@article {49757, title = {Evolutionarily conserved network properties of intrinsically disordered proteins.}, journal = {PLoS One}, volume = {10}, year = {2015}, month = {2015}, pages = {e0126729}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND: Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) lack a stable tertiary structure in isolation. Remarkably, however, a substantial portion of IDPs undergo disorder-to-order transitions upon binding to their cognate partners. Structural flexibility and binding plasticity enable IDPs to interact with a broad range of partners. However, the broader network properties that could provide additional insights into the functional role of IDPs are not known.

RESULTS: Here, we report the first comprehensive survey of network properties of IDP-induced sub-networks in multiple species from yeast to human. Our results show that IDPs exhibit greater-than-expected modularity and are connected to the rest of the protein interaction network (PIN) via proteins that exhibit the highest betweenness centrality and connect to fewer-than-expected IDP communities, suggesting that they form critical communication links from IDP modules to the rest of the PIN. Moreover, we found that IDPs are enriched at the top level of regulatory hierarchy.

CONCLUSION: Overall, our analyses reveal coherent and remarkably conserved IDP-centric network properties, namely, modularity in IDP-induced network and a layer of critical nodes connecting IDPs with the rest of the PIN.

}, keywords = {Animals, Cluster Analysis, Databases, Protein, Drosophila, Drosophila Proteins, Evolution, Molecular, HUMANS, Intrinsically Disordered Proteins, Metabolic Networks and Pathways, Mice, Osmotic Pressure, Protein Interaction Maps, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0126729}, author = {Rangarajan, Nivedita and Kulkarni, Prakash and Hannenhalli, Sridhar} } @article {49739, title = {Distinct Rap1 activity states control the extent of epithelial invagination via α-catenin.}, journal = {Dev Cell}, volume = {25}, year = {2013}, month = {2013 May 13}, pages = {299-309}, abstract = {

Localized cell shape change initiates epithelial folding, while neighboring cell invagination determines the final depth of an epithelial fold. The mechanism that controls the extent of invagination remains unknown. During Drosophila gastrulation, a higher number of cells undergo invagination to form the deep posterior dorsal fold, whereas far fewer cells become incorporated into the initially very similar anterior dorsal fold. We find that a decrease in α-catenin activity causes the anterior fold to invaginate as extensively as the posterior fold. In contrast, constitutive activation of the small GTPase Rap1 restricts invagination of both dorsal folds in an α-catenin-dependent manner. Rap1 activity appears spatially modulated by Rapgap1, whose expression levels are high in the cells that flank the posterior fold but low in the anterior fold. We propose a model whereby distinct activity states of Rap1 modulate α-catenin-dependent coupling between junctions and actin to control the extent of epithelial invagination.

}, keywords = {Actins, alpha Catenin, Animals, Cell Adhesion, Cell Adhesion Molecules, Cell Membrane, Cell Shape, Drosophila, Drosophila Proteins, Embryo, Nonmammalian, Enzyme Activation, Epithelial Cells, Genes, Insect, Green Fluorescent Proteins, GTP Phosphohydrolases, GTPase-Activating Proteins, Intercellular Junctions, RNA Interference, Time factors, Time-Lapse Imaging}, issn = {1878-1551}, doi = {10.1016/j.devcel.2013.04.002}, author = {Wang, Yu-Chiun and Khan, Zia and Wieschaus, Eric F} } @article {49742, title = {Differential positioning of adherens junctions is associated with initiation of epithelial folding.}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {484}, year = {2012}, month = {2012 Apr 19}, pages = {390-3}, abstract = {

During tissue morphogenesis, simple epithelial sheets undergo folding to form complex structures. The prevailing model underlying epithelial folding involves cell shape changes driven by myosin-dependent apical constriction. Here we describe an alternative mechanism that requires differential positioning of adherens junctions controlled by modulation of epithelial apical-basal polarity. Using live embryo imaging, we show that before the initiation of dorsal transverse folds during Drosophila gastrulation, adherens junctions shift basally in the initiating cells, but maintain their original subapical positioning in the neighbouring cells. Junctional positioning in the dorsal epithelium depends on the polarity proteins Bazooka and Par-1. In particular, the basal shift that occurs in the initiating cells is associated with a progressive decrease in Par-1 levels. We show that uniform reduction of the activity of Bazooka or Par-1 results in uniform apical or lateral positioning of junctions and in each case dorsal fold initiation is abolished. In addition, an increase in the Bazooka/Par-1 ratio causes formation of ectopic dorsal folds. The basal shift of junctions not only alters the apical shape of the initiating cells, but also forces the lateral membrane of the adjacent cells to bend towards the initiating cells, thereby facilitating tissue deformation. Our data thus establish a direct link between modification of epithelial polarity and initiation of epithelial folding.

