Information

Hill's function for translational regulation

Hill's function for translational regulation



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Transcriptional regulation is generally modeled as a Hill's function (similar to Michaelis-Menten Kinetics):

$$frac{dm_X}{dt}=alpha _{m_X}.frac{R}{K+R} -eta _{m_X}.m_X$$

Where $m_X$ is the mRNA for some gene-$X$, $R$ is a Regulator $alpha$ and $eta$ are formation and degradation rate constants respectively. This equation denotes a saturation kinetics; increasing activator wont cause indefinite increase in transcription. Sounds logical because all promoter sites will be occupied at some point.

In case of a repression the equation looks like:

$$frac{dm_X}{dt}=alpha _{m_X}.frac{K}{K+R} -eta _{m_X}.m_X$$

I want to model repression of translation using a similar equation. However, the issue is that even though a single mRNA can be saturated by a regulator, increasing mRNA will require more regulators. So effectively the regulator available for a single mRNA molecule will be total regulator ÷ total mRNA.

My question is that whether in such a case the following equation is logical:

$$frac{dX}{dt}=alpha _{X}.m_X.frac{K}{K+R/m_X} -eta _{X}.X$$

Where $X$ is the protein.

Which means we are taking into consideration the effective concentration of a regulator per mRNA. In other words the Hill's constant $K'$ should scale with mRNA concentration. ($K'=K imes m_X$)

Assumptions:

  • Well mixed system
  • System at thermodynamic limit
  • Amino-acid pool infinite
  • Ribosomes infinite

Your logic looks correct to me. Essentially, what you are doing is uniformly distributing the regulator among the available mRNA.

Note that even when using Hill functions to model transcription, the ratio of transcription factor (TF) concentration to the number of TF binding sites must be large - otherwise, you would have to consider binding ratios even at the level of transcription modeling, similarly to what you are doing now for translation. E.g. consider a hypothetical situation where 10 TF molecules compete for binding to 5 different promoter regions, each having 10 binding site repeats - you need to somehow distribute the available 10 TF molecules among 50 target binding sites. Clearly, this is not something accounted for by the standard Hill equation, which would in such case wrongly assume that 10 TF molecules are regulating each construct.

In your specific case, introducing the ratio of the regulator per each mRNA may not even be necessary if this ratio is large, effectively leading to saturation levels anyway. Note that the maximum level that $m_x$ can reach (at steady state) is equal to $max(m_X) = frac{alpha_{mX}}{eta_{mX}}$. If you can ensure this value to be much smaller than your translational regulator concentration, you will get similar results even if you use simply $frac{K}{K+R}$ for translation modeling.

If the latter assumption cannot be made, then your reasoning makes sense. For each individual mRNA molecule:

$$ ext{X produced per mRNA} = alpha_{X} .frac{K}{K+R'}$$

where $R'$ is the amount of mRNA bound to this molecule. If $R$ is the total available regulator concentration and uniform binding affinity is assumed, this means that $R'=frac{R}{m_X}$. Summing this over a total of $m_X$ mRNA and considering degradation yields exactly your final ODE.

Note that another important assumption you are making is that regulator binding/unbinding to/from mRNA is fast compared to translation, and that no cooperative interactions are present.

If you want to verify things further, you could establish system reactions, then derive Hill-free ODE equations according to the law of mass action. You could then compare this model to the one you propose. Furthermore, performing a stochastic simulation might make sense. If you want to go down this road but don't want to implement Gillespie's algorithm on your own, you can use e.g. SGNSim or COPASI.


Translational Regulation

W hen MCB Assistant Professor Nicholas Ingolia was a post-doc, he developed a long-sought technique — called ribosome profiling — that gives a snapshot of mRNA translation into proteins.

“You immobilize the ribosomes, use nucleases to digest the exposed mRNA, and sequence the protected areas,” he explains. “It’s a great way to measure what and how much is being translated.” The ribosome-protected mRNA footprints are long enough to be matched to specific genes in most cases.

Now, Ingolia uses ribosome profiling to find out how cells regulate mRNA translation, which is thought to affect protein levels as much as the transcription of genes into mRNAs. In people, for example, there’s a 20 to 30-fold difference in the number of protein molecules made from a given mRNA. “Protein synthesis is the true end point of gene expression,” he says.

His lab is asking three main questions about translational control of gene expression, using yeast and human cells. One is how do cells control where translation starts? This wasn’t even in question until recently because translation had generally been thought to start at AUG codons. But ribosomal profiling showed otherwise. “More than half of potential starting places are unconventional,” Ingolia says.

These alternate start sites can affect how much of a protein is synthesized, and can also lead to production of forms of a protein with different functions. “We believe start codon selection is an underappreciated control point for gene expression,” Ingolia says.

Another question is how do drugs stop translation of some mRNAs but not others? Take rocaglamide, a plant-derived compound used in traditional Chinese medicine that kills cancer cells preferentially. “Rocaglamide targets an RNA helicase, which unwinds mRNA so ribosomes can load on,” Ingolia says. “But why does this drug affect only some mRNAs?” Rocaglamide binds the helicase near this enzyme’s mRNA binding site, so the drug’s proximity to mRNA could affect translation.

Ingolia also wants to know why ribosomes load onto some mRNAs better than others. The answer might be in the hundreds of proteins that bind mRNAs. During transcription, sequence-specific proteins bind and regulate gene expression, and translational regulation may be similar. This has been hard to study until now but “with ribosome profiling, we can ask how proteins affect translation,” he says.

In recognition of his work, Ingolia was selected as a 2014 Rose Hills Innovator, a new UC Berkeley program for up to five early-career faculty with exceptionally high scientific promise. Ingolia also recently received an NIH New Innovator Award.


(A) Ribosomes protect mRNA footprints from digestion.
(B) Aligning the footprints to the genome shows which proteins are being synthesized, and at what levels.


Biology 171

By the end of this section, you will be able to do the following:

  • Describe how changes to gene expression can cause cancer
  • Explain how changes to gene expression at different levels can disrupt the cell cycle
  • Discuss how understanding regulation of gene expression can lead to better drug design

Cancer is not a single disease but includes many different diseases. In cancer cells, mutations modify cell-cycle control and cells don’t stop growing as they normally would. Mutations can also alter the growth rate or the progression of the cell through the cell cycle. One example of a gene modification that alters the growth rate is increased phosphorylation of cyclin B, a protein that controls the progression of a cell through the cell cycle and serves as a cell-cycle checkpoint protein.

For cells to move through each phase of the cell cycle, the cell must pass through checkpoints. This ensures that the cell has properly completed the step and has not encountered any mutation that will alter its function. Many proteins, including cyclin B, control these checkpoints. The phosphorylation of cyclin B, a post-translational event, alters its function. As a result, cells can progress through the cell cycle unimpeded, even if mutations exist in the cell and its growth should be terminated. This post-translational change of cyclin B prevents it from controlling the cell cycle and contributes to the development of cancer.

Cancer: Disease of Altered Gene Expression

Cancer can be described as a disease of altered gene expression. There are many proteins that are turned on or off (gene activation or gene silencing) that dramatically alter the overall activity of the cell. A gene that is not normally expressed in that cell can be switched on and expressed at high levels. This can be the result of gene mutation or changes in gene regulation (epigenetic, transcription, post-transcription, translation, or post-translation).

Changes in epigenetic regulation, transcription, RNA stability, protein translation, and post-translational control can be detected in cancer. While these changes don’t occur simultaneously in one cancer, changes at each of these levels can be detected when observing cancer at different sites in different individuals. Therefore, changes in histone acetylation (epigenetic modification that leads to gene silencing), activation of transcription factors by phosphorylation, increased RNA stability, increased translational control, and protein modification can all be detected at some point in various cancer cells. Scientists are working to understand the common changes that give rise to certain types of cancer or how a modification might be exploited to destroy a tumor cell.

Tumor Suppressor Genes, Oncogenes, and Cancer

In normal cells, some genes function to prevent excess, inappropriate cell growth. These are tumor-suppressor genes, which are active in normal cells to prevent uncontrolled cell growth. There are many tumor-suppressor genes in cells. The most studied tumor-suppressor gene is p53, which is mutated in over 50 percent of all cancer types. The p53 protein itself functions as a transcription factor. It can bind to sites in the promoters of genes to initiate transcription. Therefore, the mutation of p53 in cancer will dramatically alter the transcriptional activity of its target genes.

Watch Using p53 to Fight Cancer (webpage, video) to learn more.

Proto-oncogenes are positive cell-cycle regulators. When mutated, proto-oncogenes can become oncogenes and cause cancer. Overexpression of the oncogene can lead to uncontrolled cell growth. This is because oncogenes can alter transcriptional activity, stability, or protein translation of another gene that directly or indirectly controls cell growth. An example of an oncogene involved in cancer is a protein called myc. Myc is a transcription factor that is aberrantly activated in Burkett’s Lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system. Overexpression of myc transforms normal B cells into cancerous cells that continue to grow uncontrollably. High B-cell numbers can result in tumors that can interfere with normal bodily function. Patients with Burkett’s lymphoma can develop tumors on their jaw or in their mouth that interfere with the ability to eat.

Cancer and Epigenetic Alterations

Silencing genes through epigenetic mechanisms is also very common in cancer cells. There are characteristic modifications to histone proteins and DNA that are associated with silenced genes. In cancer cells, the DNA in the promoter region of silenced genes is methylated on cytosine DNA residues in CpG islands. Histone proteins that surround that region lack the acetylation modification that is present when the genes are expressed in normal cells. This combination of DNA methylation and histone deacetylation (epigenetic modifications that lead to gene silencing) is commonly found in cancer. When these modifications occur, the gene present in that chromosomal region is silenced. Increasingly, scientists understand how epigenetic changes are altered in cancer. Because these changes are temporary and can be reversed—for example, by preventing the action of the histone deacetylase protein that removes acetyl groups, or by DNA methyl transferase enzymes that add methyl groups to cytosines in DNA—it is possible to design new drugs and new therapies to take advantage of the reversible nature of these processes. Indeed, many researchers are testing how a silenced gene can be switched back on in a cancer cell to help re-establish normal growth patterns.

Genes involved in the development of many other illnesses, ranging from allergies to inflammation to autism, are thought to be regulated by epigenetic mechanisms. As our knowledge of how genes are controlled deepens, new ways to treat diseases like cancer will emerge.

Cancer and Transcriptional Control

Alterations in cells that give rise to cancer can affect the transcriptional control of gene expression. Mutations that activate transcription factors, such as increased phosphorylation, can increase the binding of a transcription factor to its binding site in a promoter. This could lead to increased transcriptional activation of that gene that results in modified cell growth. Alternatively, a mutation in the DNA of a promoter or enhancer region can increase the binding ability of a transcription factor. This could also lead to the increased transcription and aberrant gene expression that is seen in cancer cells.

Researchers have been investigating how to control the transcriptional activation of gene expression in cancer. Identifying how a transcription factor binds, or a pathway that activates where a gene can be turned off, has led to new drugs and new ways to treat cancer. In breast cancer, for example, many proteins are overexpressed. This can lead to increased phosphorylation of key transcription factors that increase transcription. One such example is the overexpression of the epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) in a subset of breast cancers. The EGFR pathway activates many protein kinases that, in turn, activate many transcription factors which control genes involved in cell growth. New drugs that prevent the activation of EGFR have been developed and are used to treat these cancers.

Cancer and Post-transcriptional Control

Changes in the post-transcriptional control of a gene can also result in cancer. Recently, several groups of researchers have shown that specific cancers have altered expression of miRNAs. Because miRNAs bind to the 3′ UTR of RNA molecules to degrade them, overexpression of these miRNAs could be detrimental to normal cellular activity. Too many miRNAs could dramatically decrease the RNA population, leading to a decrease in protein expression. Several studies have demonstrated a change in the miRNA population in specific cancer types. It appears that the subset of miRNAs expressed in breast cancer cells is quite different from the subset expressed in lung cancer cells or even from normal breast cells. This suggests that alterations in miRNA activity can contribute to the growth of breast cancer cells. These types of studies also suggest that if some miRNAs are specifically expressed only in cancer cells, they could be potential drug targets. It would, therefore, be conceivable that new drugs that turn off miRNA expression in cancer could be an effective method to treat cancer.

Cancer and Translational/Post-translational Control

There are many examples of how translational or post-translational modifications of proteins arise in cancer. Modifications are found in cancer cells from the increased translation of a protein to changes in protein phosphorylation to alternative splice variants of a protein. An example of how the expression of an alternative form of a protein can have dramatically different outcomes is seen in colon cancer cells. The c-Flip protein, a protein involved in mediating the cell-death pathway, comes in two forms: long (c-FLIPL) and short (c-FLIPS). Both forms appear to be involved in initiating controlled cell-death mechanisms in normal cells. However, in colon cancer cells, expression of the long form results in increased cell growth instead of cell death. Clearly, the expression of the wrong protein dramatically alters cell function and contributes to the development of cancer.

New Drugs to Combat Cancer: Targeted Therapies

Scientists are using what is known about the regulation of gene expression in disease states, including cancer, to develop new ways to treat and prevent disease development. Many scientists are designing drugs on the basis of the gene expression patterns within individual tumors. This idea, that therapy and medicines can be tailored to an individual, has given rise to the field of personalized medicine. With an increased understanding of gene regulation and gene function, medicines can be designed to specifically target diseased cells without harming healthy cells. Some new medicines, called targeted therapies, have exploited the overexpression of a specific protein or the mutation of a gene to develop a new medication to treat disease. One such example is the use of anti-EGF receptor medications to treat the subset of breast cancer tumors that have very high levels of the EGF protein. Undoubtedly, more targeted therapies will be developed as scientists learn more about how gene expression changes can cause cancer.

Clinical Trial Coordinator A clinical trial coordinator is the person managing the proceedings of the clinical trial. This job includes coordinating patient schedules and appointments, maintaining detailed notes, building the database to track patients (especially for long-term follow-up studies), ensuring proper documentation has been acquired and accepted, and working with the nurses and doctors to facilitate the trial and publication of the results. A clinical trial coordinator may have a science background, like a nursing degree, or other certification. People who have worked in science labs or in clinical offices are also qualified to become a clinical trial coordinator. These jobs are generally in hospitals however, some clinics and doctor’s offices also conduct clinical trials and may hire a coordinator.

Section Summary

Cancer can be described as a disease of altered gene expression. Changes at every level of eukaryotic gene expression can be detected in some form of cancer at some point in time. In order to understand how changes to gene expression can cause cancer, it is critical to understand how each stage of gene regulation works in normal cells. By understanding the mechanisms of control in normal, non-diseased cells, it will be easier for scientists to understand what goes wrong in disease states including complex ones like cancer.

Free Response

New drugs are being developed that decrease DNA methylation and prevent the removal of acetyl groups from histone proteins. Explain how these drugs could affect gene expression to help kill tumor cells.

These drugs will keep the histone proteins and the DNA methylation patterns in the open chromosomal configuration so that transcription is feasible. If a gene is silenced, these drugs could reverse the epigenetic configuration to re-express the gene.

How can understanding the gene expression pattern in a cancer cell tell you something about that specific form of cancer?

Understanding which genes are expressed in a cancer cell can help diagnose the specific form of cancer. It can also help identify treatment options for that patient. For example, if a breast cancer tumor expresses the EGFR in high numbers, it might respond to specific anti-EGFR therapy. If that receptor is not expressed, it would not respond to that therapy.

Glossary


Introduction

Exosomes are nanoscale extracellular lipid bilayer vesicles of endocytic origin, and they are secreted by nearly all cell types in physiological and pathological conditions. Initial studies regarded exosomes as a simple means for the disposal of unwanted cellular components [1]. They have now been shown to play a crucial role in intercellular communication through the intercellular transfer of nucleic acids and specific repertoires of proteins and lipids, which is important for protein and lipid homeostasis [2]. During these processes, exosomes can regulate the properties of target cells, which can be beneficial or detrimental [3]. Exosomes contribute to fundamental physiological processes, such as neuronal communication [4], antigen presentation [5], immune responses [6], organ development [7], and reproductive performances [8]. They also participate in some pathological disorders, including cancer progression [9], cardiovascular disease [10], and inflammation [11], and they even favor viral infection [12] and prion dissemination [13]. Given that exosomes can carry toxic damaged forms of aggregated proteins that are fated for destruction, they are also relevant to the progression of neurodegenerative diseases [14].

Exosome secretion occurs naturally, and cellular stress and activation signals can modulate the involved processes [15]. They can be found in multiple types of extracellular fluids, such as blood, urine, amniotic fluid, saliva, cerebrospinal fluid, and even breast milk [16-19]. The heterogeneity of exosome size and cargo reflect the state and types of the cells of origin. Thus, exosomes can be used as biomarkers for disease diagnostics and even fetal sex determination [20]. Since surface-bound proteins on exosomes stem from the plasma membranes of the cells from which they originated, exosomes released by antigen-presenting cells (APCs), dendritic cells (DCs) and tumor cells are promising for use in vaccines development. Moreover, exosomes can protect their cargoes from clearance or damage by the complement fixation or macrophages due to their double-layered membrane and nanoscale size, thus prolonging their circulation half-life and improving their biological activity. Hence, exosomes could potentially be used as drug delivery vesicles for treating disease. Furthermore, exosome engineering, i.e., the chemical or biological modification of these nanoscale extracellular lipid bilayer vesicles, may provide opportunities to enhance or broaden the innate therapeutic capability of exosomes.


Change history

Vallee, R. B. Reversible assembly purification of microtubules without assembly-promoting agents and further purification of tubulin, microtubule-associated proteins, and MAP fragments. Methods Enzymol. 134, 89–104 (1986).

Mitchison, T. & Kirschner, M. Dynamic instability of microtubule growth. Nature 312, 237–242 (1984).

Verhey, K. J. & Hammond, J. W. Traffic control: regulation of kinesin motors. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 765–777 (2009).

