Article

MAPK-induced Ser(727) phosphorylation promotes SUMOylation of STAT1

Institute of Medical Technology, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampere, Finland.
Biochemical Journal (Impact Factor: 4.78). 02/2008; 409(1):179-85. DOI: 10.1042/BJ20070620
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT STAT1 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 1) is a critical mediator of IFN-gamma (interferon-gamma)-induced gene responses, and its function is regulated through phosphorylation of Tyr701 and Ser727. MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) pathways mediate phosphorylation of Ser727 in response to microbial infections, stress stimuli and growth factors. Recently, STAT1 was found to become modified by PIAS (protein inhibitor of activated STAT)-mediated SUMO-1 (small ubiquitin-related modifier-1) conjugation at Lys703, but the regulation of this modification is largely unknown. Here, we have investigated the role of MAPK-induced Ser727 phosphorylation in regulation of STAT1 SUMOylation. Activation of the p38MAPK pathway by upstream activating kinase, MKK6 (MAPK kinase-6) or osmotic stress enhanced the SUMOylation of STAT1, which was counteracted by the p38MAPK inhibitor SB202190 or by dominant-negative p38MAPK. Activation of the ERK1/2 (extracellular-signal-regulated kinase 1/2) pathway by Raf-1 also enhanced Ser727 phosphorylation and SUMOylation of STAT1, and this induction was counteracted by PD98059 inhibitor. Mutation of Ser727 to alanine abolished the p38MAPK-induced SUMOylation. Furthermore, S727D and S727E mutations, which mimic the phosphorylation of Ser727, enhanced the basal SUMOylation of STAT1 and interaction between PIAS1 and STAT1. Taken together, these results identify Ser727 phosphorylation as a regulator of STAT1 SUMOylation and highlight the central role of Ser727 in co-ordination of STAT1 functions in cellular responses.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Olli Silvennoinen, Apr 09, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
123 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: STAT1 signaling regulates the expression of important genes controlling cell growth, differentiation, apoptosis, and immune functions. Biochemical and genetic experiments have identified how this cascade is modulated. Phosphorylation of STAT1 tyrosine and serine moieties is induced rapidly by cytokines and growth factors. Upon nuclear translocation, phosphorylated STAT1 homo- and heterodimers activate gene expression. Inactivation of phosphorylated nuclear STAT1 has to be precisely regulated in order to allow signal transduction within limited time frames. Lysine acetylation has recently been appreciated as a novel mechanism regulating signal transduction events relying on STAT proteins. Here, we review these analyses and the finding that a switch from phosphorylated to acetylated STAT1 regulates acetylation-dependent dephosphorylation of STAT1 via the T cell tyrosine phosphatase. We discuss how these observations can be integrated into our current understanding of STAT-dependent cytokine signaling and its potential relevance for endocrine functions.
    Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 10/2009; 315(1-2):40-8. DOI:10.1016/j.mce.2009.10.007 · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: CBP/p300 transcriptional coactivators mediate gene expression by integrating cellular signals through interactions with multiple transcription factors. To elucidate the molecular and structural basis for CBP-dependent gene expression, we determined structures of the CBP TAZ1 and TAZ2 domains in complex with the transactivation domains (TADs) of signal transducer and activator of transcription 2 (STAT2) and STAT1, respectively. Despite the topological similarity of the TAZ1 and TAZ2 domains, subtle differences in helix packing and surface grooves constitute major determinants of target selectivity. Our results suggest that TAZ1 preferentially binds long TADs capable of contacting multiple surface grooves simultaneously, whereas smaller TADs that are restricted to a single contiguous binding surface form complexes with TAZ2. Complex formation for both STAT TADs involves coupled folding and binding, driven by intermolecular hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions. Phosphorylation of S727, required for maximal transcriptional activity of STAT1, does not enhance binding to any of the CBP domains. Because the different STAT TADs recognize different regions of CBP/p300, there is a potential for multivalent binding by STAT heterodimers that could enhance the recruitment of the coactivators to promoters.
    The EMBO Journal 03/2009; 28(7):948-58. DOI:10.1038/emboj.2009.30 · 10.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accurate positioning of the mitotic spindle is important for the genetic material to be distributed evenly in dividing cells, but little is known about the mechanisms that regulate this process. Here we report that two microtubule-associated proteins important for spindle positioning interact with several proteins in the sumoylation pathway. By two-hybrid analysis, Kar9p and Bim1p interact with the yeast SUMO Smt3p, the E2 enzyme Ubc9p, an E3 Nfi1p, as well as Wss1p, a weak suppressor of a temperature-sensitive smt3 allele. The physical interaction between Kar9p and Ubc9p was confirmed by in vitro binding assays. A single-amino-acid substitution in Kar9p, L304P disrupted its two-hybrid interaction with proteins in the sumoylation pathway, but retained its interactions with the spindle positioning proteins Bim1p, Stu2p, Bik1p, and Myo2p. The kar9-L304P mutant showed defects in positioning the mitotic spindle, with the spindle located more distally than normal. Whereas wild-type Kar9p-3GFP normally localizes to only the bud-directed spindle pole body (SPB), Kar9p-L304P-3GFP was mislocalized to both SPBs. Using a reconstitution assay, Kar9p was sumoylated in vitro. We propose a model in which sumoylation regulates spindle positioning by restricting Kar9p to one SPB. These findings raise the possibility that sumoylation could regulate other microtubule-dependent processes.
    Genetics 11/2008; 180(4):2033-55. DOI:10.1534/genetics.108.095042 · 4.87 Impact Factor