}, keywords = {Adherens Junctions, Animals, Cell Polarity, Cell Shape, Choristoma, Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila Proteins, Epithelial Cells, Epithelium, Gastrula, Gastrulation, Glycogen Synthase Kinase 3, Intracellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins, Protein-Serine-Threonine Kinases}, issn = {1476-4687}, doi = {10.1038/nature10938}, author = {Wang, Yu-Chiun and Khan, Zia and Kaschube, Matthias and Wieschaus, Eric F} } @article {49745, title = {A computational statistics approach for estimating the spatial range of morphogen gradients.}, journal = {Development}, volume = {138}, year = {2011}, month = {2011 Nov}, pages = {4867-74}, abstract = {

A crucial issue in studies of morphogen gradients relates to their range: the distance over which they can act as direct regulators of cell signaling, gene expression and cell differentiation. To address this, we present a straightforward statistical framework that can be used in multiple developmental systems. We illustrate the developed approach by providing a point estimate and confidence interval for the spatial range of the graded distribution of nuclear Dorsal, a transcription factor that controls the dorsoventral pattern of the Drosophila embryo.

}, keywords = {Animals, Biostatistics, Cleavage Stage, Ovum, Computational Biology, Computer simulation, Drosophila, Drosophila Proteins, Embryo, Nonmammalian, Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental, Genes, Developmental, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Morphogenesis, Osmolar Concentration, Tissue Distribution}, issn = {1477-9129}, doi = {10.1242/dev.071571}, author = {Kanodia, Jitendra S and Kim, Yoosik and Tomer, Raju and Khan, Zia and Chung, Kwanghun and Storey, John D and Lu, Hang and Keller, Philipp J and Shvartsman, Stanislav Y} } @article {49677, title = {Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny.}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {450}, year = {2007}, month = {2007 Nov 8}, pages = {203-18}, abstract = {

Comparative analysis of multiple genomes in a phylogenetic framework dramatically improves the precision and sensitivity of evolutionary inference, producing more robust results than single-genome analyses can provide. The genomes of 12 Drosophila species, ten of which are presented here for the first time (sechellia, simulans, yakuba, erecta, ananassae, persimilis, willistoni, mojavensis, virilis and grimshawi), illustrate how rates and patterns of sequence divergence across taxa can illuminate evolutionary processes on a genomic scale. These genome sequences augment the formidable genetic tools that have made Drosophila melanogaster a pre-eminent model for animal genetics, and will further catalyse fundamental research on mechanisms of development, cell biology, genetics, disease, neurobiology, behaviour, physiology and evolution. Despite remarkable similarities among these Drosophila species, we identified many putatively non-neutral changes in protein-coding genes, non-coding RNA genes, and cis-regulatory regions. These may prove to underlie differences in the ecology and behaviour of these diverse species.