Vallee, R. B., Williams, J. C., Varma, D. & Barnhart, L. E. Dynein: an ancient motor protein involved in multiple modes of transport. J. Neurobiol. 58, 189–200 (2004).

Sheetz, M. P., Steuer, E. R. & Schroer, T. A. The mechanism and regulation of fast axonal transport. Trends Neurosci. 12, 474–478 (1989).

Lindemann, C. B. & Lesich, K. A. Flagellar and ciliary beating: the proven and the possible. J. Cell Sci. 123, 519–528 (2010).

Surrey, T., Nedelec, F., Leibler, S. & Karsenti, E. Physical properties determining self-organization of motors and microtubules. Science 292, 1167–1171 (2001).

Howard, J. & Hyman, A. A. Microtubule polymerases and depolymerases. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 19, 31–35 (2007).

Roll-Mecak, A. & McNally, F. J. Microtubule-severing enzymes. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 22, 96–103 (2010).

Akhmanova, A. & Steinmetz, M. O. Tracking the ends: a dynamic protein network controls the fate of microtubule tips. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 9, 309–322 (2008).

Wilson, P. G. & Borisy, G. G. Evolution of the multi-tubulin hypothesis. Bioessays 19, 451–454 (1997).

Janke, C. & Kneussel, M. Tubulin post-translational modifications: encoding functions on the neuronal microtubule cytoskeleton. Trends Neurosci. 33, 362–372 (2010).

Westermann, S. & Weber, K. Post-translational modifications regulate microtubule function. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 4, 938–947 (2003).

Verhey, K. J. & Gaertig, J. The tubulin code. Cell Cycle 6, 2152–2160 (2007).

Wloga, D. & Gaertig, J. Post-translational modifications of microtubules. J. Cell Sci. 123, 3447–3455 (2010).

Arce, C. A., Rodriguez, J. A., Barra, H. S. & Caputo, R. Incorporation of L -tyrosine, L -phenylalanine and L -3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine as single units into rat brain tubulin. Eur. J. Biochem. 59, 145–149 (1975). Provides the first evidence for a tubulin PTM, tyrosination, and demonstrates that this modification involves the ATP-dependent, but RNA-independent, addition of an amino acid to tubulin.

Hallak, M. E., Rodriguez, J. A., Barra, H. S. & Caputto, R. Release of tyrosine from tyrosinated tubulin. Some common factors that affect this process and the assembly of tubulin. FEBS Lett. 73, 147–150 (1977).

Valenzuela, P. et al. Nucleotide and corresponding amino acid sequences encoded by α and β tubulin mRNAs. Nature 289, 650–655 (1981).

Gundersen, G. G., Kalnoski, M. H. & Bulinski, J. C. Distinct populations of microtubules: tyrosinated and nontyrosinated αtubulin are distributed differently in vivo. Cell 38, 779–789 (1984). Reports the preparation of first antibodies specific for tubulin PTMs and their use to demonstrate that some microtubules in a cell are enriched in tyrosinated tubulin, whereas other microtubules in the same cell are mostly composed of detyrosinated tubulin.

Eddé, B. et al. Posttranslational glutamylation of α-tubulin. Science 247, 83–85 (1990). Details the discovery of polyglutamylation, a novel PTM of tubulin.

Kalinina, E. et al. A novel subfamily of mouse cytosolic carboxypeptidases. FASEB J. 21, 836–850 (2007).

Rodriguez de la Vega, M. et al. Nna1-like proteins are active metallocarboxypeptidases of a new and diverse M14 subfamily. FASEB J. 21, 851–865 (2007).

Rogowski, K. et al. A family of protein-deglutamylating enzymes associated with neurodegeneration. Cell 143, 564–578 (2010). Demonstrates, together with the discovery and biochemical analysis of tubulin deglutamylases, the first connection between tubulin polyglutamylation and neurodengeneration in mammals.

Raybin, D. & Flavin, M. Enzyme which specifically adds tyrosine to the α chain of tubulin. Biochemistry 16, 2189–2194 (1977).

Schröder, H. C., Wehland, J. & Weber, K. Purification of brain tubulin-tyrosine ligase by biochemical and immunological methods. J. Cell Biol. 100, 276–281 (1985). Describes purification of the first enzyme known to be involved in a tubulin PTM: TTL.

Ersfeld, K. et al. Characterization of the tubulin-tyrosine ligase. J. Cell Biol. 120, 725–732 (1993).

Kumar, N. & Flavin, M. Preferential action of a brain detyrosinolating carboxypeptidase on polymerized tubulin. J. Biol. Chem. 256, 7678–7686 (1981).

Gundersen, G. G., Khawaja, S. & Bulinski, J. C. Postpolymerization detyrosination of α-tubulin: a mechanism for subcellular differentiation of microtubules. J. Cell Biol. 105, 251–264 (1987). Shows that, in cultured cells, microtubules that are enriched in modified tubulin are more stable (long-lived) than microtubules that are comprised of unmodified tubulin.

Webster, D. R., Gundersen, G. G., Bulinski, J. C. & Borisy, G. G. Assembly and turnover of detyrosinated tubulin in vivo. J. Cell Biol. 105, 265–276 (1987).

Paturle-Lafanechere, L. et al. Characterization of a major brain tubulin variant which cannot be tyrosinated. Biochemistry 30, 10523–10528 (1991). Describes the discovery of the Δ2-tubulin PTM.

Rüdiger, M., Wehland, J. & Weber, K. The carboxy-terminal peptide of detyrosinated α tubulin provides a minimal system to study the substrate specificity of tubulin–tyrosine ligase. Eur. J. Biochem. 220, 309–320 (1994).

Erck, C. et al. A vital role of tubulin-tyrosine-ligase for neuronal organization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 7853–7858 (2005). Describes the first genetic knockout of a tubulin modifying enzyme, TTL, in mice. The absence of TTL, which carries out the re-tyrosination of tubulin, leads to massive accumulation of detyrosinated tubulin and Δ2-tubulin, and mice die perinatally of neuronal defects.

L'Hernault, S. W. & Rosenbaum, J. L. Chlamydomonas α-tubulin is posttranslationally modified by acetylation on the ɛ-amino group of a lysine. Biochemistry 24, 473–478 (1985). Shows that tubulin undergoes post-translational acetylation and identifies Lys40 as the acetylated residue.

Maruta, H., Greer, K. & Rosenbaum, J. L. The acetylation of α-tubulin and its relationship to the assembly and disassembly of microtubules. J. Cell Biol. 103, 571–579 (1986).

Choudhary, C. et al. Lysine acetylation targets protein complexes and co-regulates major cellular functions. Science 325, 834–840 (2009).

Chu, C.-W. et al. A novel acetylation of β-tubulin by San modulates microtubule polymerization via down-regulating tubulin incorporation. Mol. Biol. Cell 22, 448–456 (2011).

Matsuyama, A. et al. In vivo destabilization of dynamic microtubules by HDAC6-mediated deacetylation. EMBO J. 21, 6820–6831 (2002).

Hubbert, C. et al. HDAC6 is a microtubule-associated deacetylase. Nature 417, 455–458 (2002). Demonstrates that a histone deacetylase, HDAC6, functions in cells to reverse acetylation of Lys40.

North, B. J., Marshall, B. L., Borra, M. T., Denu, J. M. & Verdin, E. The human Sir2 ortholog, SIRT2, is an NAD + -dependent tubulin deacetylase. Mol. Cell 11, 437–444 (2003).

Ohkawa, N. et al. N-acetyltransferase ARD1-NAT1 regulates neuronal dendritic development. Genes Cells 13, 1171–1183 (2008).

Solinger, J. A. et al. The Caenorhabditis elegans elongator complex regulates neuronal α-tubulin acetylation. PLoS Genet. 6, e1000820 (2010).

Creppe, C. et al. Elongator controls the migration and differentiation of cortical neurons through acetylation of α-tubulin. Cell 136, 551–564 (2009).

Conacci-Sorrell, M., Ngouenet, C. & Eisenman, R. N. Myc-nick: a cytoplasmic cleavage product of Myc that promotes α-tubulin acetylation and cell differentiation. Cell 142, 480–493 (2010).

Shida, T., Cueva, J. G., Xu, Z., Goodman, M. B. & Nachury, M. V. The major α-tubulin K40 acetyltransferase αTAT1 promotes rapid ciliogenesis and efficient mechanosensation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 21517–21522 (2010).

Akella, J. S. et al. MEC-17 is an α-tubulin acetyltransferase. Nature 467, 218–222 (2010). References 44 and 45 describe the discovery of the enzyme MEC-17, also called αTAT1, which carries out the acetylation of Lys40 on α-tubulin.

Luduena, R. F. Are tubulin isotypes functionally significant. Mol. Biol. Cell 4, 445–457 (1993).

Denoulet, P., Eddé, B., Jeantet, C. & Gros, F. Evolution of tubulin heterogeneity during mouse brain development. Biochimie 64, 165–172 (1982).

Redeker, V. Mass spectrometry analysis of C-terminal posttranslational modifications of tubulins. Methods Cell Biol. 95, 77–103 (2010).

Alexander, J. E. et al. Characterization of posttranslational modifications in neuron-specific class III β-tubulin by mass spectrometry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 88, 4685–4689 (1991).

Rüdiger, M., Plessman, U., Kloppel, K. D., Wehland, J. & Weber, K. Class II tubulin, the major brain β tubulin isotype is polyglutamylated on glutamic acid residue 435. FEBS Lett. 308, 101–105 (1992).

Redeker, V. et al. Polyglycylation of tubulin: a posttranslational modification in axonemal microtubules. Science 266, 1688–1691 (1994). Describes the discovery of the polyglycylation PTM of tubulin.

Mukai, M. et al. Recombinant mammalian tubulin polyglutamylase TTLL7 performs both initiation and elongation of polyglutamylation on β-tubulin through a random sequential pathway. Biochemistry 48, 1084–1093 (2009).

Rogowski, K. et al. Evolutionary divergence of enzymatic mechanisms for posttranslational polyglycylation. Cell 137, 1076–1087 (2009).

Wloga, D. et al. TTLL3 Is a tubulin glycine ligase that regulates the assembly of cilia. Dev. Cell 16, 867–876 (2009). References 53 and 54 demonstrate that enzymes of the TTLL family carry out the polyglycylation PTM of tubulin. They further demonstrate the essential role of this PTM for the dynamics and stability of axonemes.

Audebert, S. et al. Reversible polyglutamylation of α- and β-tubulin and microtubule dynamics in mouse brain neurons. Mol. Biol. Cell 4, 615–626 (1993).

Audebert, S. et al. Developmental regulation of polyglutamylated α- and β-tubulin in mouse brain neurons. J. Cell Sci. 107, 2313–2322 (1994).

Regnard, C. et al. Characterisation of PGs1, a subunit of a protein complex co-purifying with tubulin polyglutamylase. J. Cell Sci. 116, 4181–4190 (2003).

Janke, C. et al. Tubulin polyglutamylase enzymes are members of the TTL domain protein family. Science 308, 1758–1762 (2005). Identifies polyglutamylase enzymes and demonstrates that the polyglutamylases are members of the tubulin TTLL family.

Ikegami, K. et al. TTLL10 is a protein polyglycylase that can modify nucleosome assembly protein 1. FEBS Lett. 582, 1129–1134 (2008).

Ikegami, K. et al. TTLL7 is a mammalian β-tubulin polyglutamylase required for growth of MAP2-positive neurites. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 30707–30716 (2006).

van Dijk, J. et al. A targeted multienzyme mechanism for selective microtubule polyglutamylation. Mol. Cell 26, 437–448 (2007).

Ikegami, K. & Setou, M. TTLL10 can perform tubulin glycylation when co-expressed with TTLL8. FEBS Lett. 583, 1957–1963 (2009).

Kimura, Y. et al. Identification of tubulin deglutamylase among Caenorhabditis elegans and mammalian cytosolic carboxypeptidases (CCPs). J. Biol. Chem. 285, 22936–22941 (2010). Demonstrates that some members of the family of CCPs that were originally postulated to be detyrosinating enzymes actually catalyze deglutamylation.

Raybin, D. & Flavin, M. Modification of tubulin by tyrosylation in cells and extracts and its effect on assembly in vitro. J. Cell Biol. 73, 492–504 (1977).

Chapin, S. J. & Bulinski, J. C. Cellular microtubules heterogeneous in their content of microtubule-associated protein 4 (MAP4). Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 27, 133–149 (1994).

Paturle, L., Wehland, J., Margolis, R. L. & Job, D. Complete separation of tyrosinated, detyrosinated, and nontyrosinatable brain tubulin subpopulations using affinity chromatography. Biochemistry 28, 2698–2704 (1989).

Webster, D. R., Gundersen, G. G., Bulinski, J. C. & Borisy, G. G. Differential turnover of tyrosinated and detyrosinated microtubules. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 84, 9040–9044 (1987).

Khawaja, S., Gundersen, G. G. & Bulinski, J. C. Enhanced stability of microtubules enriched in detyrosinated tubulin is not a direct function of detyrosination level. J. Cell Biol. 106, 141–149 (1988).

Peris, L. et al. Motor-dependent microtubule disassembly driven by tubulin tyrosination. J. Cell Biol. 185, 1159–1166 (2009). Demonstrates for the first time a mechanism that explains how detyrosination can stabilize microtubules, by showing that tyrosinated microtubules are better substrates of depolymerizing kinesins.

Paturle-Lafanechere, L. et al. Accumulation of δ 2-tubulin, a major tubulin variant that cannot be tyrosinated, in neuronal tissues and in stable microtubule assemblies. J. Cell Sci. 107, 1529–1543 (1994).

Tran, A. D. et al. HDAC6 deacetylation of tubulin modulates dynamics of cellular adhesions. J. Cell Sci. 120, 1469–1479 (2007).

Zilberman, Y. et al. Regulation of microtubule dynamics by inhibition of the tubulin deacetylase HDAC6. J. Cell Sci. 122, 3531–3541 (2009).

Sudo, H. & Baas, P. W. Acetylation of microtubules influences their sensitivity to severing by katanin in neurons and fibroblasts. J. Neurosci. 30, 7215–7226 (2010).

Sharma, N. et al. Katanin regulates dynamics of microtubules and biogenesis of motile cilia. J. Cell Biol. 178, 1065–1079 (2007).

Lacroix, B. et al. Tubulin polyglutamylation stimulates spastin-mediated microtubule severing. J. Cell Biol. 189, 945–954 (2010). Uses, for the first time, an in vitro system to measure the impact that tubulin polyglutamylation has on microtubules. Sets the stage for future studies on differential recognition by other MAPs.

Qiang, L., Yu, W., Andreadis, A., Luo, M. & Baas, P. W. Tau protects microtubules in the axon from severing by katanin. J. Neurosci. 26, 3120–3129 (2006).

Bonnet, C. et al. Differential binding regulation of microtubule-associated proteins MAP1A, MAP1B, and MAP2 by tubulin polyglutamylation. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 12839–12848 (2001).

Boucher, D., Larcher, J. C., Gros, F. & Denoulet, P. Polyglutamylation of tubulin as a progressive regulator of in vitro interactions between the microtubule-associated protein Tau and tubulin. Biochemistry 33, 12471–12477 (1994).

Liao, G. & Gundersen, G. G. Kinesin is a candidate for cross-bridging microtubules and intermediate filaments. Selective binding of kinesin to detyrosinated tubulin and vimentin. J. Biol. Chem. 273, 9797–9803 (1998).

Kreitzer, G., Liao, G. & Gundersen, G. G. Detyrosination of tubulin regulates the interaction of intermediate filaments with microtubules in vivo via a kinesin-dependent mechanism. Mol. Biol. Cell 10, 1105–1118 (1999).

Dunn, S. et al. Differential trafficking of Kif5c on tyrosinated and detyrosinated microtubules in live cells. J. Cell Sci. 121, 1085–1095 (2008).

Konishi, Y. & Setou, M. Tubulin tyrosination navigates the kinesin-1 motor domain to axons. Nature Neurosci. 12, 559–567 (2009).

Dompierre, J. P. et al. Histone deacetylase 6 inhibition compensates for the transport deficit in Huntington's disease by increasing tubulin acetylation. J. Neurosci. 27, 3571–3583 (2007).

Reed, N. A. et al. Microtubule acetylation promotes Kinesin-1 binding and transport. Curr. Biol. 16, 2166–2172 (2006).

Valenzuela-Fernandez, A., Cabrero, J. R., Serrador, J. M. & Sanchez-Madrid, F. HDAC6: a key regulator of cytoskeleton, cell migration and cell–cell interactions. Trends Cell Biol. 18, 291–297 (2008).

Hammond, J. W. et al. Posttranslational modifications of tubulin and the polarized transport of Kinesin-1 in neurons. Mol. Biol. Cell 21, 572–583 (2010).

Cai, D., McEwen, D. P., Martens, J. R., Meyhofer, E. & Verhey, K. J. Single molecule imaging reveals differences in microtubule track selection between Kinesin motors. PLoS Biol. 7, e1000216 (2009).

Larcher, J. C., Boucher, D., Lazereg, S., Gros, F. & Denoulet, P. Interaction of kinesin motor domains with α- and β-tubulin subunits at a tau-independent binding site. Regulation by polyglutamylation. J. Biol. Chem. 271, 22117–22124 (1996).

Campbell, P. K. et al. Mutation of a novel gene results in abnormal development of spermatid flagella, loss of intermale aggression and reduced body fat in mice. Genetics 162, 307–320 (2002).

Ikegami, K. et al. Loss of α-tubulin polyglutamylation in ROSA22 mice is associated with abnormal targeting of KIF1A and modulated synaptic function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3213–3218 (2007).

Suryavanshi, S. et al. Tubulin glutamylation regulates ciliary motility by altering inner dynein arm activity. Curr. Biol. 20, 435–440 (2010).

