COP1 is a tumour suppressor that causes degradation of ETS transcription factors.

Department of Physiological Chemistry, Genentech, Inc., 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, California 94080, USA.
Nature (Impact Factor: 42.35). 06/2011; 474(7351):403-6. DOI: 10.1038/nature10005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The proto-oncogenes ETV1, ETV4 and ETV5 encode transcription factors in the E26 transformation-specific (ETS) family, which includes the most frequently rearranged and overexpressed genes in prostate cancer. Despite being critical regulators of development, little is known about their post-translational regulation. Here we identify the ubiquitin ligase COP1 (also known as RFWD2) as a tumour suppressor that negatively regulates ETV1, ETV4 and ETV5. ETV1, which is mutated in prostate cancer more often, was degraded after being ubiquitinated by COP1. Truncated ETV1 encoded by prostate cancer translocation TMPRSS2:ETV1 lacks the critical COP1 binding motifs and was 50-fold more stable than wild-type ETV1. Almost all patient translocations render ETV1 insensitive to COP1, implying that this confers a selective advantage to prostate epithelial cells. Indeed, COP1 deficiency in mouse prostate elevated ETV1 and produced increased cell proliferation, hyperplasia, and early prostate intraepithelial neoplasia. Combined loss of COP1 and PTEN enhanced the invasiveness of mouse prostate adenocarcinomas. Finally, rare human prostate cancer samples showed hemizygous loss of the COP1 gene, loss of COP1 protein, and elevated ETV1 protein while lacking a translocation event. These findings identify COP1 as a tumour suppressor whose downregulation promotes prostatic epithelial cell proliferation and tumorigenesis.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: CONSTITUTIVE PHOTOMORPHOGENIC1 (COP1) functions as an E3 ubiquitin ligase in both plants and animals. In dark-grown Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings, COP1 targets photomorphogenesis-promoting factors for degradation to repress photomorphogenesis. Little is known, however, about how COP1 itself is regulated. Here, we identify COP1 SUPPRESSOR1 (CSU1), a RING-finger E3 ubiquitin ligase, as a regulator of COP1. Genetic evidence demonstrates that csu1 mutations suppress cop1-6 phenotypes completely in the dark. Furthermore, CSU1 colocalizes with COP1 in nuclear speckles and negatively regulates COP1 protein accumulation in darkness. CSU1 can ubiquitinate COP1 in vitro and is essential for COP1 ubiquitination in vivo. Therefore, we conclude that CSU1 plays a major role in maintaining COP1 homeostasis by targeting COP1 for ubiquitination and degradation in dark-grown seedlings.
    The Plant Cell 05/2014; 26(5). DOI:10.1105/tpc.114.124024 · 9.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High abundance of c-Jun is detected in invasive breast cancer cells and aggressive breast tumor malignancies. Here, we demonstrate that a major cause of high c-Jun abundance in invasive breast cancer cells is prolonged c-Jun protein stability owing to poor poly-ubiquitination of c-Jun. Among the known c-Jun-targeting E3 ligases, we identified constitutive photomorphogenesis protein 1 (COP1) as an E3 ligase responsible for c-Jun degradation in less invasive breast cancer cells because depletion of COP1 reduced c-Jun poly-ubiquitination leading to the stabilization of c-Jun protein. In a panel of breast cancer cell lines, we observed an inverse association between the levels of COP1 and c-Jun. However, overexpressing COP1 alone was unable to decrease c-Jun level in invasive breast cancer cells, indicating that efficient c-Jun protein degradation necessitates an additional event. Indeed, we found that glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) inhibitors elevated c-Jun abundance in less invasive breast cancer cells and that GSK3β nonphosphorylable c-Jun-T239A mutant displayed greater protein stability and poorer poly-ubiquitination compared to the wild-type c-Jun. The ability of simultaneously enforced expression of COP1 and constitutively active GSK3β to decrease c-Jun abundance in invasive breast cancer cells allowed us to conclude that c-Jun is negatively regulated through the coordinated action of COP1 and GSK3β. Importantly, co-expressing COP1 and active GSK3β blocked in vitro cell growth/migration and in vivo metastasis of invasive breast cancer cells. Gene expression profiling of breast tumor specimens further revealed that higher COP1 expression correlated with better recurrence-free survival. Our study supports the notion that COP1 is a suppressor of breast cancer progression.
    Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.) 09/2013; 15(9):1075-85. DOI:10.1593/neo.13966 · 5.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:A 28 amino-acid (aa) cell-penetrating peptide (p28) derived from azurin, a redox protein secreted from the opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa, produces a post-translational increase in p53 in cancer cells by inhibiting its ubiquitination.Methods:In silico computational simulations were used to predict motifs within the p53 DNA-binding domain (DBD) as potential sites for p28 binding. In vitro direct and competitive pull-down studies as well as western blot and RT-PCR analyses were used to validate predictions.Results:The L1 loop (aa 112-124), a region within the S7-S8 loop (aa 214-236) and T140, P142, Q144, W146, R282 and L289 of the p53DBD were identified as potential sites for p28 binding. p28 decreased the level of the E3 ligase COP1 >80%, in p53(wt) and p53(mut) cells with no decrease in COP1 in p53dom/neg or p53null cells. Brief increases in the expression of the E3 ligases, TOPORS, Pirh2 and HDM2 (human double minute 2) in p53(wt) and p53(mut) cells were in response to sustained increases in p53.Conclusion:These data identify the specific motifs within the DBD of p53 that bind p28 and suggest that p28 inhibition of COP1 binding results in the sustained, post-translational increase in p53 levels and subsequent inhibition of cancer cell growth independent of an HDM2 pathway.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 4 June 2013; doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.266
    British Journal of Cancer 06/2013; 108(12). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.266 · 4.82 Impact Factor