}, keywords = {Animals, Codon, DNA Transposable Elements, Drosophila, Drosophila Proteins, Evolution, Molecular, Gene Order, Genes, Insect, Genome, Insect, Genome, Mitochondrial, Genomics, Immunity, Multigene Family, Phylogeny, Reproduction, RNA, Untranslated, sequence alignment, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Synteny}, issn = {1476-4687}, doi = {10.1038/nature06341}, author = {Clark, Andrew G and Eisen, Michael B and Smith, Douglas R and Bergman, Casey M and Oliver, Brian and Markow, Therese A and Kaufman, Thomas C and Kellis, Manolis and Gelbart, William and Iyer, Venky N and Pollard, Daniel A and Sackton, Timothy B and Larracuente, Amanda M and Singh, Nadia D and Abad, Jose P and Abt, Dawn N and Adryan, Boris and Aguade, Montserrat and Akashi, Hiroshi and Anderson, Wyatt W and Aquadro, Charles F and Ardell, David H and Arguello, Roman and Artieri, Carlo G and Barbash, Daniel A and Barker, Daniel and Barsanti, Paolo and Batterham, Phil and Batzoglou, Serafim and Begun, Dave and Bhutkar, Arjun and Blanco, Enrico and Bosak, Stephanie A and Bradley, Robert K and Brand, Adrianne D and Brent, Michael R and Brooks, Angela N and Brown, Randall H and Butlin, Roger K and Caggese, Corrado and Calvi, Brian R and Bernardo de Carvalho, A and Caspi, Anat and Castrezana, Sergio and Celniker, Susan E and Chang, Jean L and Chapple, Charles and Chatterji, Sourav and Chinwalla, Asif and Civetta, Alberto and Clifton, Sandra W and Comeron, Josep M and Costello, James C and Coyne, Jerry A and Daub, Jennifer and David, Robert G and Delcher, Arthur L and Delehaunty, Kim and Do, Chuong B and Ebling, Heather and Edwards, Kevin and Eickbush, Thomas and Evans, Jay D and Filipski, Alan and Findeiss, Sven and Freyhult, Eva and Fulton, Lucinda and Fulton, Robert and Garcia, Ana C L and Gardiner, Anastasia and Garfield, David A and Garvin, Barry E and Gibson, Greg and Gilbert, Don and Gnerre, Sante and Godfrey, Jennifer and Good, Robert and Gotea, Valer and Gravely, Brenton and Greenberg, Anthony J and Griffiths-Jones, Sam and Gross, Samuel and Guigo, Roderic and Gustafson, Erik A and Haerty, Wilfried and Hahn, Matthew W and Halligan, Daniel L and Halpern, Aaron L and Halter, Gillian M and Han, Mira V and Heger, Andreas and Hillier, LaDeana and Hinrichs, Angie S and Holmes, Ian and Hoskins, Roger A and Hubisz, Melissa J and Hultmark, Dan and Huntley, Melanie A and Jaffe, David B and Jagadeeshan, Santosh and Jeck, William R and Johnson, Justin and Jones, Corbin D and Jordan, William C and Karpen, Gary H and Kataoka, Eiko and Keightley, Peter D and Kheradpour, Pouya and Kirkness, Ewen F and Koerich, Leonardo B and Kristiansen, Karsten and Kudrna, Dave and Kulathinal, Rob J and Kumar, Sudhir and Kwok, Roberta and Lander, Eric and Langley, Charles H and Lapoint, Richard and Lazzaro, Brian P and Lee, So-Jeong and Levesque, Lisa and Li, Ruiqiang and Lin, Chiao-Feng and Lin, Michael F and Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin and Llopart, Ana and Long, Manyuan and Low, Lloyd and Lozovsky, Elena and Lu, Jian and Luo, Meizhong and Machado, Carlos A and Makalowski, Wojciech and Marzo, Mar and Matsuda, Muneo and Matzkin, Luciano and McAllister, Bryant and McBride, Carolyn S and McKernan, Brendan and McKernan, Kevin and Mendez-Lago, Maria and Minx, Patrick and Mollenhauer, Michael U and Montooth, Kristi and Mount, Stephen M and Mu, Xu and Myers, Eugene and Negre, Barbara and Newfeld, Stuart and Nielsen, Rasmus and Noor, Mohamed A F and O{\textquoteright}Grady, Patrick and Pachter, Lior and Papaceit, Montserrat and Parisi, Matthew J and Parisi, Michael and Parts, Leopold and Pedersen, Jakob S and Pesole, Graziano and Phillippy, Adam M and Ponting, Chris P and Pop, Mihai and Porcelli, Damiano and Powell, Jeffrey R and Prohaska, Sonja and Pruitt, Kim and Puig, Marta and Quesneville, Hadi and Ram, Kristipati Ravi and Rand, David and Rasmussen, Matthew D and Reed, Laura K and Reenan, Robert and Reily, Amy and Remington, Karin A and Rieger, Tania T and Ritchie, Michael G and Robin, Charles and Rogers, Yu-Hui and Rohde, Claudia and Rozas, Julio and Rubenfield, Marc J and Ruiz, Alfredo and Russo, Susan and Salzberg, Steven L and Sanchez-Gracia, Alejandro and Saranga, David J and Sato, Hajime and Schaeffer, Stephen W and Schatz, Michael C and Schlenke, Todd and Schwartz, Russell and Segarra, Carmen and Singh, Rama S and Sirot, Laura and Sirota, Marina and Sisneros, Nicholas B and Smith, Chris D and Smith, Temple F and