Kubo, T., Yanagisawa, H.-A., Yagi, T., Hirono, M. & Kamiya, R. Tubulin polyglutamylation regulates axonemal motility by modulating activities of inner-arm dyneins. Curr. Biol. 20, 441–445 (2010). References 91 and 92 establish a molecular mechanism by which polyglutamylation regulates dynein and alters the function of cilia and flagella.

Kumar, N. & Flavin, M. Modulation of some parameters of assembly of microtubules in vitro by tyrosinolation of tubulin. Eur. J. Biochem. 128, 215–222 (1982).

Weisbrich, A. et al. Structure-function relationship of CAP-Gly domains. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 959–967 (2007).

Peris, L. et al. Tubulin tyrosination is a major factor affecting the recruitment of CAP-Gly proteins at microtubule plus ends. J. Cell Biol. 174, 839–849 (2006).

Bieling, P. et al. CLIP-170 tracks growing microtubule ends by dynamically recognizing composite EB1/tubulin-binding sites. J. Cell Biol. 183, 1223–1233 (2008). Together, references 94–96 work out the complete mechanism for the specific recognition of tyrosinated microtubules by CAP-Gly.

Bulinski, J. C. & Gundersen, G. G. Stabilization of post-translational modification of microtubules during cellular morphogenesis. Bioessays 13, 285–293 (1991).

Gundersen, G. G. & Bulinski, J. C. Distribution of tyrosinated and nontyrosinated α-tubulin during mitosis. J. Cell Biol. 102, 1118–1126 (1986).

Piperno, G., LeDizet, M. & Chang, X. J. Microtubules containing acetylated α-tubulin in mammalian cells in culture. J. Cell Biol. 104, 289–302 (1987).

Bobinnec, Y. et al. Glutamylation of centriole and cytoplasmic tubulin in proliferating non- neuronal cells. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 39, 223–232 (1998).

Zhai, Y., Kronebusch, P. J. & Borisy, G. G. Kinetochore microtubule dynamics and the metaphase–anaphase transition. J. Cell Biol. 131, 721–734 (1995).

Regnard, C., Desbruyeres, E., Denoulet, P. & Eddé, B. Tubulin polyglutamylase: isozymic variants and regulation during the cell cycle in HeLa cells. J. Cell Sci. 112, 4281–4289 (1999).

Maney, T., Hunter, A. W., Wagenbach, M. & Wordeman, L. Mitotic centromere-associated kinesin is important for anaphase chromosome segregation. J. Cell Biol. 142, 787–801 (1998).

McNally, K., Audhya, A., Oegema, K. & McNally, F. J. Katanin controls mitotic and meiotic spindle length. J. Cell Biol. 175, 881–891 (2006).

Sonbuchner, T. M., Rath, U. & Sharp, D. J. KL1 is a novel microtubule severing enzyme that regulates mitotic spindle architecture. Cell Cycle 9, 2403–2411 (2010).

Connell, J. W., Lindon, C., Luzio, J. P. & Reid, E. Spastin couples microtubule severing to membrane traffic in completion of cytokinesis and secretion. Traffic 10, 42–56 (2009).

Cambray-Deakin, M. A. & Burgoyne, R. D. Posttranslational modifications of α-tubulin: acetylated and detyrosinated forms in axons of rat cerebellum. J. Cell Biol. 104, 1569–1574 (1987).

Kim, H. Depletion of acetylated α-tubulin during microtubule purification from bovine brain gray and white matter regions. J. Neurosci. Res. 30, 172–182 (1991).

Black, M. M. & Keyser, P. Acetylation of α-tubulin in cultured neurons and the induction of α-tubulin acetylation in PC12 cells by treatment with nerve growth factor. J. Neurosci. 7, 1833–1842 (1987).

Wolff, A. et al. Distribution of glutamylated α and β-tubulin in mouse tissues using a specific monoclonal antibody, GT335. Eur. J. Cell Biol. 59, 425–432 (1992).

Jacobson, C., Schnapp, B. & Banker, G. A. A change in the selective translocation of the Kinesin-1 motor domain marks the initial specification of the axon. Neuron 49, 797–804 (2006).

Robson, S. J. & Burgoyne, R. D. Differential localisation of tyrosinated, detyrosinated, and acetylated α-tubulins in neurites and growth cones of dorsal root ganglion neurons. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 12, 273–282 (1989).

Marcos, S. et al. Tubulin tyrosination is required for the proper organization and pathfinding of the growth cone. PLoS ONE 4, e5405 (2009).

Falconer, M. M., Vielkind, U. & Brown, D. L. Establishment of a stable, acetylated microtubule bundle during neuronal commitment. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 12, 169–180 (1989).

Harting, K. & Knoll, B. SIRT2-mediated protein deacetylation: an emerging key regulator in brain physiology and pathology. Eur. J. Cell Biol. 89, 262–269 (2010).

Maas, C. et al. Synaptic activation modifies microtubules underlying transport of postsynaptic cargo. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8731–8736 (2009).

Mullen, R. J., Eicher, E. M. & Sidman, R. L. Purkinje cell degeneration, a new neurological mutation in the mouse. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 73, 208–212 (1976).

Greer, C. A. & Shepherd, G. M. Mitral cell degeneration and sensory function in the neurological mutant mouse Purkinje cell degeneration (PCD). Brain Res. 235, 156–161 (1982).

Wallingford, J. B. & Mitchell, B. Strange as it may seem: the many links between Wnt signaling, planar cell polarity, and cilia. Genes Dev. 25, 201–213 (2011).

Lancaster, M. A., Schroth, J. & Gleeson, J. G. Subcellular spatial regulation of canonical Wnt signalling at the primary cilium. Nature Cell Biol. 13, 702–709 (2011).

Salathe, M. Regulation of mammalian ciliary beating. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 69, 401–422 (2007).

Johnson, K. A. The axonemal microtubules of the Chlamydomonas flagellum differ in tubulin isoform content. J. Cell Sci. 111, 313–320 (1998).

L'Hernault, S. W. & Rosenbaum, J. L. Chlamydomonas α-tubulin is posttranslationally modified in the flagella during flagellar assembly. J. Cell Biol. 97, 258–263 (1983).

Piperno, G. & Fuller, M. T. Monoclonal antibodies specific for an acetylated form of α-tubulin recognize the antigen in cilia and flagella from a variety of organisms. J. Cell Biol. 101, 2085–2094 (1985).

Gaertig, J. et al. Acetylation of lysine 40 in α-tubulin is not essential in Tetrahymena thermophila. J. Cell Biol. 129, 1301–1310 (1995).

Zhang, Y. et al. Mice lacking histone deacetylase 6 have hyperacetylated tubulin but are viable and develop normally. Mol. Cell. Biol. 28, 1688–1701 (2008).

Raff, E. C., Hoyle, H. D., Popodi, E. M. & Turner, F. R. Axoneme β-tubulin sequence determines attachment of outer dynein arms. Curr. Biol. 18, 911–914 (2008).

Bré, M. H., de Nechaud, B., Wolff, A. & Fleury, A. Glutamylated tubulin probed in ciliates with the monoclonal antibody GT335. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 27, 337–349 (1994).

Bré, M. H. et al. Axonemal tubulin polyglycylation probed with two monoclonal antibodies: widespread evolutionary distribution, appearance during spermatozoan maturation and possible function in motility. J. Cell Sci. 109, 727–738 (1996).

Xia, L. et al. Polyglycylation of tubulin is essential and affects cell motility and division in Tetrahymena thermophila. J. Cell Biol. 149, 1097–1106 (2000).

Thazhath, R., Liu, C. & Gaertig, J. Polyglycylation domain of β-tubulin maintains axonemal architecture and affects cytokinesis in Tetrahymena. Nature Cell Biol. 4, 256–259 (2002).

Gagnon, C. et al. The polyglutamylated lateral chain of α-tubulin plays a key role in flagellar motility. J. Cell Sci. 109, 1545–1553 (1996).

Pathak, N., Obara, T., Mangos, S., Liu, Y. & Drummond, I. A. The zebrafish fleer gene encodes an essential regulator of cilia tubulin polyglutamylation. Mol. Biol. Cell 18, 4353–4364 (2007).

Ikegami, K., Sato, S., Nakamura, K., Ostrowski, L. E. & Setou, M. Tubulin polyglutamylation is essential for airway ciliary function through the regulation of beating asymmetry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 10490–10495 (2010).

Vogel, P., Hansen, G., Fontenot, G. & Read, R. Tubulin tyrosine ligase-like 1 deficiency results in chronic rhinosinusitis and abnormal development of spermatid flagella in mice. Vet. Pathol. 47, 703–712 (2010).

Pathak, N., Austin, C. A. & Drummond, I. A. Tubulin tyrosine ligase-like genes ttll3 and ttll6 maintain zebrafish cilia structure and motility. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 11685–11695 (2011).

Schneider, A., Plessmann, U. & Weber, K. Subpellicular and flagellar microtubules of Trypanosoma brucei are extensively glutamylated. J. Cell Sci. 110, 431–437 (1997).

Carvalho-Santos, Z. et al. Stepwise evolution of the centriole-assembly pathway. J. Cell Sci. 123, 1414–1426 (2010).

Bornens, M. & Azimzadeh, J. Origin and evolution of the centrosome. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 607, 119–129 (2007).

van Breugel, M. et al. Structures of SAS-6 suggest its organization in centrioles. Science 331, 1196–1199 (2011).

Kitagawa, D. et al. Structural basis of the 9-fold symmetry of centrioles. Cell 144, 364–375 (2011).

Geimer, S., Teltenkotter, A., Plessmann, U., Weber, K. & Lechtreck, K. F. Purification and characterization of basal apparatuses from a flagellate green alga. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 37, 72–85 (1997).

Bobinnec, Y. et al. Centriole disassembly in vivo and its effect on centrosome structure and function in vertebrate cells. J. Cell Biol. 143, 1575–1589 (1998).

Abal, M., Keryer, G. & Bornens, M. Centrioles resist forces applied on centrosomes during G2/M transition. Biol. Cell 97, 425–434 (2005).

Wloga, D. et al. Glutamylation on α-tubulin is not essential but affects the assembly and functions of a subset of microtubules in Tetrahymena thermophila. Eukaryot. Cell 7, 1362–1372 (2008).

Verdier-Pinard, P. et al. Tubulin proteomics: towards breaking the code. Anal. Biochem. 384, 197–206 (2009).

Fliegauf, M., Benzing, T. & Omran, H. When cilia go bad: cilia defects and ciliopathies. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 880–893 (2007).

Goetz, S. C. & Anderson, K. V. The primary cilium: a signalling centre during vertebrate development. Nature Rev. Genet. 11, 331–344 (2010).

Brandt, R. Cytoskeletal mechanisms of neuronal degeneration. Cell Tissue Res. 305, 255–265 (2001).

Saxena, S. & Caroni, P. Mechanisms of axon degeneration: from development to disease. Prog. Neurobiol. 83, 174–191 (2007).

Kuehn, E. W., Walz, G. & Benzing, T. von Hippel-Lindau: a tumor suppressor links microtubules to ciliogenesis and cancer development. Cancer Res. 67, 4537–4540 (2007).

Michaud, E. J. & Yoder, B. K. The primary cilium in cell signaling and cancer. Cancer Res. 66, 6463–6467 (2006).

Mialhe, A. et al. Tubulin detyrosination is a frequent occurrence in breast cancers of poor prognosis. Cancer Res. 61, 5024–5027 (2001).

Soucek, K. et al. Normal and prostate cancer cells display distinct molecular profiles of α-tubulin posttranslational modifications. Prostate 66, 954–965 (2006).

Amos, L. A. Focusing-in on microtubules. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 10, 236–241 (2000).

Cleveland, D. W., Kirschner, M. W. & Cowan, N. J. Isolation of separate mRNAs for α- and β-tubulin and characterization of the corresponding in vitro translation products. Cell 15, 1021–1031 (1978).

Cleveland, D. W. et al. Number and evolutionary conservation of α- and β-tubulin and cytoplasmic β- and γ-actin genes using specific cloned cDNA probes. Cell 20, 95–105 (1980).

Sanchez, F., Natzle, J. E., Cleveland, D. W., Kirschner, M. W. & McCarthy, B. J. A dispersed multigene family encoding tubulin in Drosophila melanogaster. Cell 22, 845–854 (1980).

Gaertig, J., Thatcher, T. H., McGrath, K. E., Callahan, R. C. & Gorovsky, M. A. Perspectives on tubulin isotype function and evolution based on the observation that Tetrahymena thermophila microtubules contain a single α- and β-tubulin. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 25, 243–253 (1993).

Nogales, E., Whittaker, M., Milligan, R. A. & Downing, K. H. High-resolution model of the microtubule. Cell 96, 79–88 (1999).

Nogales, E., Wolf, S. G. & Downing, K. H. Structure of the αβ tubulin dimer by electron crystallography. Nature 391, 199–203 (1998).

Joshi, H. C. & Cleveland, D. W. Differential utilization of β-tubulin isotypes in differentiating neurites. J. Cell Biol. 109, 663–673 (1989).

Bond, J. F., Fridovich-Keil, J. L., Pillus, L., Mulligan, R. C. & Solomon, F. A chicken-yeast chimeric β-tubulin protein is incorporated into mouse microtubules in vivo. Cell 44, 461–468 (1986).

Lewis, S. A., Gu, W. & Cowan, N. J. Free intermingling of mammalian β-tubulin isotypes among functionally distinct microtubules. Cell 49, 539–548 (1987).

Jaglin, X. H. et al. Mutations in the β-tubulin gene TUBB2B result in asymmetrical polymicrogyria. Nature Genet. 41, 746–752 (2009).

Tischfield, M. A. et al. Human TUBB3 mutations perturb microtubule dynamics, kinesin interactions, and axon guidance. Cell 140, 74–87 (2010).

Hoyle, H. D., Turner, F. R. & Raff, E. C. Axoneme-dependent tubulin modifications in singlet microtubules of the Drosophila sperm tail. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 65, 295–313 (2008).

Honnappa, S. et al. Key interaction modes of dynamic +TIP networks. Mol. Cell 23, 663–671 (2006).

Janke, C., Rogowski, K. & van Dijk, J. Polyglutamylation: a fine-regulator of protein function? 'Protein modifications: beyond the usual suspects' review series. EMBO Rep. 9, 636–641 (2008).

Pease, D. C. The ultrastructure of flagellar fibrils. J. Cell Biol. 18, 313–326 (1963).

Ledbetter, M. C. & Porter, K. R. Morphology of microtubules of plant cell. Science 144, 872–874 (1964).

Borisy, G. G. & Taylor, E. W. The mechanism of action of colchicine. Binding of colchincine- 3 H to cellular protein. J. Cell Biol. 34, 525–533 (1967).

Borisy, G. G. & Taylor, E. W. The mechanism of action of colchicine. Colchicine binding to sea urchin eggs and the mitotic apparatus. J. Cell Biol. 34, 535–548 (1967).

Mohri, H. Amino-acid composition of “tubulin” constituting microtubules of sperm flagella. Nature 217, 1053–1054 (1968).

Weisenberg, R. C. Microtubule formation in vitro in solutions containing low calcium concentrations. Science 177, 1104–1105 (1972).

Barra, H. S., Rodriguez, J. A., Arce, C. A. & Caputto, R. A soluble preparation from rat brain that incorporates into its own proteins ( 14 C)arginine by a ribonuclease-sensitive system and ( 14 C)tyrosine by a ribonuclease-insensitive system. J. Neurochem. 20, 97–108 (1973).

Murphy, D. B. & Borisy, G. G. Association of high-molecular-weight proteins with microtubules and their role in microtubule assembly in vitro. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 72, 2696–2700 (1975).

Luduena, R. F., Shooter, E. M. & Wilson, L. Structure of the tubulin dimer. J. Biol. Chem. 252, 7006–7014 (1977).

Schiff, P. B., Fant, J. & Horwitz, S. B. Promotion of microtubule assembly in vitro by taxol. Nature 277, 665–667 (1979).

Vale, R. D., Reese, T. S. & Sheetz, M. P. Identification of a novel force-generating protein, kinesin, involved in microtubule-based motility. Cell 42, 39–50 (1985).

Paschal, B. M. & Vallee, R. B. Retrograde transport by the microtubule-associated protein MAP 1C. Nature 330, 181–183 (1987).

Oakley, C. E. & Oakley, B. R. Identification of γ-tubulin, a new member of the tubulin superfamily encoded by MipA gene of Aspergillus nidulans. Nature 338, 662–664 (1989).

McNally, F. J. & Vale, R. D. Identification of katanin, an ATPase that severs and disassembles stable microtubules. Cell 75, 419–429 (1993).

Nogales, E., Wolf, S. G., Khan, I. A., Luduena, R. F. & Downing, K. H. Structure of tubulin at 6.5 Å and location of the taxol-binding site. Nature 375, 424–427 (1995).

Perez, F., Diamantopoulos, G. S., Stalder, R. & Kreis, T. E. CLIP-170 highlights growing microtubule ends in vivo. Cell 96, 517–527 (1999).

Tirnauer, J. S. & Bierer, B. E. EB1 proteins regulate microtubule dynamics, cell polarity, and chromosome stability. J. Cell Biol. 149, 761–766 (2000).


The DELLA ‘hub’ is a convergence point for cross-talk

Gibberellins are another important group of hormones that are required for growth, and mediate adaptation to various stresses ( Colebrook et al., 2014). The gibberellin receptor, gibberellin INSENSITIVE DWARF 1 (GID1), is a soluble hormone-sensitive lipase-like protein ( Ueguchi-Tanaka et al., 2005 Griffiths et al., 2006). Gibberellin promotes the interaction between GID1 and the DELLA proteins which are negative regulators of gibberellin signalling. SLEEPY 1 (SLY1), an F-box component of the SCF SLY1 E3 ubiquitin ligase, is subsequently recruited to the GID1–DELLA complex and targets the DELLA for 26S proteasome-mediated degradation (reviewed by Xu et al., 2014) ( Fig. 1E, F). The Arabidopsis genome encodes five DELLA proteins, gibberellic ACID INSENSITIVE (GAI), REPRESSOR OF ga1-3 (RGA), REPRESSOR OF ga1-3-LIKE 1 (RGL1), RGL2, and RGL3, and genetic analysis has shown that some of these proteins mediate specific gibberellin responses ( Daviere and Achard, 2013).

