permeabilized on ice with lysolecithin and then treated with various concentrations of MNase for 5 min. DNA was purified by phenol/chloroform extraction and 10 μg was loaded on 1.2% agarose gels. Only 2.5 μg of DNA from the 0 MNase samples was loaded to avoid smearing of the highly viscous undigested DNA; however, at 10 or even 20 μg of DNA, there was no evidence of endogenous nuclease activity in either sample despite smearing. HPLC and MS Isolated histone mixtures were adjusted to 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid and 30% acetonitrile and separated by HPLC as described (McKittrick et al, 2004). Analysis of histone H4 used an established derivitization-based MS technique that combines isotopic labeling with tandem mass spectrometry to determine the percentage of acetylation at each lysine within the amino-terminal peptide 4-GKGGKGLGKGGAKR-17 of H4 (Smith et al, 2003). Mass spectrometry analyses were performed on an LTQ-FT (ThermoElectron) hybrid mass spectrometer configured for microcapillary LC-MS (Gatlin et al, 1998). High-resolution MS was conducted in the FTICR portion of the instrument to determine the proportion of unacetylation, mono-, di-, tri-, and tetra-acetylation on the above H4 peptide. Measurements to determine the distribution of acetylation on the lysines in the H4 peptide were conducted by MS/MS in the ion trap portion of the instrument. Supplementary Figure S1 Click here to view.(2.9M, doc) Acknowledgments We thank Ignacio Moreno de Alboran for the c-myc flox/flox mice, Tina Xu for excellent technical assistance, Anna Kenney and David Rowitch for teaching us CGNP culture and for reagents, Amir Orian for sharing unpublished data, John Sedivy and Yuzuru Shiio for the c-myc null rat fibroblasts, and Bobbie Schneider and the FHCRC EM staff for excellent technical help. We are indebted to Samir Hanash for access to the LTQ-FT and to Hong Wang and Doug Phanstiel for collection of the mass spectrometry data. We also thank Steve Henikoff, Mark Groudine, Susan Mendrysa, Julie Secombe, and Amir Orian for critical reading of the manuscript. We also thank Santa Cruz Biotechnology for help with antibodies. The authors have no competing interests. This work was supported by NIH/NCI grant CA20525 to RNE and KOICA114400-01 to PSK. RNE is an American Cancer Society Professor. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||
Genes Dev. 2001 Aug 15; 15(16):2023-30.
[Genes Dev. 2001]Genes Dev. 1992 Dec; 6(12A):2235-47.
[Genes Dev. 1992]Genes Dev. 1993 Apr; 7(4):671-82.
[Genes Dev. 1993]Genes Dev. 2000 Jan 1; 14(1):17-22.
[Genes Dev. 2000]Biochim Biophys Acta. 2002 Mar 14; 1602(1):61-71.
[Biochim Biophys Acta. 2002]Genes Dev. 2002 Oct 15; 16(20):2699-712.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Nature. 2000 Jan 6; 403(6765):41-5.
[Nature. 2000]Nature. 2000 Nov 23; 408(6811):495-8.
[Nature. 2000]Nature. 2000 Aug 10; 406(6796):593-9.
[Nature. 2000]Mol Cell. 2001 Aug; 8(2):263-8.
[Mol Cell. 2001]Cell. 2004 Jun 11; 117(6):721-33.
[Cell. 2004]Immunity. 2001 Jan; 14(1):45-55.
[Immunity. 2001]Development. 2003 Jan; 130(1):15-28.
[Development. 2003]J Neurochem. 1994 Nov; 63(5):1880-90.
[J Neurochem. 1994]Nature. 2000 Aug 10; 406(6796):593-9.
[Nature. 2000]Nature. 2000 Jan 6; 403(6765):41-5.
[Nature. 2000]Nature. 2001 Mar 1; 410(6824):120-4.
[Nature. 2001]Nature. 2001 Mar 1; 410(6824):116-20.
[Nature. 2001]Mol Cell Biol. 2000 Jan; 20(2):556-62.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2000]Cell Growth Differ. 1997 Oct; 8(10):1039-48.
[Cell Growth Differ. 1997]EMBO J. 2002 Oct 1; 21(19):5088-96.
[EMBO J. 2002]Trends Biochem Sci. 2001 Jan; 26(1):41-7.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2001]Science. 1976 Sep 3; 193(4256):848-56.
[Science. 1976]Curr Biol. 1999 Nov 4; 9(21):1255-8.
[Curr Biol. 1999]Science. 2006 Feb 10; 311(5762):844-7.
[Science. 2006]Curr Biol. 1999 Nov 4; 9(21):1255-8.
[Curr Biol. 1999]Genes Dev. 2003 Jul 1; 17(13):1569-74.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Cell Growth Differ. 1997 Oct; 8(10):1039-48.
[Cell Growth Differ. 1997]Am J Pathol. 1991 Apr; 138(4):867-73.
[Am J Pathol. 1991]EMBO J. 2004 Nov 10; 23(22):4462-72.
[EMBO J. 2004]Genes Dev. 2003 May 1; 17(9):1101-14.
[Genes Dev. 2003]EMBO J. 2002 Sep 16; 21(18):4820-30.
[EMBO J. 2002]Genes Dev. 2001 Aug 15; 15(16):2023-30.
[Genes Dev. 2001]Curr Biol. 2004 Jul 27; 14(14):R546-51.
[Curr Biol. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Sep 27; 102(39):13968-73.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Genome Biol. 2003; 4(10):R69.
[Genome Biol. 2003]Genes Dev. 2003 May 1; 17(9):1115-29.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jul 8; 100(14):8164-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Genes Dev. 2003 May 1; 17(9):1101-14.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Cell. 2004 Feb 20; 116(4):499-509.
[Cell. 2004]Mol Cell Biol. 2000 Jan; 20(2):556-62.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2000]Nature. 2000 Nov 23; 408(6811):495-8.
[Nature. 2000]Nature. 1996 Sep 19; 383(6597):269-72.
[Nature. 1996]EMBO J. 1998 Jun 1; 17(11):3155-67.
[EMBO J. 1998]Cell. 2005 Jun 17; 121(6):873-85.
[Cell. 2005]Nature. 2005 Jan 27; 433(7024):434-8.
[Nature. 2005]Cell. 2005 Jun 17; 121(6):859-72.
[Cell. 2005]Nature. 2004 May 27; 429(6990):457-63.
[Nature. 2004]Nat Genet. 2005 Apr; 37(4):391-400.
[Nat Genet. 2005]Nature. 2005 Jun 30; 435(7046):1262-6.
[Nature. 2005]Genes Dev. 2002 Oct 15; 16(20):2699-712.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Genes Dev. 2002 Oct 15; 16(20):2699-712.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Genes Dev. 2003 Jan 15; 17(2):240-55.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Development. 2003 Jan; 130(1):15-28.
[Development. 2003]Genes Dev. 2002 Oct 15; 16(20):2699-712.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Sep 27; 102(39):13968-73.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Immunity. 2001 Jan; 14(1):45-55.
[Immunity. 2001]Genes Dev. 2002 Oct 15; 16(20):2699-712.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Feb 10; 101(6):1525-30.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5; 215(3):403-10.
[J Mol Biol. 1990]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Sep 27; 102(39):13968-73.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Feb 10; 101(6):1525-30.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Anal Biochem. 2003 May 1; 316(1):23-33.
[Anal Biochem. 2003]Anal Biochem. 1998 Oct 1; 263(1):93-101.
[Anal Biochem. 1998]Neuron. 1993 Jan; 10(1):1-9.
[Neuron. 1993]