Spieth, John and Stage, Deborah E and Stark, Alexander and Stephan, Wolfgang and Strausberg, Robert L and Strempel, Sebastian and Sturgill, David and Sutton, Granger and Sutton, Granger G and Tao, Wei and Teichmann, Sarah and Tobari, Yoshiko N and Tomimura, Yoshihiko and Tsolas, Jason M and Valente, Vera L S and Venter, Eli and Venter, J Craig and Vicario, Saverio and Vieira, Filipe G and Vilella, Albert J and Villasante, Alfredo and Walenz, Brian and Wang, Jun and Wasserman, Marvin and Watts, Thomas and Wilson, Derek and Wilson, Richard K and Wing, Rod A and Wolfner, Mariana F and Wong, Alex and Wong, Gane Ka-Shu and Wu, Chung-I and Wu, Gabriel and Yamamoto, Daisuke and Yang, Hsiao-Pei and Yang, Shiaw-Pyng and Yorke, James A and Yoshida, Kiyohito and Zdobnov, Evgeny and Zhang, Peili and Zhang, Yu and Zimin, Aleksey V and Baldwin, Jennifer and Abdouelleil, Amr and Abdulkadir, Jamal and Abebe, Adal and Abera, Brikti and Abreu, Justin and Acer, St Christophe and Aftuck, Lynne and Alexander, Allen and An, Peter and Anderson, Erica and Anderson, Scott and Arachi, Harindra and Azer, Marc and Bachantsang, Pasang and Barry, Andrew and Bayul, Tashi and Berlin, Aaron and Bessette, Daniel and Bloom, Toby and Blye, Jason and Boguslavskiy, Leonid and Bonnet, Claude and Boukhgalter, Boris and Bourzgui, Imane and Brown, Adam and Cahill, Patrick and Channer, Sheridon and Cheshatsang, Yama and Chuda, Lisa and Citroen, Mieke and Collymore, Alville and Cooke, Patrick and Costello, Maura and D{\textquoteright}Aco, Katie and Daza, Riza and De Haan, Georgius and DeGray, Stuart and DeMaso, Christina and Dhargay, Norbu and Dooley, Kimberly and Dooley, Erin and Doricent, Missole and Dorje, Passang and Dorjee, Kunsang and Dupes, Alan and Elong, Richard and Falk, Jill and Farina, Abderrahim and Faro, Susan and Ferguson, Diallo and Fisher, Sheila and Foley, Chelsea D and Franke, Alicia and Friedrich, Dennis and Gadbois, Loryn and Gearin, Gary and Gearin, Christina R and Giannoukos, Georgia and Goode, Tina and Graham, Joseph and Grandbois, Edward and Grewal, Sharleen and Gyaltsen, Kunsang and Hafez, Nabil and Hagos, Birhane and Hall, Jennifer and Henson, Charlotte and Hollinger, Andrew and Honan, Tracey and Huard, Monika D and Hughes, Leanne and Hurhula, Brian and Husby, M Erii and Kamat, Asha and Kanga, Ben and Kashin, Seva and Khazanovich, Dmitry and Kisner, Peter and Lance, Krista and Lara, Marcia and Lee, William and Lennon, Niall and Letendre, Frances and LeVine, Rosie and Lipovsky, Alex and Liu, Xiaohong and Liu, Jinlei and Liu, Shangtao and Lokyitsang, Tashi and Lokyitsang, Yeshi and Lubonja, Rakela and Lui, Annie and MacDonald, Pen and Magnisalis, Vasilia and Maru, Kebede and Matthews, Charles and McCusker, William and McDonough, Susan and Mehta, Teena and Meldrim, James and Meneus, Louis and Mihai, Oana and Mihalev, Atanas and Mihova, Tanya and Mittelman, Rachel and Mlenga, Valentine and Montmayeur, Anna and Mulrain, Leonidas and Navidi, Adam and Naylor, Jerome and Negash, Tamrat and Nguyen, Thu and Nguyen, Nga and Nicol, Robert and Norbu, Choe and Norbu, Nyima and Novod, Nathaniel and O{\textquoteright}Neill, Barry and Osman, Sahal and Markiewicz, Eva and Oyono, Otero L and Patti, Christopher and Phunkhang, Pema and Pierre, Fritz and Priest, Margaret and Raghuraman, Sujaa and Rege, Filip and Reyes, Rebecca and Rise, Cecil and Rogov, Peter and Ross, Keenan and Ryan, Elizabeth and Settipalli, Sampath and Shea, Terry and Sherpa, Ngawang and Shi, Lu and Shih, Diana and Sparrow, Todd and Spaulding, Jessica and Stalker, John and Stange-Thomann, Nicole and Stavropoulos, Sharon and Stone, Catherine and Strader, Christopher and Tesfaye, Senait and Thomson, Talene and Thoulutsang, Yama and Thoulutsang, Dawa and Topham, Kerri and Topping, Ira and Tsamla, Tsamla and Vassiliev, Helen and Vo, Andy and Wangchuk, Tsering and Wangdi, Tsering and Weiand, Michael and Wilkinson, Jane and Wilson, Adam and Yadav, Shailendra and Young, Geneva and Yu, Qing and Zembek, Lisa and Zhong, Danni and Zimmer, Andrew and Zwirko, Zac and Jaffe, David B and Alvarez, Pablo and Brockman, Will and Butler, Jonathan and Chin, CheeWhye and Gnerre, Sante and Grabherr, Manfred and Kleber, Michael and Mauceli, Evan and MacCallum, Iain} } @article {49684, title = {The Drosophila U1-70K protein is required for viability, but its arginine-rich domain is dispensable.}, journal = {Genetics}, volume = {168}, year = {2004}, month = {2004 Dec}, pages = {2059-65}, abstract = {