Meta-analysis of transcriptome data demonstrated the role of gibberellins as central nodes in multiple networks that connect environmental inputs to growth. These networks are tissue-specific and feature dynamic and direct regulation of transcriptional effectors ( Claeys et al., 2014). DELLA is a key player in these responses. Protein–protein interactions involving DELLAs have been shown to occur on ( Zentella et al., 2007 Yoshida et al., 2014) and off the promoter of DELLA-regulated genes ( de Lucas et al., 2008 Feng et al., 2008 Oh et al., 2014a).

DELLA proteins serve as a direct convergence point for cross-talk between gibberellin and brassinosteroid, and gibberellin and auxin ( Fig. 2). DELLA directly interacts with BZR1 and supresses its transcriptional activity by holding it away from the promoter of target genes ( Gallego-Bartolome et al., 2012 Li et al., 2012). Gibberellin promotes the degradation of DELLA, thus enhancing the transcription of brassinosteroid-responsive genes. A similar mechanism appears to account for the positive effect of gibberellin on the transcription of auxin-responsive genes. The DELLA protein RGA interacts with ARF6, ARF7, and ARF8, but not the ‘repressor’ ARF1 and, in ChIP assays, the presence of DELLA decreases ARF6-binding to the promoters of target genes ( Oh et al., 2014a). Unlike mechanisms that promote transcription factor degradation, DELLA’s antagonistic actions are rapidly reversed by gibberellin-mediated degradation of DELLA, or perhaps, as discussed shortly, via post-translational modifications.

Direct cross-talk involving DELLA proteins. The effects of DELLA protein on auxin (Aux left) and brassinosteroid (BR right) signalling pathways under low (A) and high gibberellin (B) concentrations. PM, plasma membrane P, phosphorylated SUMO, SUMO conjugate BSU1, BRI1 SUPPRESSOR 1 BIN2, BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE 2 BZR, BRASSINAZOLE RESISTANT 1 (BZR1) and BRI1-EMS SUPPRESSOR 1 (BES1/BZR2) IAA, Auxin/INDOLE-3-ACETIC ACID co-repressors, ARF, ‘activator’ AUXIN RESPONSE TRANSCRIPTION FACTORs (ARF5–8, 19) HDAC, HISTONE DEACETYLASE complex GID1, GA INSENSITIVE DWARF 1 DELLA, GA INSENSITIVE (GAI), REPRESSOR OF ga1-3 (RGA), REPRESSOR OF ga1-3-LIKE 1 (RGL1), RGL2, and RGL3 TFs, transcription factors that interact with DELLA proteins IDD, INDETERMINATE DOMAIN (IDD) transcription factors.

Direct cross-talk involving DELLA proteins. The effects of DELLA protein on auxin (Aux left) and brassinosteroid (BR right) signalling pathways under low (A) and high gibberellin (B) concentrations. PM, plasma membrane P, phosphorylated SUMO, SUMO conjugate BSU1, BRI1 SUPPRESSOR 1 BIN2, BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE 2 BZR, BRASSINAZOLE RESISTANT 1 (BZR1) and BRI1-EMS SUPPRESSOR 1 (BES1/BZR2) IAA, Auxin/INDOLE-3-ACETIC ACID co-repressors, ARF, ‘activator’ AUXIN RESPONSE TRANSCRIPTION FACTORs (ARF5–8, 19) HDAC, HISTONE DEACETYLASE complex GID1, GA INSENSITIVE DWARF 1 DELLA, GA INSENSITIVE (GAI), REPRESSOR OF ga1-3 (RGA), REPRESSOR OF ga1-3-LIKE 1 (RGL1), RGL2, and RGL3 TFs, transcription factors that interact with DELLA proteins IDD, INDETERMINATE DOMAIN (IDD) transcription factors.

Chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments showed that DELLA proteins associate with the promoter regions of gibberellin-responsive genes in vivo ( Zentella et al., 2007), and the amino-terminal DELLA and TVHYNP motifs of a rice DELLA protein (SLENDER RICE 1, SLR1) are required for transactivation of target genes ( Hirano et al., 2012). Because DELLAs do not possess a DNA-binding region, transcriptional activity is assumed to be conferred via recruitment to the promoters by DNA-bound transcription factors. SCARECROW-LIKE 3 (SCL3) was first reported as a DELLA-direct target by Zentella et al. (2007) and, more recently, Yoshida et al. (2014) demonstrated that it was recruited to the promoter through interactions with the INDETERMINATE DOMAIN (IDD) family of transcription factors. SCL3 is itself a positive regulator of gibberellin signalling, a repressor of its own transcription, and also able to interact with IDDs. Therefore, DELLA and SCL3 were hypothesized to interact competitively with IDD proteins, via their C-terminal GRAS domains, to regulate downstream gene expression ( Yoshida et al., 2014 Yoshida and Ueguchi-Tanaka, 2014) ( Fig. 2).


Contents

Any step of gene expression may be modulated, from the DNA-RNA transcription step to post-translational modification of a protein. The following is a list of stages where gene expression is regulated, the most extensively utilised point is Transcription Initiation:

In eukaryotes, the accessibility of large regions of DNA can depend on its chromatin structure, which can be altered as a result of histone modifications directed by DNA methylation, ncRNA, or DNA-binding protein. Hence these modifications may up or down regulate the expression of a gene. Some of these modifications that regulate gene expression are inheritable and are referred to as epigenetic regulation.

Structural Edit

Transcription of DNA is dictated by its structure. In general, the density of its packing is indicative of the frequency of transcription. Octameric protein complexes called histones together with a segment of DNA wound around the eight histone proteins (together referred to as a nucleosome) are responsible for the amount of supercoiling of DNA, and these complexes can be temporarily modified by processes such as phosphorylation or more permanently modified by processes such as methylation. Such modifications are considered to be responsible for more or less permanent changes in gene expression levels. [2]

Chemical Edit

Methylation of DNA is a common method of gene silencing. DNA is typically methylated by methyltransferase enzymes on cytosine nucleotides in a CpG dinucleotide sequence (also called "CpG islands" when densely clustered). Analysis of the pattern of methylation in a given region of DNA (which can be a promoter) can be achieved through a method called bisulfite mapping. Methylated cytosine residues are unchanged by the treatment, whereas unmethylated ones are changed to uracil. The differences are analyzed by DNA sequencing or by methods developed to quantify SNPs, such as Pyrosequencing (Biotage) or MassArray (Sequenom), measuring the relative amounts of C/T at the CG dinucleotide. Abnormal methylation patterns are thought to be involved in oncogenesis. [3]

Histone acetylation is also an important process in transcription. Histone acetyltransferase enzymes (HATs) such as CREB-binding protein also dissociate the DNA from the histone complex, allowing transcription to proceed. Often, DNA methylation and histone deacetylation work together in gene silencing. The combination of the two seems to be a signal for DNA to be packed more densely, lowering gene expression. [ citation needed ]

Regulation of transcription thus controls when transcription occurs and how much RNA is created. Transcription of a gene by RNA polymerase can be regulated by several mechanisms. Specificity factors alter the specificity of RNA polymerase for a given promoter or set of promoters, making it more or less likely to bind to them (i.e., sigma factors used in prokaryotic transcription). Repressors bind to the Operator, coding sequences on the DNA strand that are close to or overlapping the promoter region, impeding RNA polymerase's progress along the strand, thus impeding the expression of the gene. The image to the right demonstrates regulation by a repressor in the lac operon. General transcription factors position RNA polymerase at the start of a protein-coding sequence and then release the polymerase to transcribe the mRNA. Activators enhance the interaction between RNA polymerase and a particular promoter, encouraging the expression of the gene. Activators do this by increasing the attraction of RNA polymerase for the promoter, through interactions with subunits of the RNA polymerase or indirectly by changing the structure of the DNA. Enhancers are sites on the DNA helix that are bound by activators in order to loop the DNA bringing a specific promoter to the initiation complex. Enhancers are much more common in eukaryotes than prokaryotes, where only a few examples exist (to date). [4] Silencers are regions of DNA sequences that, when bound by particular transcription factors, can silence expression of the gene.

In vertebrates, the majority of gene promoters contain a CpG island with numerous CpG sites. [5] When many of a gene's promoter CpG sites are methylated the gene becomes silenced. [6] Colorectal cancers typically have 3 to 6 driver mutations and 33 to 66 hitchhiker or passenger mutations. [7] However, transcriptional silencing may be of more importance than mutation in causing progression to cancer. For example, in colorectal cancers about 600 to 800 genes are transcriptionally silenced by CpG island methylation (see regulation of transcription in cancer). Transcriptional repression in cancer can also occur by other epigenetic mechanisms, such as altered expression of microRNAs. [8] In breast cancer, transcriptional repression of BRCA1 may occur more frequently by over-expressed microRNA-182 than by hypermethylation of the BRCA1 promoter (see Low expression of BRCA1 in breast and ovarian cancers).

One of the cardinal features of addiction is its persistence. The persistent behavioral changes appear to be due to long-lasting changes, resulting from epigenetic alterations affecting gene expression, within particular regions of the brain. [9] Drugs of abuse cause three types of epigenetic alteration in the brain. These are (1) histone acetylations and histone methylations, (2) DNA methylation at CpG sites, and (3) epigenetic downregulation or upregulation of microRNAs. [9] [10] (See Epigenetics of cocaine addiction for some details.)

Chronic nicotine intake in mice alters brain cell epigenetic control of gene expression through acetylation of histones. This increases expression in the brain of the protein FosB, important in addiction. [11] Cigarette addiction was also studied in about 16,000 humans, including never smokers, current smokers, and those who had quit smoking for up to 30 years. [12] In blood cells, more than 18,000 CpG sites (of the roughly 450,000 analyzed CpG sites in the genome) had frequently altered methylation among current smokers. These CpG sites occurred in over 7,000 genes, or roughly a third of known human genes. The majority of the differentially methylated CpG sites returned to the level of never-smokers within five years of smoking cessation. However, 2,568 CpGs among 942 genes remained differentially methylated in former versus never smokers. Such remaining epigenetic changes can be viewed as “molecular scars” [10] that may affect gene expression.

In rodent models, drugs of abuse, including cocaine, [13] methampheamine, [14] [15] alcohol [16] and tobacco smoke products, [17] all cause DNA damage in the brain. During repair of DNA damages some individual repair events can alter the methylation of DNA and/or the acetylations or methylations of histones at the sites of damage, and thus can contribute to leaving an epigenetic scar on chromatin. [18]

Such epigenetic scars likely contribute to the persistent epigenetic changes found in addiction.

In mammals, methylation of cytosine (see Figure) in DNA is a major regulatory mediator. Methylated cytosines primarily occur in dinucleotide sequences where cytosine is followed by a guanine, a CpG site. The total number of CpG sites in the human genome is approximately 28 million. [19] and generally about 70% of all CpG sites have a methylated cytosine. [20]

In a rat, a painful learning experience, contextual fear conditioning, can result in a life-long fearful memory after a single training event. [21] Cytosine methylation is altered in the promoter regions of about 9.17% of all genes in the hippocampus neuron DNA of a rat that has been subjected to a brief fear conditioning experience. [22] The hippocampus is where new memories are initially stored.

Methylation of CpGs in a promoter region of a gene represses transcription [23] while methylation of CpGs in the body of a gene increases expression. [24] TET enzymes play a central role in demethylation of methylated cytosines. Demethylation of CpGs in a gene promoter by TET enzyme activity increases transcription of the gene. [25]

When contextual fear conditioning is applied to a rat, more than 5,000 differentially methylated regions (DMRs) (of 500 nucleotides each) occur in the rat hippocampus neural genome both one hour and 24 hours after the conditioning in the hippocampus. [22] This causes about 500 genes to be up-regulated (often due to demethylation of CpG sites in a promoter region) and about 1,000 genes to be down-regulated (often due to newly formed 5-methylcytosine at CpG sites in a promoter region). The pattern of induced and repressed genes within neurons appears to provide a molecular basis for forming the first transient memory of this training event in the hippocampus of the rat brain. [22]

After the DNA is transcribed and mRNA is formed, there must be some sort of regulation on how much the mRNA is translated into proteins. Cells do this by modulating the capping, splicing, addition of a Poly(A) Tail, the sequence-specific nuclear export rates, and, in several contexts, sequestration of the RNA transcript. These processes occur in eukaryotes but not in prokaryotes. This modulation is a result of a protein or transcript that, in turn, is regulated and may have an affinity for certain sequences.

Three prime untranslated regions (3'-UTRs) of messenger RNAs (mRNAs) often contain regulatory sequences that post-transcriptionally influence gene expression. [26] Such 3'-UTRs often contain both binding sites for microRNAs (miRNAs) as well as for regulatory proteins. By binding to specific sites within the 3'-UTR, miRNAs can decrease gene expression of various mRNAs by either inhibiting translation or directly causing degradation of the transcript. The 3'-UTR also may have silencer regions that bind repressor proteins that inhibit the expression of a mRNA.

The 3'-UTR often contains miRNA response elements (MREs). MREs are sequences to which miRNAs bind. These are prevalent motifs within 3'-UTRs. Among all regulatory motifs within the 3'-UTRs (e.g. including silencer regions), MREs make up about half of the motifs.

As of 2014, the miRBase web site, [27] an archive of miRNA sequences and annotations, listed 28,645 entries in 233 biologic species. Of these, 1,881 miRNAs were in annotated human miRNA loci. miRNAs were predicted to have an average of about four hundred target mRNAs (affecting expression of several hundred genes). [28] Freidman et al. [28] estimate that >45,000 miRNA target sites within human mRNA 3'-UTRs are conserved above background levels, and >60% of human protein-coding genes have been under selective pressure to maintain pairing to miRNAs.

Direct experiments show that a single miRNA can reduce the stability of hundreds of unique mRNAs. [29] Other experiments show that a single miRNA may repress the production of hundreds of proteins, but that this repression often is relatively mild (less than 2-fold). [30] [31]

The effects of miRNA dysregulation of gene expression seem to be important in cancer. [32] For instance, in gastrointestinal cancers, a 2015 paper identified nine miRNAs as epigenetically altered and effective in down-regulating DNA repair enzymes. [33]

The effects of miRNA dysregulation of gene expression also seem to be important in neuropsychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and autism spectrum disorders. [34] [35] [36]

The translation of mRNA can also be controlled by a number of mechanisms, mostly at the level of initiation. Recruitment of the small ribosomal subunit can indeed be modulated by mRNA secondary structure, antisense RNA binding, or protein binding. In both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, a large number of RNA binding proteins exist, which often are directed to their target sequence by the secondary structure of the transcript, which may change depending on certain conditions, such as temperature or presence of a ligand (aptamer). Some transcripts act as ribozymes and self-regulate their expression.

    is a process in which a molecule (e.g., a drug) induces (i.e., initiates or enhances) the expression of an enzyme.
  • The induction of heat shock proteins in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster.
  • The Lac operon is an interesting example of how gene expression can be regulated.
  • Viruses, despite having only a few genes, possess mechanisms to regulate their gene expression, typically into an early and late phase, using collinear systems regulated by anti-terminators (lambda phage) or splicing modulators (HIV).
  • Gal4 is a transcriptional activator that controls the expression of GAL1, GAL7, and GAL10 (all of which code for the metabolic of galactose in yeast). The GAL4/UAS system has been used in a variety of organisms across various phyla to study gene expression. [37]

Developmental biology Edit

A large number of studied regulatory systems come from developmental biology. Examples include:

  • The colinearity of the Hox gene cluster with their nested antero-posterior patterning
  • Pattern generation of the hand (digits - interdigits): the gradient of sonic hedgehog (secreted inducing factor) from the zone of polarizing activity in the limb, which creates a gradient of active Gli3, which activates Gremlin, which inhibits BMPs also secreted in the limb, results in the formation of an alternating pattern of activity as a result of this reaction-diffusion system.
  • Somitogenesis is the creation of segments (somites) from a uniform tissue (Pre-somitic Mesoderm). They are formed sequentially from anterior to posterior. This is achieved in amniotes possibly by means of two opposing gradients, Retinoic acid in the anterior (wavefront) and Wnt and Fgf in the posterior, coupled to an oscillating pattern (segmentation clock) composed of FGF + Notch and Wnt in antiphase. [38]
  • Sex determination in the soma of a Drosophila requires the sensing of the ratio of autosomal genes to sex chromosome-encoded genes, which results in the production of sexless splicing factor in females, resulting in the female isoform of doublesex. [39]

Up-regulation and down-regulation Edit

Up-regulation is a process that occurs within a cell triggered by a signal (originating internal or external to the cell), which results in increased expression of one or more genes and as a result the protein(s) encoded by those genes. Conversely, down-regulation is a process resulting in decreased gene and corresponding protein expression.

    occurs, for example, when a cell is deficient in some kind of receptor. In this case, more receptor protein is synthesized and transported to the membrane of the cell and, thus, the sensitivity of the cell is brought back to normal, reestablishing homeostasis. occurs, for example, when a cell is overstimulated by a neurotransmitter, hormone, or drug for a prolonged period of time, and the expression of the receptor protein is decreased in order to protect the cell (see also tachyphylaxis).

Inducible vs. repressible systems Edit

Gene Regulation can be summarized by the response of the respective system:

  • Inducible systems - An inducible system is off unless there is the presence of some molecule (called an inducer) that allows for gene expression. The molecule is said to "induce expression". The manner by which this happens is dependent on the control mechanisms as well as differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells.
  • Repressible systems - A repressible system is on except in the presence of some molecule (called a corepressor) that suppresses gene expression. The molecule is said to "repress expression". The manner by which this happens is dependent on the control mechanisms as well as differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells.