The conserved spliceosomal U1-70K protein is thought to play a key role in RNA splicing by linking the U1 snRNP particle to regulatory RNA-binding proteins. Although these protein interactions are mediated by repeating units rich in arginines and serines (RS domains) in vitro, tests of this domain{\textquoteright}s importance in intact multicellular organisms have not been carried out. Here we report a comprehensive genetic analysis of U1-70K function in Drosophila. Consistent with the idea that U1-70K is an essential splicing factor, we find that loss of U1-70K function results in lethality during embryogenesis. Surprisingly, and contrary to the current view of U1-70K function, animals carrying a mutant U1-70K protein lacking the arginine-rich domain, which includes two embedded sets of RS dipeptide repeats, have no discernible mutant phenotype. Through double-mutant studies, however, we show that the U1-70K RS domain deletion no longer supports viability when combined with a viable mutation in another U1 snRNP component. Together our studies demonstrate that while the protein interactions mediated by the U1-70K RS domain are not essential for viability, they nevertheless contribute to an essential U1 snRNP function.

}, keywords = {Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Animals, Genetically Modified, Arginine, Drosophila, Drosophila Proteins, Molecular Sequence Data, Mutation, Protein Structure, Tertiary, Ribonucleoprotein, U1 Small Nuclear, RNA-Binding Proteins}, issn = {0016-6731}, doi = {10.1534/genetics.104.032532}, author = {Salz, Helen K and Mancebo, Ricardo S Y and Nagengast, Alexis A and Speck, Olga and Psotka, Mitchell and Mount, Stephen M} } @article {49686, title = {Sex-lethal splicing autoregulation in vivo: interactions between SEX-LETHAL, the U1 snRNP and U2AF underlie male exon skipping.}, journal = {Development}, volume = {130}, year = {2003}, month = {2003 Feb}, pages = {463-71}, abstract = {

Alternative splicing of the Sex-lethal pre-mRNA has long served as a model example of a regulated splicing event, yet the mechanism by which the female-specific SEX-LETHAL RNA-binding protein prevents inclusion of the translation-terminating male exon is not understood. Thus far, the only general splicing factor for which there is in vivo evidence for a regulatory role in the pathway leading to male-exon skipping is sans-fille (snf), a protein component of the spliceosomal U1 and U2 snRNPs. Its role, however, has remained enigmatic because of questions about whether SNF acts as part of an intact snRNP or a free protein. We provide evidence that SEX-LETHAL interacts with SANS-FILLE in the context of the U1 snRNP, through the characterization of a point mutation that interferes with both assembly into the U1 snRNP and complex formation with SEX-LETHAL. Moreover, we find that SEX-LETHAL associates with other integral U1 snRNP components, and we provide genetic evidence to support the biological relevance of these physical interactions. Similar genetic and biochemical approaches also link SEX-LETHAL with the heterodimeric splicing factor, U2AF. These studies point specifically to a mechanism by which SEX-LETHAL represses splicing by interacting with these key splicing factors at both ends of the regulated male exon. Moreover, because U2AF and the U1 snRNP are only associated transiently with the pre-mRNA during the course of spliceosome assembly, our studies are difficult to reconcile with the current model that proposes that the SEX-LETHAL blocks splicing at the second catalytic step, and instead argue that the SEX-LETHAL protein acts after splice site recognition, but before catalysis begins.

}, keywords = {Alternative Splicing, Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Animals, Genetically Modified, Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila Proteins, Exons, Female, Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental, Genes, Insect, Homeostasis, Male, Models, Genetic, Molecular Sequence Data, Nuclear Proteins, Point Mutation, Ribonucleoprotein, U1 Small Nuclear, Ribonucleoproteins, RNA Splicing, RNA-Binding Proteins, Sequence Homology, Amino Acid, Sex Differentiation}, issn = {0950-1991}, author = {Nagengast, Alexis A and Stitzinger, Shane M and Tseng, Chin-Hsiu and Mount, Stephen M and Salz, Helen K} } @article {38536, title = {The transcription factor Eyes absent is a protein tyrosine phosphatase}, journal = {NatureNature}, volume = {426}, year = {2003}, note = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14628053?dopt=Abstract}, type = {10.1038/nature02097}, abstract = {Post-translational modifications provide sensitive and flexible mechanisms to dynamically modulate protein function in response to specific signalling inputs. In the case of transcription factors, changes in phosphorylation state can influence protein stability, conformation, subcellular localization, cofactor interactions, transactivation potential and transcriptional output. Here we show that the evolutionarily conserved transcription factor Eyes absent (Eya) belongs to the phosphatase subgroup of the haloacid dehalogenase (HAD) superfamily, and propose a function for it as a non-thiol-based protein tyrosine phosphatase. Experiments performed in cultured Drosophila cells and in vitro indicate that Eyes absent has intrinsic protein tyrosine phosphatase activity and can autocatalytically dephosphorylate itself. Confirming the biological significance of this function, mutations that disrupt the phosphatase active site severely compromise the ability of Eyes absent to promote eye specification and development in Drosophila. Given the functional importance of phosphorylation-dependent modulation of transcription factor activity, this evidence for a nuclear transcriptional coactivator with intrinsic phosphatase activity suggests an unanticipated method of fine-tuning transcriptional regulation.}, keywords = {Amino Acid Motifs, Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Antibodies, Phospho-Specific, Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila Proteins, Embryonic Induction, eye, Eye Proteins, Gene Expression Regulation, Kinetics, Mice, Models, Molecular, Molecular Sequence Data, Mutation, Phosphorylation, Protein Conformation, Protein Tyrosine Phosphatases, Substrate Specificity, Transcription Factors}, author = {Tootle, Tina L. and Silver, Serena J. and Davies, Erin L. and Newman, Victoria and Latek, Robert R. and Mills, Ishara A. and J. Selengut and Parlikar, Beth E. W. and Rebay, Ilaria} } @article {49691, title = {Expanding the definition of informational suppression.}, journal = {Trends Genet}, volume = {16}, year = {2000}, month = {2000 Apr}, pages = {157}, keywords = {Animals, DNA-Binding Proteins, Drosophila Proteins, Nuclear Proteins, Recombinant Proteins, Repressor Proteins, Suppression, Genetic, Transcription Factors}, issn = {0168-9525}, author = {Mount, S M and Anderson, P} } @article {49696, title = {Genetic enhancement of RNA-processing defects by a dominant mutation in B52, the Drosophila gene for an SR protein splicing factor.}, journal = {Mol Cell Biol}, volume = {15}, year = {1995}, month = {1995 Nov}, pages = {6273-82}, abstract = {