The GAL4/UAS system is an example of both an inducible and repressible system. Gal4 binds an upstream activation sequence (UAS) to activate the transcription of the GAL1/GAL7/GAL10 cassette. On the other hand, a MIG1 response to the presence of glucose can inhibit GAL4 and therefore stop the expression of the GAL1/GAL7/GAL10 cassette. [40]

Theoretical circuits Edit

  • Repressor/Inducer: an activation of a sensor results in the change of expression of a gene
  • negative feedback: the gene product downregulates its own production directly or indirectly, which can result in
    • keeping transcript levels constant/proportional to a factor
    • inhibition of run-away reactions when coupled with a positive feedback loop
    • creating an oscillator by taking advantage in the time delay of transcription and translation, given that the mRNA and protein half-life is shorter
    • signal amplification
    • bistable switches when two genes inhibit each other and both have positive feedback
    • pattern generation

    In general, most experiments investigating differential expression used whole cell extracts of RNA, called steady-state levels, to determine which genes changed and by how much. These are, however, not informative of where the regulation has occurred and may mask conflicting regulatory processes (see post-transcriptional regulation), but it is still the most commonly analysed (quantitative PCR and DNA microarray).

    When studying gene expression, there are several methods to look at the various stages. In eukaryotes these include:


    Expression of Genes

    For a cell to function properly, necessary proteins must be synthesized at the proper time. All cells control or regulate the synthesis of proteins from information encoded in their DNA. The process of turning on a gene to produce RNA and protein is called gene expression. Whether in a simple unicellular organism or a complex multi-cellular organism, each cell controls when and how its genes are expressed. For this to occur, there must be a mechanism to control when a gene is expressed to make RNA and protein, how much of the protein is made, and when it is time to stop making that protein because it is no longer needed.

    The regulation of gene expression conserves energy and space. It would require a significant amount of energy for an organism to express every gene at all times, so it is more energy efficient to turn on the genes only when they are required. In addition, only expressing a subset of genes in each cell saves space because DNA must be unwound from its tightly coiled structure to transcribe and translate the DNA. Cells would have to be enormous if every protein were expressed in every cell all the time.

    The control of gene expression is extremely complex. Malfunctions in this process are detrimental to the cell and can lead to the development of many diseases, including cancer.

    Gene regulation makes cells different

    Gene regulation is how a cell controls which genes, out of the many genes in its genome, are “turned on” (expressed). Thanks to gene regulation, each cell type in your body has a different set of active genes—despite the fact that almost all the cells of your body contain the exact same DNA. These different patterns of gene expression cause your various cell types to have different sets of proteins, making each cell type uniquely specialized to do its job.

    For example, one of the jobs of the liver is to remove toxic substances like alcohol from the bloodstream. To do this, liver cells express genes encoding subunits (pieces) of an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase. This enzyme breaks alcohol down into a non-toxic molecule. The neurons in a person’s brain don’t remove toxins from the body, so they keep these genes unexpressed, or “turned off.” Similarly, the cells of the liver don’t send signals using neurotransmitters, so they keep neurotransmitter genes turned off (Figure 1).

    Figure 1. Different cells have different genes “turned on.”

    There are many other genes that are expressed differently between liver cells and neurons (or any two cell types in a multicellular organism like yourself).

    How do cells “decide” which genes to turn on?

    Now there’s a tricky question! Many factors that can affect which genes a cell expresses. Different cell types express different sets of genes, as we saw above. However, two different cells of the same type may also have different gene expression patterns depending on their environment and internal state.

    Broadly speaking, we can say that a cell’s gene expression pattern is determined by information from both inside and outside the cell.

    • Examples of information from inside the cell: the proteins it inherited from its mother cell, whether its DNA is damaged, and how much ATP it has.
    • Examples of information from outside the cell: chemical signals from other cells, mechanical signals from the extracellular matrix, and nutrient levels.

    How do these cues help a cell “decide” what genes to express? Cells don’t make decisions in the sense that you or I would. Instead, they have molecular pathways that convert information—such as the binding of a chemical signal to its receptor—into a change in gene expression.

    As an example, let’s consider how cells respond to growth factors. A growth factor is a chemical signal from a neighboring cell that instructs a target cell to grow and divide. We could say that the cell “notices” the growth factor and “decides” to divide, but how do these processes actually occur?

    Figure 2. Growth factor prompting cell division

    • The cell detects the growth factor through physical binding of the growth factor to a receptor protein on the cell surface.
    • Binding of the growth factor causes the receptor to change shape, triggering a series of chemical events in the cell that activate proteins called transcription factors.
    • The transcription factors bind to certain sequences of DNA in the nucleus and cause transcription of cell division-related genes.
    • The products of these genes are various types of proteins that make the cell divide (drive cell growth and/or push the cell forward in the cell cycle).

    This is just one example of how a cell can convert a source of information into a change in gene expression. There are many others, and understanding the logic of gene regulation is an area of ongoing research in biology today.

    Growth factor signaling is complex and involves the activation of a variety of targets, including both transcription factors and non-transcription factor proteins.

    In Summary: Expression of Genes

    • Gene regulation is the process of controlling which genes in a cell’s DNA are expressed (used to make a functional product such as a protein).
    • Different cells in a multicellular organism may express very different sets of genes, even though they contain the same DNA.
    • The set of genes expressed in a cell determines the set of proteins and functional RNAs it contains, giving it its unique properties.
    • In eukaryotes like humans, gene expression involves many steps, and gene regulation can occur at any of these steps. However, many genes are regulated primarily at the level of transcription.

    Alcohol dehydrogenase. (2016, January 6). Retrieved April 26, 2016 from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dehydrogenase.

    Cooper, G. M. (2000). Regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. In The cell: A molecular approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9904/.

    Kimball, John W. (2014, April 19). The human and chimpanzee genomes. In Kimball’s biology pages. Retrieved from http://www.biology-pages.info/H/HominoidClade.html.

    OpenStax College, Biology. (2016, March 23). Eukaryotic transcription gene regulation. In _OpenStax CNX. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/Eukaryotic-Transcription-Gene-.

    OpenStax College, Biology. (2016, March 23). Regulation of gene expression. In _OpenStax CNX. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/Regulation-of-Gene-Expression

    Phillips, T. (2008). Regulation of transcription and gene expression in eukaryotes. Nature Education, 1(1), 199. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/regulation-of-transcription-and-gene-expression-in-1086.

    Purves, W. K., Sadava, D. E., Orians, G. H., and Heller, H.C. (2003). Transcriptional regulation of gene expression. In Life: The science of biology (7th ed., pp. 290-296). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

    Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., and Jackson, R. B. (2011). Eukaryotic gene expression is regulated at many stages. In Campbell Biology (10th ed., pp. 365-373). San Francisco, CA: Pearson.


    Multifaceted functions of post-translational enzyme modifications in the control of plant glycolysis

    PTM’s and allosteric effectors interact to control glycolytic enzyme activities.

    Reversible phosphorylation, redox-sensitive thiol modifications, and monoubiquitination are the most prevalent regulatory PTMs of plant glycolytic enzymes.

    PEP carboxylase provides one of the most comprehensive examples of the post-translational control of plant glycolysis by allosteric effectors, PTMs, and protein:protein interactions.

    Evaluating the impact and mechanisms of enzyme PTMs in the regulation and functions of plant glycolysis is a key area for future research.

    Glycolysis is a central feature of metabolism and its regulation plays important roles during plant developmental and stress responses. Recent advances in proteomics and mass spectrometry have documented extensive and dynamic post-translational modifications (PTMs) of most glycolytic enzymes in diverse plant tissues. Protein PTMs represent fundamental regulatory events that integrate signalling and gene expression with cellular metabolic networks, and can regulate glycolytic enzyme activity, localization, protein:protein interactions, moonlighting functions, and turnover. Serine/threonine phosphorylation and redox PTMs of cysteine thiol groups appear to be the most prevalent forms of reversible covalent modification involved in plant glycolytic control. Additional PTMs including monoubiquitination also have important functions. However, the molecular functions and mechanisms of most glycolytic enzyme PTMs remain unknown, and represent important objectives for future studies.


    References

    1. Hori S, Nomura T, Sakaguchi S. Control of regulatory T cell development by the transcription factor Foxp3. Science. (2003) 299:1057�. doi: 10.1126/science.1079490

    2. Bennett CL, Christie J, Ramsdell F, Brunkow ME, Ferguson PJ, Whitesell L, et al. The immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked syndrome (IPEX) is caused by mutations of FOXP3. Nat Genet. (2001) 27:20𠄱. doi: 10.1038/83713

    3. Miyara M, Yoshioka Y, Kitoh A, Shima T, Wing K, Niwa A, et al. Functional delineation and differentiation dynamics of human CD4+ T cells expressing the FoxP3 transcription factor. Immunity. (2009) 30:899�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2009.03.019

    4. Fujii H, Josse J, Tanioka M, Miyachi Y, Husson F, Ono M. Regulatory T cells in melanoma revisited by a computational clustering of FOXP3+ T cell subpopulations. J Immunol. (2016) 196:2885�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1402695

    5. Liu W, Putnam AL, Xu-Yu Z, Szot GL, Lee MR, Zhu S, et al. CD127 expression inversely correlates with FoxP3 and suppressive function of human CD4+ T reg cells. J Exp Med. (2006) 203:1701�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20060772

    6. Bending D, Ono M. From stability to dynamics: understanding molecular mechanisms of regulatory T cells through Foxp3 transcriptional dynamics. Clin Exp Immunol. (2019) 197:14�. doi: 10.1111/cei.13194

    7. Hsieh CS, Lee HM, Lio CW. Selection of regulatory T cells in the thymus. Nat Rev Immunol. (2012) 12:157�. doi: 10.1038/nri3155

    8. Bending D, Prieto Martin P, Paduraru A, Ducker C, Marzaganov E, Laviron M, et al. A timer for analyzing temporally dynamic changes in transcription during differentiation in vivo. J Cell Biol. (2018) 217:2931�. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201711048

    9. Bending D, Paduraru A, Ducker CB, Prieto Martin P, Crompton T, Ono M. A temporally dynamic Foxp3 autoregulatory transcriptional circuit controls the effector Treg programme. EMBO J. (2018) 37:e99013. doi: 10.15252/embj.201899013

    10. Sugimoto N, Oida T, Hirota K, Nakamura K, Nomura T, Uchiyama T, et al. Foxp3-dependent and -independent molecules specific for CD25𫳔+ natural regulatory T cells revealed by DNA microarray analysis. Int Immunol. (2006) 18:1197�. doi: 10.1093/intimm/dxl060

    11. Lin W, Haribhai D, Relland LM, Truong N, Carlson MR, Williams CB, et al. Regulatory T cell development in the absence of functional Foxp3. Nat Immunol. (2007) 8:359�. doi: 10.1038/ni1445

    12. Feng Y, Arvey A, Chinen T, van der Veeken J, Gasteiger G, Rudensky AY. Control of the inheritance of regulatory T cell identity by a cis element in the Foxp3 locus. Cell. (2014) 158:749�. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.07.031

    13. Rudra D, deRoos P, Chaudhry A, Niec RE, Arvey A, Samstein RM, et al. Transcription factor Foxp3 and its protein partners form a complex regulatory network. Nat Immunol. (2012) 13:1010𠄹. doi: 10.1038/ni.2402

    14. Dominguez-Villar M, Hafler DA. Regulatory T cells in autoimmune disease. Nat Immunol. (2018) 19:665�. doi: 10.1038/s41590-018-0120-4

    15. Bettini ML, Pan F, Bettini M, Finkelstein D, Rehg JE, Floess S, et al. Loss of epigenetic modification driven by the Foxp3 transcription factor leads to regulatory T cell insufficiency. Immunity. (2012) 36:717�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.03.020

    16. Komatsu N, Okamoto K, Sawa S, Nakashima T, Oh-hora M, Kodama T, et al. Pathogenic conversion of Foxp3+ T cells into TH17 cells in autoimmune arthritis. Nat Med. (2014) 20:62𠄸. doi: 10.1038/nm.3432

    17. Bailey-Bucktrout SL, Martinez-Llordella M, Zhou X, Anthony B, Rosenthal W, Luche H, et al. Self-antigen-driven activation induces instability of regulatory T cells during an inflammatory autoimmune response. Immunity. (2013) 39:949�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2013.10.016

    18. Hua J, Inomata T, Chen Y, Foulsham W, Stevenson W, Shiang T, et al. Pathological conversion of regulatory T cells is associated with loss of allotolerance. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:7059. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-25384-x

    19. Fontenot JD, Gavin MA, Rudensky AY. Foxp3 programs the development and function of CD4�+ regulatory T cells. Nat Immunol. (2003) 4:330𠄶. doi: 10.1038/ni904

    20. Jordan MS, Boesteanu A, Reed AJ, Petrone AL, Holenbeck AE, Lerman MA, et al. Thymic selection of CD4�+ regulatory T cells induced by an agonist self-peptide. Nat Immunol. (2001) 2:301𠄶. doi: 10.1038/86302

    21. Apostolou I, Sarukhan A, Klein L, von Boehmer H. Origin of regulatory T cells with known specificity for antigen. Nat Immunol. (2002) 3:756�. doi: 10.1038/ni816

    22. Kawahata K, Misaki Y, Yamauchi M, Tsunekawa S, Setoguchi K, Miyazaki J, et al. Generation of CD4(+)CD25(+) regulatory T cells from autoreactive T cells simultaneously with their negative selection in the thymus and from nonautoreactive T cells by endogenous TCR expression. J Immunol. (2002) 168:4399�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.9.4399

    23. Apostolou I, von Boehmer H. In vivo instruction of suppressor commitment in naive T cells. J Exp Med. (2004) 199:1401𠄸. doi: 10.1084/jem.20040249

    24. Curotto de Lafaille MA, Lino AC, Kutchukhidze N, Lafaille JJ. CD25- T cells generate CD25ʿoxp3+ regulatory T cells by peripheral expansion. J Immunol. (2004) 173:7259�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.173.12.7259

    25. Cobbold SP, Castejon R, Adams E, Zelenika D, Graca L, Humm S, et al. Induction of foxP3+ regulatory T cells in the periphery of T cell receptor transgenic mice tolerized to transplants. J Immunol. (2004) 172:6003�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.10.6003

    26. Kretschmer K, Apostolou I, Hawiger D, Khazaie K, Nussenzweig MC, von Boehmer H. Inducing and expanding regulatory T cell populations by foreign antigen. Nat Immunol. (2005) 6:1219�. doi: 10.1038/ni1265

    27. Lio CW, Hsieh CS. A two-step process for thymic regulatory T cell development. Immunity. (2008) 28:100�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.11.021

    28. Rudensky AY. Regulatory T cells and Foxp3. Immunol Rev. (2011) 241:260𠄸. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2011.01018.x

    29. Campbell DJ, Koch MA. Phenotypical and functional specialization of FOXP3+ regulatory T cells. Nat Rev Immunol. (2011) 11:119�. doi: 10.1038/nri2916

    30. Feuerer M, Hill JA, Mathis D, Benoist C. Foxp3+ regulatory T cells: differentiation, specification, subphenotypes. Nat Immunol. (2009) 10:689�. doi: 10.1038/ni.1760

    31. Fontenot JD, Dooley JL, Farr AG, Rudensky AY. Developmental regulation of Foxp3 expression during ontogeny. J Exp Med. (2005) 202:901𠄶. doi: 10.1084/jem.20050784

    32. Liston A, Nutsch KM, Farr AG, Lund JM, Rasmussen JP, Koni PA, et al. Differentiation of regulatory Foxp3+ T cells in the thymic cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2008) 105:11903𠄸. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801506105

    33. Aschenbrenner K, Dɼruz LM, Vollmann EH, Hinterberger M, Emmerich J, Swee LK, et al. Selection of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells specific for self antigen expressed and presented by Aire+ medullary thymic epithelial cells. Nat Immunol. (2007) 8:351𠄸. doi: 10.1038/ni1444

    34. Josefowicz SZ, Rudensky A. Control of regulatory T cell lineage commitment and maintenance. Immunity. (2009) 30:616�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2009.04.009

    35. Sakaguchi S, Ono M, Setoguchi R, Yagi H, Hori S, Fehervari Z, et al. Foxp3+ CD25+ CD4+ natural regulatory T cells in dominant self-tolerance and autoimmune disease. Immunol Rev. (2006) 212:8�. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2006.00427.x

    36. Burchill MA, Yang J, Vang KB, Moon JJ, Chu HH, Lio CW, et al. Linked T cell receptor and cytokine signaling govern the development of the regulatory T cell repertoire. Immunity. (2008) 28:112�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.11.022

    37. Tai X, Erman B, Alag A, Mu J, Kimura M, Katz G, et al. Foxp3 transcription factor is proapoptotic and lethal to developing regulatory T cells unless counterbalanced by cytokine survival signals. Immunity. (2013) 38:1116�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2013.02.022

    38. Tai X, Cowan M, Feigenbaum L, Singer A. CD28 costimulation of developing thymocytes induces Foxp3 expression and regulatory T cell differentiation independently of interleukin 2. Nat Immunol. (2005) 6:152�. doi: 10.1038/ni1160

    39. Salomon B, Lenschow DJ, Rhee L, Ashourian N, Singh B, Sharpe A, et al. B7/CD28 costimulation is essential for the homeostasis of the CD4�+ immunoregulatory T cells that control autoimmune diabetes. Immunity. (2000) 12:431�. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80195-8

    40. Chinen T, Kannan AK, Levine AG, Fan X, Klein U, Zheng Y, et al. An essential role for the IL-2 receptor in Treg cell function. Nat Immunol. (2016) 17:1322�. doi: 10.1038/ni.3540

    41. Fontenot JD, Rasmussen JP, Gavin MA, Rudensky AY. A function for interleukin 2 in Foxp3-expressing regulatory T cells. Nat Immunol. (2005) 6:1142�. doi: 10.1038/ni1263

    42. Burchill MA, Yang J, Vogtenhuber C, Blazar BR, Farrar MA. IL-2 receptor beta-dependent STAT5 activation is required for the development of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. J Immunol. (2007) 178:280�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.1.280

    43. Dɼruz LM, Klein L. Development and function of agonist-induced CD25ʿoxp3+ regulatory T cells in the absence of interleukin 2 signaling. Nat Immunol. (2005) 6:1152𠄹. doi: 10.1038/ni1264

    44. Soper DM, Kasprowicz DJ, Ziegler SF. IL-2Rbeta links IL-2R signaling with Foxp3 expression. Eur J Immunol. (2007) 37:1817�. doi: 10.1002/eji.200737101

    45. Liu Y, Zhang P, Li J, Kulkarni AB, Perruche S, Chen W. A critical function for TGF-beta signaling in the development of natural CD4�ʿoxp3+ regulatory T cells. Nat Immunol. (2008) 9:632�. doi: 10.1038/ni.1607

    46. Fahlen L, Read S, Gorelik L, Hurst SD, Coffman RL, Flavell RA, et al. T cells that cannot respond to TGF-beta escape control by CD4(+)CD25(+) regulatory T cells. J Exp Med. (2005) 201:737�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20040685

    47. Marie JC, Liggitt D, Rudensky AY. Cellular mechanisms of fatal early-onset autoimmunity in mice with the T cell-specific targeting of transforming growth factor-beta receptor. Immunity. (2006) 25:441�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2006.07.012

    48. Konkel JE, Jin W, Abbatiello B, Grainger JR, Chen W. Thymocyte apoptosis drives the intrathymic generation of regulatory T cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2014) 111:E465�. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320319111

    49. Tarbell KV, Yamazaki S, Olson K, Toy P, Steinman RM. CD25+ CD4+ T cells, expanded with dendritic cells presenting a single autoantigenic peptide, suppress autoimmune diabetes. J Exp Med. (2004) 199:1467�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20040180

    50. Miskov-Zivanov N, Turner MS, Kane LP, Morel PA, Faeder JR. The duration of T cell stimulation is a critical determinant of cell fate and plasticity. Sci Signal. (2013) 6:ra97. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2004217

    51. Zheng SG, Wang JH, Gray JD, Soucier H, Horwitz DA. Natural and induced CD4�+ cells educate CD4�- cells to develop suppressive activity: the role of IL-2, TGF-beta, and IL-10. J Immunol. (2004) 172:5213�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.9.5213

    52. Fantini MC, Becker C, Monteleone G, Pallone F, Galle PR, Neurath MF. Cutting edge: TGF-beta induces a regulatory phenotype in CD4�- T cells through Foxp3 induction and down-regulation of Smad7. J Immunol. (2004) 172:5149�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.9.5149

    53. Ohkura N, Hamaguchi M, Morikawa H, Sugimura K, Tanaka A, Ito Y, et al. T cell receptor stimulation-induced epigenetic changes and Foxp3 expression are independent and complementary events required for Treg cell development. Immunity. (2012) 37:785�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.09.010

    54. Ohkura N, Kitagawa Y, Sakaguchi S. Development and maintenance of regulatory T cells. Immunity. (2013) 38:414�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2013.03.002

    55. Huehn J, Polansky JK, Hamann A. Epigenetic control of FOXP3 expression: the key to a stable regulatory T-cell lineage? Nat Rev Immunol. (2009) 9:83𠄹. doi: 10.1038/nri2474

    56. Huehn J, Beyer M. Epigenetic and transcriptional control of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. Semin Immunol. (2015) 27:10𠄸. doi: 10.1016/j.smim.2015.02.002

    57. Morikawa H, Sakaguchi S. Genetic and epigenetic basis of Treg cell development and function: from a FoxP3-centered view to an epigenome-defined view of natural Treg cells. Immunol Rev. (2014) 259:192�. doi: 10.1111/imr.12174

    58. Zheng Y, Josefowicz S, Chaudhry A, Peng XP, Forbush K, Rudensky AY. Role of conserved non-coding DNA elements in the Foxp3 gene in regulatory T-cell fate. Nature. (2010) 463:808�. doi: 10.1038/nature08750

    59. Josefowicz SZ, Niec RE, Kim HY, Treuting P, Chinen T, Zheng Y, et al. Extrathymically generated regulatory T cells control mucosal TH2 inflammation. Nature. (2012) 482:395𠄹. doi: 10.1038/nature10772

    60. Samstein RM, Josefowicz SZ, Arvey A, Treuting PM, Rudensky AY. Extrathymic generation of regulatory T cells in placental mammals mitigates maternal-fetal conflict. Cell. (2012) 150:29�. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.031

    61. Kanamori M, Nakatsukasa H, Okada M, Lu Q, Yoshimura A. Induced regulatory T cells: their development, stability, and applications. Trends Immunol. (2016) 37:803�. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2016.08.012

    62. Schuster C, Jonas F, Zhao F, Kissler S. Peripherally induced regulatory T cells contribute to the control of autoimmune diabetes in the NOD mouse model. Eur J Immunol. (2018) 48:1211𠄶. doi: 10.1002/eji.201847498

    63. Polansky JK, Kretschmer K, Freyer J, Floess S, Garbe A, Baron U, et al. DNA methylation controls Foxp3 gene expression. Eur J Immunol. (2008) 38:1654�. doi: 10.1002/eji.200838105

    64. Lal G, Bromberg JS. Epigenetic mechanisms of regulation of Foxp3 expression. Blood. (2009) 114:3727�. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-05-219584

    65. Lal G, Zhang N, van der Touw W, Ding Y, Ju W, Bottinger EP, et al. Epigenetic regulation of Foxp3 expression in regulatory T cells by DNA methylation. J Immunol. (2009) 182:259�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.182.1.259

    66. Floess S, Freyer J, Siewert C, Baron U, Olek S, Polansky J, et al. Epigenetic control of the foxp3 locus in regulatory T cells. PLoS Biol. (2007) 5:e38. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050038

    67. Kim HP, Leonard WJ. CREB/ATF-dependent T cell receptor-induced FoxP3 gene expression: a role for DNA methylation. J Exp Med. (2007) 204:1543�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20070109

    68. Chen Q, Kim YC, Laurence A, Punkosdy GA, Shevach EM. IL-2 controls the stability of Foxp3 expression in TGF-beta-induced Foxp3+ T cells in vivo. J Immunol. (2011) 186:6329�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1100061

    69. Toker A, Engelbert D, Garg G, Polansky JK, Floess S, Miyao T, et al. Active demethylation of the Foxp3 locus leads to the generation of stable regulatory T cells within the thymus. J Immunol. (2013) 190:3180𠄸. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1203473

    70. Wang L, Liu Y, Han R, Beier UH, Thomas RM, Wells AD, et al. Mbd2 promotes foxp3 demethylation and T-regulatory-cell function. Mol Cell Biol. (2013) 33:4106�. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00144-13

    71. Nair VS, Oh KI. Down-regulation of Tet2 prevents TSDR demethylation in IL2 deficient regulatory T cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. (2014) 450:918�. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.06.110

    72. Feng Y, van der Veeken J, Shugay M, Putintseva EV, Osmanbeyoglu HU, Dikiy S, et al. A mechanism for expansion of regulatory T-cell repertoire and its role in self-tolerance. Nature. (2015) 528:132𠄶. doi: 10.1038/nature16141

    73. Kitagawa Y, Ohkura N, Kidani Y, Vandenbon A, Hirota K, Kawakami R, et al. Guidance of regulatory T cell development by Satb1-dependent super-enhancer establishment. Nat Immunol. (2017) 18:173�. doi: 10.1038/ni.3646

    74. Schmidl C, Klug M, Boeld TJ, Andreesen R, Hoffmann P, Edinger M, et al. Lineage-specific DNA methylation in T cells correlates with histone methylation and enhancer activity. Genome Res. (2009) 19:1165�. doi: 10.1101/gr.091470.109

    75. Wei G, Wei L, Zhu J, Zang C, Hu-Li J, Yao Z, et al. Global mapping of H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 reveals specificity and plasticity in lineage fate determination of differentiating CD4+ T cells. Immunity. (2009) 30:155�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2008.12.009

    76. Bannister AJ, Kouzarides T. Regulation of chromatin by histone modifications. Cell Res. (2011) 21:381�. doi: 10.1038/cr.2011.22

    77. Jenuwein T, Allis CD. Translating the histone code. Science. (2001) 293:1074�. doi: 10.1126/science.1063127

    78. Wang L, Liu Y, Han R, Beier UH, Bhatti TR, Akimova T, et al. FOXP3+ regulatory T cell development and function require histone/protein deacetylase 3. J Clin Investig. (2015) 125:1111�. doi: 10.1172/JCI77088

    79. Ansari KI, Mishra BP, Mandal SS. MLL histone methylases in gene expression, hormone signaling and cell cycle. Front Biosci. (2009) 14:3483�. doi: 10.2741/3466

    80. Placek K, Hu G, Cui K, Zhang D, Ding Y, Lee JE, et al. MLL4 prepares the enhancer landscape for Foxp3 induction via chromatin looping. Nat Immunol. (2017) 18:1035�. doi: 10.1038/ni.3812

    81. Lee JE, Wang C, Xu S, Cho YW, Wang L, Feng X, et al. H3K4 mono- and di-methyltransferase MLL4 is required for enhancer activation during cell differentiation. eLife. (2013) 2:e01503. doi: 10.7554/eLife.01503

    82. Harada Y, Harada Y, Elly C, Ying G, Paik JH, DePinho RA, et al. Transcription factors Foxo3a and Foxo1 couple the E3 ligase Cbl-b to the induction of Foxp3 expression in induced regulatory T cells. J Exp Med. (2010) 207:1381�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20100004

    83. Ouyang W, Liao W, Luo CT, Yin N, Huse M, Kim MV, et al. Novel Foxo1-dependent transcriptional programs control T(reg) cell function. Nature. (2012) 491:554𠄹. doi: 10.1038/nature11581

    84. Ouyang W, Beckett O, Ma Q, Paik JH, DePinho RA, Li MO. Foxo proteins cooperatively control the differentiation of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. Nat Immunol. (2010) 11:618�. doi: 10.1038/ni.1884

    85. Kerdiles YM, Stone EL, Beisner DR, McGargill MA, Chɾn IL, Stockmann C, et al. Foxo transcription factors control regulatory T cell development and function. Immunity. (2010) 33:890�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2010.12.002

    86. Ohkura N, Sakaguchi S. Foxo1 and Foxo3 help Foxp3. Immunity. (2010) 33:835𠄷. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2010.12.004

    87. Luu M, Jenike E, Vachharajani N, Visekruna A. Transcription factor c-Rel is indispensable for generation of thymic but not of peripheral Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:52678�. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.17079

    88. Ruan Q, Kameswaran V, Tone Y, Li L, Liou HC, Greene MI, et al. Development of Foxp3(+) regulatory t cells is driven by the c-Rel enhanceosome. Immunity. (2009) 31:932�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2009.10.006

    89. Long M, Park SG, Strickland I, Hayden MS, Ghosh S. Nuclear factor-kappaB modulates regulatory T cell development by directly regulating expression of Foxp3 transcription factor. Immunity. (2009) 31:921�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2009.09.022

    90. Takimoto T, Wakabayashi Y, Sekiya T, Inoue N, Morita R, Ichiyama K, et al. Smad2 and Smad3 are redundantly essential for the TGF-beta-mediated regulation of regulatory T plasticity and Th1 development. J Immunol. (2010) 185:842�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0904100

    91. De Rosa V, Galgani M, Porcellini A, Colamatteo A, Santopaolo M, Zuchegna C, et al. Glycolysis controls the induction of human regulatory T cells by modulating the expression of FOXP3 exon 2 splicing variants. Nat Immunol. (2015) 16:1174�. doi: 10.1038/ni.3269

    92. Kitagawa Y, Ohkura N, Sakaguchi S. Molecular determinants of regulatory T cell development: the essential roles of epigenetic changes. Front Immunol. (2013) 4:106. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00106

    93. Sekiya T, Nakatsukasa H, Lu Q, Yoshimura A. Roles of transcription factors and epigenetic modifications in differentiation and maintenance of regulatory T cells. Microbes Infect. (2016) 18:378�. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2016.02.004

    94. Miyao T, Floess S, Setoguchi R, Luche H, Fehling HJ, Waldmann H, et al. Plasticity of Foxp3(+) T cells reflects promiscuous Foxp3 expression in conventional T cells but not reprogramming of regulatory T cells. Immunity. (2012) 36:262�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.12.012

    95. Haribhai D, Williams JB, Jia S, Nickerson D, Schmitt EG, Edwards B, et al. A requisite role for induced regulatory T cells in tolerance based on expanding antigen receptor diversity. Immunity. (2011) 35:109�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.03.029

    96. Bartel DP. Metazoan microRNAs. Cell. (2018) 173:20�. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.006

    97. Friedman RC, Farh KK, Burge CB, Bartel DP. Most mammalian mRNAs are conserved targets of microRNAs. Genome Res. (2009) 19:92�. doi: 10.1101/gr.082701.108

    98. Zhou X, Jeker LT, Fife BT, Zhu S, Anderson MS, McManus MT, et al. Selective miRNA disruption in T reg cells leads to uncontrolled autoimmunity. J Exp Med. (2008) 205:1983�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20080707

    99. Chong MM, Rasmussen JP, Rudensky AY, Littman DR. The RNAseIII enzyme Drosha is critical in T cells for preventing lethal inflammatory disease. J Exp Med. (2008) 205:2005�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20081219

    100. Liston A, Lu LF, O⟊rroll D, Tarakhovsky A, Rudensky AY. Dicer-dependent microRNA pathway safeguards regulatory T cell function. J Exp Med. (2008) 205:1993�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20081062

    101. Lu LF, Boldin MP, Chaudhry A, Lin LL, Taganov KD, Hanada T, et al. Function of miR-146a in controlling Treg cell-mediated regulation of Th1 responses. Cell. (2010) 142:914�. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.08.012

    102. Boldin MP, Taganov KD, Rao DS, Yang L, Zhao JL, Kalwani M, et al. miR-146a is a significant brake on autoimmunity, myeloproliferation, and cancer in mice. J Exp Med. (2011) 208:1189�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20101823

    103. Lu LF, Thai TH, Calado DP, Chaudhry A, Kubo M, Tanaka K, et al. Foxp3-dependent microRNA155 confers competitive fitness to regulatory T cells by targeting SOCS1 protein. Immunity. (2009) 30:80�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2008.11.010

    104. Kohlhaas S, Garden OA, Scudamore C, Turner M, Okkenhaug K, Vigorito E. Cutting edge: the Foxp3 target miR-155 contributes to the development of regulatory T cells. J Immunol. (2009) 182:2578�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0803162

    105. Beyer M, Thabet Y, Muller RU, Sadlon T, Classen S, Lahl K, et al. Repression of the genome organizer SATB1 in regulatory T cells is required for suppressive function and inhibition of effector differentiation. Nat Immunol. (2011) 12:898�. doi: 10.1038/ni.2084

    106. Sadlon TJ, Wilkinson BG, Pederson S, Brown CY, Bresatz S, Gargett T, et al. Genome-wide identification of human FOXP3 target genes in natural regulatory T cells. J Immunol. (2010) 185:1071�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1000082

    107. Rouas R, Fayyad-Kazan H, El Zein N, Lewalle P, Rothe F, Simion A, et al. Human natural Treg microRNA signature: role of microRNA-31 and microRNA-21 in FOXP3 expression. Eur J Immunol. (2009) 39:1608�. doi: 10.1002/eji.200838509

    108. Fayyad-Kazan H, Rouas R, Fayyad-Kazan M, Badran R, El Zein N, Lewalle P, et al. MicroRNA profile of circulating CD4-positive regulatory T cells in human adults and impact of differentially expressed microRNAs on expression of two genes essential to their function. J Biol Chem. (2012) 287:9910�. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.337154

    109. Zhang L, Ke F, Liu Z, Bai J, Liu J, Yan S, et al. MicroRNA-31 negatively regulates peripherally derived regulatory T-cell generation by repressing retinoic acid-inducible protein 3. Nat Commun. (2015) 6:7639. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8639

    110. Yang HY, Barbi J, Wu CY, Zheng Y, Vignali PD, Wu X, et al. MicroRNA-17 modulates regulatory T cell function by targeting co-regulators of the Foxp3 transcription factor. Immunity. (2016) 45:83�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.06.022

    111. Liu X, Robinson SN, Setoyama T, Tung SS, D➫undo L, Shah MY, et al. FOXP3 is a direct target of miR15a/16 in umbilical cord blood regulatory T cells. Bone Marrow Transpl. (2014) 49:793𠄹. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.57

    112. Zhang Y, Fan M, Zhang X, Huang F, Wu K, Zhang J, et al. Cellular microRNAs up-regulate transcription via interaction with promoter TATA-box motifs. RNA. (2014) 20:1878�. doi: 10.1261/rna.045633.114

    113. Zhang Y, Liu W, Chen Y, Liu J, Wu K, Su L, et al. A cellular MicroRNA facilitates regulatory T lymphocyte development by targeting the FOXP3 promoter TATA-box motif. J Immunol. (2018) 200:1053�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1700196

    114. Pickart CM. Ubiquitin enters the new millennium. Mol Cell. (2001) 8:499�. doi: 10.1016/S1097-2765(01)00347-1

    115. van Loosdregt J, Fleskens V, Fu J, Brenkman AB, Bekker CP, Pals CE, et al. Stabilization of the transcription factor Foxp3 by the deubiquitinase USP7 increases Treg-cell-suppressive capacity. Immunity. (2013) 39:259�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2013.05.018