SR proteins are essential for pre-mRNA splicing in vitro, act early in the splicing pathway, and can influence alternative splice site choice. Here we describe the isolation of both dominant and loss-of-function alleles of B52, the gene for a Drosophila SR protein. The allele B52ED was identified as a dominant second-site enhancer of white-apricot (wa), a retrotransposon insertion in the second intron of the eye pigmentation gene white with a complex RNA-processing defect. B52ED also exaggerates the mutant phenotype of a distinct white allele carrying a 5{\textquoteright} splice site mutation (wDR18), and alters the pattern of sex-specific splicing at doublesex under sensitized conditions, so that the male-specific splice is favored. In addition to being a dominant enhancer of these RNA-processing defects, B52ED is a recessive lethal allele that fails to complement other lethal alleles of B52. Comparison of B52ED with the B52+ allele from which it was derived revealed a single change in a conserved amino acid in the beta 4 strand of the first RNA-binding domain of B52, which suggests that altered RNA binding is responsible for the dominant phenotype. Reversion of the B52ED dominant allele with X rays led to the isolation of a B52 null allele. Together, these results indicate a critical role for the SR protein B52 in pre-mRNA splicing in vivo.

}, keywords = {Alleles, Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Base Sequence, DNA Primers, Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila Proteins, Frameshift Mutation, Genes, Dominant, Genes, Insect, Molecular Sequence Data, Nuclear Proteins, Phosphoproteins, Point Mutation, Protein Structure, Tertiary, Proteins, RNA Splicing, RNA-Binding Proteins, Sequence Deletion, Sex Determination Analysis}, issn = {0270-7306}, author = {Peng, X and Mount, S M} } @article {49701, title = {Species-specific signals for the splicing of a short Drosophila intron in vitro.}, journal = {Mol Cell Biol}, volume = {13}, year = {1993}, month = {1993 Feb}, pages = {1104-18}, abstract = {

The effects of branchpoint sequence, the pyrimidine stretch, and intron size on the splicing efficiency of the Drosophila white gene second intron were examined in nuclear extracts from Drosophila and human cells. This 74-nucleotide intron is typical of many Drosophila introns in that it lacks a significant pyrimidine stretch and is below the minimum size required for splicing in human nuclear extracts. Alteration of sequences of adjacent to the 3{\textquoteright} splice site to create a pyrimidine stretch was necessary for splicing in human, but not Drosophila, extracts. Increasing the size of this intron with insertions between the 5{\textquoteright} splice site and the branchpoint greatly reduced the efficiency of splicing of introns longer than 79 nucleotides in Drosophila extracts but had an opposite effect in human extracts, in which introns longer than 78 nucleotides were spliced with much greater efficiency. The white-apricot copia insertion is immediately adjacent to the branchpoint normally used in the splicing of this intron, and a copia long terminal repeat insertion prevents splicing in Drosophila, but not human, extracts. However, a consensus branchpoint does not restore the splicing of introns containing the copia long terminal repeat, and alteration of the wild-type branchpoint sequence alone does not eliminate splicing. These results demonstrate species specificity of splicing signals, particularly pyrimidine stretch and size requirements, and raise the possibility that variant mechanisms not found in mammals may operate in the splicing of small introns in Drosophila and possibly other species.

}, keywords = {Animals, Base Sequence, Cell Nucleus, Consensus Sequence, DNA, DNA Transposable Elements, Drosophila, Drosophila Proteins, Electrophoresis, Polyacrylamide Gel, HeLa Cells, HUMANS, Introns, Molecular Sequence Data, Mutation, Peptide Hydrolases, Proteins, Regulatory Sequences, Nucleic Acid, Retroelements, RNA Splicing, Species Specificity}, issn = {0270-7306}, author = {Guo, M and Lo, P C and Mount, S M} }