    116. Chen Z, Barbi J, Bu S, Yang HY, Li Z, Gao Y, et al. The ubiquitin ligase Stub1 negatively modulates regulatory T cell suppressive activity by promoting degradation of the transcription factor Foxp3. Immunity. (2013) 39:272�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2013.08.006

    117. Chen L, Wu J, Pier E, Zhao Y, Shen Z. mTORC2-PKBalpha/Akt1 Serine 473 phosphorylation axis is essential for regulation of FOXP3 Stability by chemokine CCL3 in psoriasis. J Invest Dermatol. (2013) 133:418�. doi: 10.1038/jid.2012.333

    118. Yang X, Lun Y, Jiang H, Liu X, Duan Z, Xin S, et al. SIRT1-regulated abnormal acetylation of FOXP3 induces regulatory T-cell function defect in Hashimoto's thyroiditis. Thyroid. (2018) 28:246�. doi: 10.1089/thy.2017.0286

    119. Jiang H, Xin S, Yan Y, Lun Y, Yang X, Zhang J. Abnormal acetylation of FOXP3 regulated by SIRT-1 induces Treg functional deficiency in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Atherosclerosis. (2018) 271:182-92. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2018.02.001

    120. Zhang D, Qiu X, Li J, Zheng S, Li L, Zhao H. MiR-23a-3p-regulated abnormal acetylation of FOXP3 induces regulatory T cell function defect in Graves' disease. Biol Chem. (2019) 400:639�. doi: 10.1515/hsz-2018-0343

    121. Su Q, Jing J, Li W, Ma J, Zhang X, Wang Z, et al. Impaired Tip60-mediated Foxp3 acetylation attenuates regulatory T cell development in rheumatoid arthritis. J Autoimmun. (2019) 100:27�. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2019.02.007

    122. d'Hennezel E, Bin Dhuban K, Torgerson T, Piccirillo CA. The immunogenetics of immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X linked (IPEX) syndrome. J Med Genet. (2012) 49:291�. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-100759

    123. Bin Dhuban K, d'Hennezel E, Nagai Y, Xiao Y, Shao S, Istomine R, et al. Suppression by human FOXP3(+) regulatory T cells requires FOXP3-TIP60 interactions. Sci Immunol. (2017) 2:eaai9297. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aai9297

    124. Xiao Y, Nagai Y, Deng G, Ohtani T, Zhu Z, Zhou Z, et al. Dynamic interactions between TIP60 and p300 regulate FOXP3 function through a structural switch defined by a single lysine on TIP60. Cell Rep. (2014) 7:1471�. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.04.021

    125. Ichiyama K, Yoshida H, Wakabayashi Y, Chinen T, Saeki K, Nakaya M, et al. Foxp3 inhibits RORgammat-mediated IL-17A mRNA transcription through direct interaction with RORgammat. J Biol Chem. (2008) 283:17003𠄸. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M801286200

    126. Du J, Huang C, Zhou B, Ziegler SF. Isoform-specific inhibition of ROR alpha-mediated transcriptional activation by human FOXP3. J Immunol. (2008) 180:4785�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.180.7.4785

    127. Mailer RKW. Alternative splicing of FOXP3-virtue and vice. Front Immunol. (2018) 9:530. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00530

    128. Kim JW, Tchernyshyov I, Semenza GL, Dang CV. HIF-1-mediated expression of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase: a metabolic switch required for cellular adaptation to hypoxia. Cell Metab. (2006) 3:177�. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2006.02.002

    129. Dang EV, Barbi J, Yang HY, Jinasena D, Yu H, Zheng Y, et al. Control of T(H)17/T(reg) balance by hypoxia-inducible factor 1. Cell. (2011) 146:772�. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.033

    130. Ma A. From trash collectors to guardians of cell signaling and immune homeostasis. Immunol Rev. (2015) 266:1𠄵. doi: 10.1111/imr.12317

    131. Erpapazoglou Z, Walker O, Haguenauer-Tsapis R. Versatile roles of k63-linked ubiquitin chains in trafficking. Cells. (2014) 3:1027�. doi: 10.3390/cells3041027

    132. Ni X, Kou W, Gu J, Wei P, Wu X, Peng H, et al. TRAF6 directs FOXP3 localization and facilitates regulatory T-cell function through K63-linked ubiquitination. EMBO J. (2019) 38:e99766. doi: 10.15252/embj.201899766

    133. Li B, Samanta A, Song X, Iacono KT, Bembas K, Tao R, et al. FOXP3 interactions with histone acetyltransferase and class II histone deacetylases are required for repression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2007) 104:4571𠄶. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0700298104

    134. Kwon HS, Lim HW, Wu J, Schnolzer M, Verdin E, Ott M. Three novel acetylation sites in the Foxp3 transcription factor regulate the suppressive activity of regulatory T cells. J Immunol. (2012) 188:2712�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1100903

    135. Song X, Li B, Xiao Y, Chen C, Wang Q, Liu Y, et al. Structural and biological features of FOXP3 dimerization relevant to regulatory T cell function. Cell Rep. (2012) 1:665�. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2012.04.012

    136. Samanta A, Li B, Song X, Bembas K, Zhang G, Katsumata M, et al. TGF-beta and IL-6 signals modulate chromatin binding and promoter occupancy by acetylated FOXP3. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2008) 105:14023𠄷. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806726105

    137. van Loosdregt J, Vercoulen Y, Guichelaar T, Gent YY, Beekman JM, van Beekum O, et al. Regulation of Treg functionality by acetylation-mediated Foxp3 protein stabilization. Blood. (2010) 115:965�. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-02-207118

    138. van Loosdregt J, Brunen D, Fleskens V, Pals CE, Lam EW, Coffer PJ. Rapid temporal control of Foxp3 protein degradation by sirtuin-1. PLoS ONE. (2011) 6:e19047. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019047

    139. Li J, Du X, Shi H, Deng K, Chi H, Tao W. Mammalian sterile 20-like kinase 1 (Mst1) enhances the stability of forkhead box P3 (Foxp3) and the function of regulatory T cells by modulating Foxp3 acetylation. J Biol Chem. (2015) 290:30762�. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.668442

    140. Beier UH, Wang L, Bhatti TR, Liu Y, Han R, Ge G, et al. Sirtuin-1 targeting promotes Foxp3+ T-regulatory cell function and prolongs allograft survival. Mol Cell Biol. (2011) 31:1022𠄹. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01206-10

    141. Geng J, Yu S, Zhao H, Sun X, Li X, Wang P, et al. The transcriptional coactivator TAZ regulates reciprocal differentiation of TH17 cells and Treg cells. Nat Immunol. (2017) 18:800�. doi: 10.1038/ni.3748

    142. Arpaia N, Campbell C, Fan X, Dikiy S, van der Veeken J, deRoos P, et al. Metabolites produced by commensal bacteria promote peripheral regulatory T-cell generation. Nature. (2013) 504:451𠄵. doi: 10.1038/nature12726

    143. Morawski PA, Mehra P, Chen C, Bhatti T, Wells AD. Foxp3 protein stability is regulated by cyclin-dependent kinase 2. J Biol Chem. (2013) 288:24494�. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.467704

    144. Fleskens V, Minutti CM, Wu X, Wei P, Pals C, McCrae J, et al. Nemo-like kinase drives Foxp3 stability and is critical for maintenance of immune tolerance by regulatory T cells. Cell Rep. (2019) 26:3600� e6. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.02.087

    145. Li Z, Lin F, Zhuo C, Deng G, Chen Z, Yin S, et al. PIM1 kinase phosphorylates the human transcription factor FOXP3 at serine 422 to negatively regulate its activity under inflammation. J Biol Chem. (2014) 289:26872�. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M114.586651

    146. Deng G, Nagai Y, Xiao Y, Li Z, Dai S, Ohtani T, et al. Pim-2 kinase influences regulatory T cell function and stability by mediating Foxp3 protein N-terminal phosphorylation. J Biol Chem. (2015) 290:20211�. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.638221

    147. Lee W, Lee GR. Transcriptional regulation and development of regulatory T cells. Exp Mol Med. (2018) 50:e456. doi: 10.1038/emm.2017.313

    148. Hill JA, Feuerer M, Tash K, Haxhinasto S, Perez J, Melamed R, et al. Foxp3 transcription-factor-dependent and -independent regulation of the regulatory T cell transcriptional signature. Immunity. (2007) 27:786�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.09.010

    149. Oh SA, Liu M, Nixon BG, Kang D, Toure A, Bivona M, et al. Foxp3-independent mechanism by which TGF-beta controls peripheral T cell tolerance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2017) 114:E7536�. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706356114

    150. Gavin MA, Rasmussen JP, Fontenot JD, Vasta V, Manganiello VC, Beavo JA, et al. Foxp3-dependent programme of regulatory T-cell differentiation. Nature. (2007) 445:771𠄵. doi: 10.1038/nature05543

    151. Zheng Y, Josefowicz SZ, Kas A, Chu TT, Gavin MA, Rudensky AY. Genome-wide analysis of Foxp3 target genes in developing and mature regulatory T cells. Nature. (2007) 445:936�. doi: 10.1038/nature05563

    152. Marson A, Kretschmer K, Frampton GM, Jacobsen ES, Polansky JK, MacIsaac KD, et al. Foxp3 occupancy and regulation of key target genes during T-cell stimulation. Nature. (2007) 445:931𠄵. doi: 10.1038/nature05478

    153. Ono M, Yaguchi H, Ohkura N, Kitabayashi I, Nagamura Y, Nomura T, et al. Foxp3 controls regulatory T-cell function by interacting with AML1/Runx1. Nature. (2007) 446:685𠄹. doi: 10.1038/nature05673

    154. Wu Y, Borde M, Heissmeyer V, Feuerer M, Lapan AD, Stroud JC, et al. FOXP3 controls regulatory T cell function through cooperation with NFAT. Cell. (2006) 126:375�. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.05.042

    155. Ren J, Han L, Tang J, Liu Y, Deng X, Liu Q, et al. Foxp1 is critical for the maintenance of regulatory T-cell homeostasis and suppressive function. PLoS Biol. (2019) 17:e3000270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000270

    156. Zheng Y, Chaudhry A, Kas A, deRoos P, Kim JM, Chu TT, et al. Regulatory T-cell suppressor program co-opts transcription factor IRF4 to control T(H)2 responses. Nature. (2009) 458:351𠄶. doi: 10.1038/nature07674

    157. Chaudhry A, Rudra D, Treuting P, Samstein RM, Liang Y, Kas A, et al. CD4+ regulatory T cells control TH17 responses in a Stat3-dependent manner. Science. (2009) 326:986�. doi: 10.1126/science.1172702

    158. Hench VK, Su L. Regulation of IL-2 gene expression by Siva and FOXP3 in human T cells. BMC Immunol. (2011) 12:54. doi: 10.1186/1471-2172-12-54

    159. Pan F, Yu H, Dang EV, Barbi J, Pan X, Grosso JF, et al. Eos mediates Foxp3-dependent gene silencing in CD4+ regulatory T cells. Science. (2009) 325:1142𠄶. doi: 10.1126/science.1176077

    160. Arvey A, van der Veeken J, Samstein RM, Feng Y, Stamatoyannopoulos JA, Rudensky AY. Inflammation-induced repression of chromatin bound by the transcription factor Foxp3 in regulatory T cells. Nat Immunol. (2014) 15:580𠄷. doi: 10.1038/ni.2868

    161. Laugesen A, Hojfeldt JW, Helin K. Role of the polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) in transcriptional regulation and cancer. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Med. (2016) 6:a026575. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a026575

    162. DuPage M, Chopra G, Quiros J, Rosenthal WL, Morar MM, Holohan D, et al. The chromatin-modifying enzyme Ezh2 is critical for the maintenance of regulatory T cell identity after activation. Immunity. (2015) 42:227�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.01.007

    163. Kwon HK, Chen HM, Mathis D, Benoist C. Different molecular complexes that mediate transcriptional induction and repression by FoxP3. Nat Immunol. (2017) 18:1238�. doi: 10.1038/ni.3835

    164. Fessler J, Ficjan A, Duftner C, Dejaco C. The impact of aging on regulatory T-cells. Front Immunol. (2013) 4:231. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00231

    165. Mahnke YD, Brodie TM, Sallusto F, Roederer M, Lugli E. The who's who of T-cell differentiation: human memory T-cell subsets. Eur J Immunol. (2013) 43:2797�. doi: 10.1002/eji.201343751

    166. Sallusto F, Mackay CR, Lanzavecchia A. The role of chemokine receptors in primary, effector, and memory immune responses. Annu Rev Immunol. (2000) 18:593�. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.18.1.593

    167. Larbi A, Fulop T. From “truly naïve” to 𠇎xhausted senescent” T cells: when markers predict functionality. Cytometry A. (2014) 85:25�. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.22351

    168. Wing K, Ekmark A, Karlsson H, Rudin A, Suri-Payer E. Characterization of human CD25+ CD4+ T cells in thymus, cord and adult blood. Immunology. (2002) 106:190𠄹. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2567.2002.01412.x

    169. Takahata Y, Nomura A, Takada H, Ohga S, Furuno K, Hikino S, et al. CD25𫳔+ T cells in human cord blood: an immunoregulatory subset with naive phenotype and specific expression of forkhead box p3 (Foxp3) gene. Exp Hematol. (2004) 32:622𠄹. doi: 10.1016/j.exphem.2004.03.012

    170. Valmori D, Merlo A, Souleimanian NE, Hesdorffer CS, Ayyoub M. A peripheral circulating compartment of natural naive CD4 Tregs. J Clin Investig. (2005) 115:1953�. doi: 10.1172/JCI23963

    171. Seddiki N, Santner-Nanan B, Tangye SG, Alexander SI, Solomon M, Lee S, et al. Persistence of naive CD45RA+ regulatory T cells in adult life. Blood. (2006) 107:2830𠄸. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-06-2403

    172. Trowbridge IS, Thomas ML. CD45: an emerging role as a protein tyrosine phosphatase required for lymphocyte activation and development. Annu Rev Immunol. (1994) 12:85�. doi: 10.1146/annurev.iy.12.040194.000505

    173. Booth NJ, McQuaid AJ, Sobande T, Kissane S, Agius E, Jackson SE, et al. Different proliferative potential and migratory characteristics of human CD4+ regulatory T cells that express either CD45RA or CD45RO. J Immunol. (2010) 184:4317�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0903781

    174. Tripp RA, Topham DJ, Watson SR, Doherty PC. Bone marrow can function as a lymphoid organ during a primary immune response under conditions of disrupted lymphocyte trafficking. J Immunol. (1997) 158:3716�.

    175. Vukmanovic-Stejic M, Zhang Y, Cook JE, Fletcher JM, McQuaid A, Masters JE, et al. Human CD4+ CD25hi Foxp3+ regulatory T cells are derived by rapid turnover of memory populations in vivo. J Clin Investig. (2006) 116:2423�. doi: 10.1172/JCI28941

    176. Simpson JG, Gray ES, Beck JS. Age involution in the normal human adult thymus. Clin Exp Immunol. (1975) 19:261𠄵.

    177. Berzins SP, Uldrich AP, Sutherland JS, Gill J, Miller JF, Godfrey DI, et al. Thymic regeneration: teaching an old immune system new tricks. Trends Mol Med. (2002) 8:469�. doi: 10.1016/S1471-4914(02)02415-2

    178. Chiu BC, Stolberg VR, Zhang H, Chensue SW. Increased Foxp3(+) Treg cell activity reduces dendritic cell co-stimulatory molecule expression in aged mice. Mech Ageing Dev. (2007) 128:618�. doi: 10.1016/j.mad.2007.09.002

    179. Raynor J, Lages CS, Shehata H, Hildeman DA, Chougnet CA. Homeostasis and function of regulatory T cells in aging. Curr Opin Immunol. (2012) 24:482𠄷. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2012.04.005

    180. Mathian A, Parizot C, Dorgham K, Trad S, Arnaud L, Larsen M, et al. Activated and resting regulatory T cell exhaustion concurs with high levels of interleukin-22 expression in systemic sclerosis lesions. Ann Rheum Dis. (2012) 71:1227�. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200709

    181. Wherry EJ. T cell exhaustion. Nat Immunol. (2011) 12:492𠄹. doi: 10.1038/ni.2035

    182. Day CL, Kaufmann DE, Kiepiela P, Brown JA, Moodley ES, Reddy S, et al. PD-1 expression on HIV-specific T cells is associated with T-cell exhaustion and disease progression. Nature. (2006) 443:350𠄴. doi: 10.1038/nature05115

    183. Xiao X, Gong W, Demirci G, Liu W, Spoerl S, Chu X, et al. New insights on OX40 in the control of T cell immunity and immune tolerance in vivo. J Immunol. (2012) 188:892�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1101373

    184. Takeda I, Ine S, Killeen N, Ndhlovu LC, Murata K, Satomi S, et al. Distinct roles for the OX40-OX40 ligand interaction in regulatory and nonregulatory T cells. J Immunol. (2004) 172:3580𠄹. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.6.3580

    185. Valzasina B, Guiducci C, Dislich H, Killeen N, Weinberg AD, Colombo MP. Triggering of OX40 (CD134) on CD4(+)CD25+ T cells blocks their inhibitory activity: a novel regulatory role for OX40 and its comparison with GITR. Blood. (2005) 105:2845�. doi: 10.1182/blood-2004-07-2959

    186. Vu MD, Xiao X, Gao W, Degauque N, Chen M, Kroemer A, et al. OX40 costimulation turns off Foxp3+ Tregs. Blood. (2007) 110:2501�. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-01-070748

    187. Yang K, Blanco DB, Neale G, Vogel P, Avila J, Clish CB, et al. Homeostatic control of metabolic and functional fitness of Treg cells by LKB1 signalling. Nature. (2017) 548:602𠄶. doi: 10.1038/nature23665

    188. Hovhannisyan Z, Treatman J, Littman DR, Mayer L. Characterization of interleukin-17-producing regulatory T cells in inflamed intestinal mucosa from patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology. (2011) 140:957�. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.12.002

    189. Voo KS, Wang YH, Santori FR, Boggiano C, Wang YH, Arima K, et al. Identification of IL-17-producing FOXP3+ regulatory T cells in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2009) 106:4793𠄸. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900408106

    190. Rubtsov YP, Niec RE, Josefowicz S, Li L, Darce J, Mathis D, et al. Stability of the regulatory T cell lineage in vivo. Science. (2010) 329:1667�. doi: 10.1126/science.1191996

    191. Hori S. Lineage stability and phenotypic plasticity of Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells. Immunol Rev. (2014) 259:159�. doi: 10.1111/imr.12175

    192. Komatsu N, Mariotti-Ferrandiz ME, Wang Y, Malissen B, Waldmann H, Hori S. Heterogeneity of natural Foxp3+ T cells: a committed regulatory T-cell lineage and an uncommitted minor population retaining plasticity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2009) 106:1903𠄸. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811556106

    193. Li X, Liang Y, LeBlanc M, Benner C, Zheng Y. Function of a Foxp3 cis-element in protecting regulatory T cell identity. Cell. (2014) 158:734�. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.07.030

    194. Liston A, Piccirillo CA. Developmental plasticity of murine and human Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells. Adv Immunol. (2013) 119:85�. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407707-2.00003-5

    195. Bin Dhuban K, Kornete M, E SM, Piccirillo CA. Functional dynamics of Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells in mice and humans. Immunol Rev. (2014) 259:140�. doi: 10.1111/imr.12168

    196. Yang XO, Nurieva R, Martinez GJ, Kang HS, Chung Y, Pappu BP, et al. Molecular antagonism and plasticity of regulatory and inflammatory T cell programs. Immunity. (2008) 29:44�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2008.05.007

    197. Tsuji M, Komatsu N, Kawamoto S, Suzuki K, Kanagawa O, Honjo T, et al. Preferential generation of follicular B helper T cells from Foxp3+ T cells in gut Peyer's patches. Science. (2009) 323:1488�. doi: 10.1126/science.1169152

    198. Hall AO, Beiting DP, Tato C, John B, Oldenhove G, Lombana CG, et al. The cytokines interleukin 27 and interferon-gamma promote distinct Treg cell populations required to limit infection-induced pathology. Immunity. (2012) 37:511�. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.06.014

    199. Koch MA, Tucker-Heard G, Perdue NR, Killebrew JR, Urdahl KB, Campbell DJ. The transcription factor T-bet controls regulatory T cell homeostasis and function during type 1 inflammation. Nat Immunol. (2009) 10:595�. doi: 10.1038/ni.1731

    200. Cicchese JM, Evans S, Hult C, Joslyn LR, Wessler T, Millar JA, et al. Dynamic balance of pro- and anti-inflammatory signals controls disease and limits pathology. Immunol Rev. (2018) 285:147�. doi: 10.1111/imr.12671

    201. Hwang SM, Sharma G, Verma R, Byun S, Rudra D, Im SH. Inflammation-induced Id2 promotes plasticity in regulatory T cells. Nat Commun. (2018) 9:4736. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07254-2

    202. Gao Y, Tang J, Chen W, Li Q, Nie J, Lin F, et al. Inflammation negatively regulates FOXP3 and regulatory T-cell function via DBC1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2015) 112:E3246�. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1421463112

    203. Li B, Zheng SG. How regulatory T cells sense and adapt to inflammation. Cell Mol Immunol. (2015) 12:519�. doi: 10.1038/cmi.2015.65

    204. Garg G, Muschaweckh A, Moreno H, Vasanthakumar A, Floess S, Lepennetier G, et al. Blimp1 prevents methylation of Foxp3 and loss of regulatory T cell identity at sites of inflammation. Cell Rep. (2019) 26:1854�.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.01.070

    205. Sun CM, Hall JA, Blank RB, Bouladoux N, Oukka M, Mora JR, et al. Small intestine lamina propria dendritic cells promote de novo generation of Foxp3 T reg cells via retinoic acid. J Exp Med. (2007) 204:1775�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20070602

    206. Coombes JL, Siddiqui KR, Arancibia-Carcamo CV, Hall J, Sun CM, Belkaid Y, et al. A functionally specialized population of mucosal CD103+ DCs induces Foxp3+ regulatory T cells via a TGF-beta and retinoic acid-dependent mechanism. J Exp Med. (2007) 204:1757�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20070590

    207. Nolting J, Daniel C, Reuter S, Stuelten C, Li P, Sucov H, et al. Retinoic acid can enhance conversion of naive into regulatory T cells independently of secreted cytokines. J Exp Med. (2009) 206:2131𠄹. doi: 10.1084/jem.20090639

    208. Lee S, Park K, Kim J, Min H, Seong RH. Foxp3 expression in induced regulatory T cells is stabilized by C/EBP in inflammatory environments. EMBO Rep. (2018) 19:e45995. doi: 10.15252/embr.201845995

    209. van der Veeken J, Gonzalez AJ, Cho H, Arvey A, Hemmers S, Leslie CS, et al. Memory of inflammation in regulatory T cells. Cell. (2016) 166:977�. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.07.006

    210. Lu L, Barbi J, Pan F. The regulation of immune tolerance by FOXP3. Nat Rev Immunol. (2017) 17:703�. doi: 10.1038/nri.2017.75

    211. Yagi H, Nomura T, Nakamura K, Yamazaki S, Kitawaki T, Hori S, et al. Crucial role of FOXP3 in the development and function of human CD25𫳔+ regulatory T cells. Int Immunol. (2004) 16:1643�. doi: 10.1093/intimm/dxh165

    212. Samstein RM, Arvey A, Josefowicz SZ, Peng X, Reynolds A, Sandstrom R, et al. Foxp3 exploits a pre-existent enhancer landscape for regulatory T cell lineage specification. Cell. (2012) 151:153�. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.053

    213. van der Vliet HJ, Nieuwenhuis EE. IPEX as a result of mutations in FOXP3. Clin Dev Immunol. (2007) 2007:89017. doi: 10.1155/2007/89017

    214. Kobayashi I, Shiari R, Yamada M, Kawamura N, Okano M, Yara A, et al. Novel mutations of FOXP3 in two Japanese patients with immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X linked syndrome (IPEX). J Med Genet. (2001) 38:874𠄶. doi: 10.1136/jmg.38.12.874

    215. Fuchizawa T, Adachi Y, Ito Y, Higashiyama H, Kanegane H, Futatani T, et al. Developmental changes of FOXP3-expressing CD4�+ regulatory T cells and their impairment in patients with FOXP3 gene mutations. Clin Immunol. (2007) 125:237�. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2007.08.004

    216. Rubio-Cabezas O, Minton JA, Caswell R, Shield JP, Deiss D, Sumnik Z, et al. Clinical heterogeneity in patients with FOXP3 mutations presenting with permanent neonatal diabetes. Diabetes Care. (2009) 32:111𠄶. doi: 10.2337/dc08-1188

    217. Otsubo K, Kanegane H, Kamachi Y, Kobayashi I, Tsuge I, Imaizumi M, et al. Identification of FOXP3-negative regulatory T-like (CD4(+)CD25(+)CD127(low)) cells in patients with immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked syndrome. Clin Immunol. (2011) 141:111�. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2011.06.006

    218. Burroughs LM, Torgerson TR, Storb R, Carpenter PA, Rawlings DJ, Sanders J, et al. Stable hematopoietic cell engraftment after low-intensity nonmyeloablative conditioning in patients with immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2010) 126:1000𠄵. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.05.021

    219. Heltzer ML, Choi JK, Ochs HD, Sullivan KE, Torgerson TR, Ernst LM. A potential screening tool for IPEX syndrome. Pediatr Dev Pathol. (2007) 10:98�. doi: 10.2350/06-07-0130.1

    220. Theofilopoulos AN, Kono DH, Baccala R. The multiple pathways to autoimmunity. Nat Immunol. (2017) 18:716�. doi: 10.1038/ni.3731

    221. Bluestone JA, Bour-Jordan H, Cheng M, Anderson M. T cells in the control of organ-specific autoimmunity. J Clin Investig. (2015) 125:2250�. doi: 10.1172/JCI78089

    222. Wing K, Sakaguchi S. Regulatory T cells exert checks and balances on self tolerance and autoimmunity. Nat Immunol. (2010) 11:7�. doi: 10.1038/ni.1818

    223. Venken K, Hellings N, Thewissen M, Somers V, Hensen K, Rummens JL, et al. Compromised CD4+ CD25(high) regulatory T-cell function in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis is correlated with a reduced frequency of FOXP3-positive cells and reduced FOXP3 expression at the single-cell level. Immunology. (2008) 123:79�. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2007.02690.x

    224. Huan J, Culbertson N, Spencer L, Bartholomew R, Burrows GG, Chou YK, et al. Decreased FOXP3 levels in multiple sclerosis patients. J Neurosci Res. (2005) 81:45�. doi: 10.1002/jnr.20522

    225. Dalla Libera D, Di Mitri D, Bergami A, Centonze D, Gasperini C, Grasso MG, et al. T regulatory cells are markers of disease activity in multiple sclerosis patients. PLoS ONE. (2011) 6:e21386. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021386

    226. Fletcher JM, Lonergan R, Costelloe L, Kinsella K, Moran B, O⟺rrelly C, et al. CD39ʿoxp3+ regulatory T Cells suppress pathogenic Th17 cells and are impaired in multiple sclerosis. J Immunol. (2009) 183:7602�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0901881

    227. Atarashi K, Nishimura J, Shima T, Umesaki Y, Yamamoto M, Onoue M, et al. ATP drives lamina propria T(H)17 cell differentiation. Nature. (2008) 455:808�. doi: 10.1038/nature07240

    228. Feger U, Luther C, Poeschel S, Melms A, Tolosa E, Wiendl H. Increased frequency of CD4+ CD25+ regulatory T cells in the cerebrospinal fluid but not in the blood of multiple sclerosis patients. Clin Exp Immunol. (2007) 147:412𠄸. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2006.03271.x

    229. Tzartos JS, Friese MA, Craner MJ, Palace J, Newcombe J, Esiri MM, et al. Interleukin-17 production in central nervous system-infiltrating T cells and glial cells is associated with active disease in multiple sclerosis. Am J Pathol. (2008) 172:146�. doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2008.070690

    230. Fritzsching B, Haas J, Konig F, Kunz P, Fritzsching E, Poschl J, et al. Intracerebral human regulatory T cells: analysis of CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+ T cells in brain lesions and cerebrospinal fluid of multiple sclerosis patients. PLoS ONE. (2011) 6:e17988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017988

    231. Viglietta V, Baecher-Allan C, Weiner HL, Hafler DA. Loss of functional suppression by CD4�+ regulatory T cells in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Exp Med. (2004) 199:971𠄹. doi: 10.1084/jem.20031579

    232. Allan SE, Passerini L, Bacchetta R, Crellin N, Dai M, Orban PC, et al. The role of 2 FOXP3 isoforms in the generation of human CD4+ Tregs. J Clin Investig. (2005) 115:3276�. doi: 10.1172/JCI24685

    233. Smith EL, Finney HM, Nesbitt AM, Ramsdell F, Robinson MK. Splice variants of human FOXP3 are functional inhibitors of human CD4+ T-cell activation. Immunology. (2006) 119:203�. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2006.02425.x

    234. Sambucci M, Gargano F, De Rosa V, De Bardi M, Picozza M, Placido R, et al. FoxP3 isoforms and PD-1 expression by T regulatory cells in multiple sclerosis. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:3674. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21861-5

    235. Melis D, Carbone F, Minopoli G, La Rocca C, Perna F, De Rosa V, et al. Cutting edge: increased autoimmunity risk in glycogen storage disease type 1b is associated with a reduced engagement of glycolysis in T cells and an impaired regulatory T cell function. J Immunol. (2017) 198:3803𠄸. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601946

    236. Bruzzaniti S, Bocchino M, Santopaolo M, Cali G, Stanziola AA, Dɺmato M, et al. An immunometabolic pathomechanism for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2019) 116:15625�. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1906303116

    237. Lindley S, Dayan CM, Bishop A, Roep BO, Peakman M, Tree TI. Defective suppressor function in CD4(+)CD25(+) T-cells from patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. (2005) 54:92𠄹. doi: 10.2337/diabetes.54.1.92

    238. Ferraro A, Socci C, Stabilini A, Valle A, Monti P, Piemonti L, et al. Expansion of Th17 cells and functional defects in T regulatory cells are key features of the pancreatic lymph nodes in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. (2011) 60:2903�. doi: 10.2337/db11-0090

    239. Okubo Y, Torrey H, Butterworth J, Zheng H, Faustman DL. Treg activation defect in type 1 diabetes: correction with TNFR2 agonism. Clin Transl Immunol. (2016) 5:e56. doi: 10.1038/cti.2015.43

    240. Long SA, Buckner JH. CD4ʿOXP3+ T regulatory cells in human autoimmunity: more than a numbers game. J Immunol. (2011) 187:2061𠄶. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1003224

    241. Sakaguchi S, Sakaguchi N, Asano M, Itoh M, Toda M. Immunologic self-tolerance maintained by activated T cells expressing IL-2 receptor alpha-chains (CD25). Breakdown of a single mechanism of self-tolerance causes various autoimmune diseases. J Immunol. (1995) 155:1151�. PubMed PMID: 7636184.

    242. Barron L, Dooms H, Hoyer KK, Kuswanto W, Hofmann J, O'Gorman WE, et al. Cutting edge: mechanisms of IL-2-dependent maintenance of functional regulatory T cells. J Immunol. (2010) 185:6426�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0903940

    243. Fan MY, Low JS, Tanimine N, Finn KK, Priyadharshini B, Germana SK, et al. Differential roles of IL-2 signaling in developing versus mature Tregs. Cell Rep. (2018) 25:1204�.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.10.002

    244. Malek TR, Bayer AL. Tolerance, not immunity, crucially depends on IL-2. Nat Rev Immunol. (2004) 4:665�. doi: 10.1038/nri1435

    245. Setoguchi R, Hori S, Takahashi T, Sakaguchi S. Homeostatic maintenance of natural Foxp3(+) CD25(+) CD4(+) regulatory T cells by interleukin (IL)-2 and induction of autoimmune disease by IL-2 neutralization. J Exp Med. (2005) 201:723�. doi: 10.1084/jem.20041982

    246. Zorn E, Nelson EA, Mohseni M, Porcheray F, Kim H, Litsa D, et al. IL-2 regulates FOXP3 expression in human CD4�+ regulatory T cells through a STAT-dependent mechanism and induces the expansion of these cells in vivo. Blood. (2006) 108:1571𠄹. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-02-004747

    247. Carbone F, De Rosa V, Carrieri PB, Montella S, Bruzzese D, Porcellini A, et al. Regulatory T cell proliferative potential is impaired in human autoimmune disease. Nat Med. (2014) 20:69�. doi: 10.1038/nm.3411

    248. Dendrou CA, Wicker LS. The IL-2/CD25 pathway determines susceptibility to T1D in humans and NOD mice. J Clin Immunol. (2008) 28:685�. doi: 10.1007/s10875-008-9237-9

    249. Vella A, Cooper JD, Lowe CE, Walker N, Nutland S, Widmer B, et al. Localization of a type 1 diabetes locus in the IL2RA/CD25 region by use of tag single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Am J Human Genet. (2005) 76:773𠄹. doi: 10.1086/429843

    250. Garg G, Tyler JR, Yang JH, Cutler AJ, Downes K, Pekalski M, et al. Type 1 diabetes-associated IL2RA variation lowers IL-2 signaling and contributes to diminished CD4�+ regulatory T cell function. J Immunol. (2012) 188:4644�. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1100272

    251. Long SA, Cerosaletti K, Bollyky PL, Tatum M, Shilling H, Zhang S, et al. Defects in IL-2R signaling contribute to diminished maintenance of FOXP3 expression in CD4(+)CD25(+) regulatory T-cells of type 1 diabetic subjects. Diabetes. (2010) 59:407�. doi: 10.2337/db09-0694

    252. Beier UH, Akimova T, Liu Y, Wang L, Hancock WW. Histone/protein deacetylases control Foxp3 expression and the heat shock response of T-regulatory cells. Curr Opin Immunol. (2011) 23:670𠄸. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2011.07.002

    253. Trotta E, Bessette PH, Silveria SL, Ely LK, Jude KM, Le DT, et al. A human anti-IL-2 antibody that potentiates regulatory T cells by a structure-based mechanism. Nat Med. (2018) 24:1005�. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0070-2

    254. Nie H, Zheng Y, Li R, Guo TB, He D, Fang L, et al. Phosphorylation of FOXP3 controls regulatory T cell function and is inhibited by TNF-alpha in rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Med. (2013) 19:322𠄸. doi: 10.1038/nm.3085

    Keywords: Foxp3, Treg cells, epigenetic regulation, Foxp3 stability, autoimmunity

    Citation: Colamatteo A, Carbone F, Bruzzaniti S, Galgani M, Fusco C, Maniscalco GT, Di Rella F, de Candia P and De Rosa V (2020) Molecular Mechanisms Controlling Foxp3 Expression in Health and Autoimmunity: From Epigenetic to Post-translational Regulation. Front. Immunol. 10:3136. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.03136

    Received: 30 September 2019 Accepted: 23 December 2019
    Published: 03 February 2020.

    Lucy S. K. Walker, University College London, United Kingdom

    Masahiro Ono, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
    Bhalchandra Mirlekar, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

    Copyright © 2020 Colamatteo, Carbone, Bruzzaniti, Galgani, Fusco, Maniscalco, Di Rella, de Candia and De Rosa. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Watch the video: DNA transcription and translation McGraw Hill (August 2022).