K E Mundt

University of Sussex, Brighton, ENG, United Kingdom

Are you K E Mundt?

Claim your profile

Publications (6)55.58 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The signalosome is implicated in regulating cullin-dependent ubiquitin ligases. We find that two signalosome subunits, Csn1 and Csn2, are required to regulate ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) through the degradation of a small protein, Spd1, that acts to anchor the small RNR subunit in the nucleus. Spd1 destruction correlates with the nuclear export of the small RNR subunit, which, in turn, correlates with a requirement for RNR in replication and repair. Spd1 degradation is promoted by two separate CSN-dependent mechanisms. During unperturbed S phase, Spd1 degradation is independent of checkpoint proteins. In irradiated G2 cells, Spd1 degradation requires the DNA damage checkpoint. The signalosome copurifies with Pcu4 (cullin 4). Pcu4, Csn1, and Csn2 promote the degradation of Spd1, identifying a new function for the signalosome as a regulator of Pcu4-containing E3 ubiquitin ligase.
    Genes & Development 06/2003; 17(9):1130-40. · 12.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Kirsten E Mundt, Cong Liu, Antony M Carr
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The COP9/signalosome complex is highly conserved in evolution and possesses significant structural similarity to the 19S regulatory lid complex of the proteasome. It also shares limited similarity to the translation initiation factor eIF3. The signalosome interacts with multiple cullins in mammalian cells. In the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, the Csn1 subunit is required for the removal of covalently attached Nedd8 from Pcu1, one of three S. pombe cullins. It remains unclear whether this activity is required for all the functions ascribed to the signalosome. We previously identified Csn1 and Csn2 as signalosome subunits in S. pombe. csn1 and csn2 null mutants are DNA damage sensitive and exhibit slow DNA replication. Two further putative subunits, Csn4 and Csn5, were identified from the S. pombe genome database. Herein, we characterize null mutations of csn4 and csn5 and demonstrate that both genes are required for removal of Nedd8 from the S. pombe cullin Pcu1 and that their protein products associate with Csn1 and Csn2. However, neither csn4 nor csn5 null mutants share the csn1 and csn2 mutant phenotypes. Our data suggest that the subunits of the signalosome cannot be considered as a distinct functional unit and imply that different subunits of the signalosome mediate distinct functions.
    Molecular Biology of the Cell 03/2002; 13(2):493-502. · 4.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Trends in Genetics 08/2000; 16(7):289. · 9.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Trends in Genetics 06/2000; 16(5):202-3. · 9.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The COP9/signalosome complex is conserved from plant to mammalian cells. In Arabidopsis, it regulates the nuclear abundance of COP1, a transcriptional repressor of photomorphogenic development [1] [2]. All COP (constitutive photomorphogenesis) mutants inappropriately express genes that are normally repressed in the dark. Eight subunits (Sgn1-Sgn8) of the homologous mammalian complex have been purified [3] [4]. Several of these have been previously identified through genetic or protein interaction screens. No coherent model for COP9/signalosome function has yet emerged, but a relationship with cell-cycle progression by transcriptional regulation, protein localisation or protein stability is possible. Interestingly, the COP9/signalosome subunits possess domain homology to subunits of the proteasome regulatory lid complex [5] [6]. Database searches indicate that only Sgn5/JAB1 is present in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, precluding genetic analysis of the complex in cell-cycle regulation. Here we identify a subunit of the signalosome in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe through an analysis of the DNA-integrity checkpoint. We provide evidence for the conservation of the COP9/signalosome complex in fission yeast and demonstrate that it functions during S-phase progression.
    Current Biology 12/1999; 9(23):1427-30. · 9.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Checkpoint pathways prevent cell-cycle progression in the event of DNA lesions. Checkpoints are well defined in mitosis, where lesions can be the result of extrinsic damage, and they are critical in meiosis, where DNA breaks are a programmed step in meiotic recombination. In mitotic yeast cells, the Chk1 protein couples DNA repair to the cell-cycle machinery. The Atm and Atr proteins are mitotic cell-cycle proteins that also associate with chromatin during meiotic prophase I. The genetic and regulatory interaction between Atm and mammalian Chk1 appears to be important for integrating DNA-damage repair with cell-cycle arrest. We have identified structural homologs of yeast Chk1 in human and mouse. Chk1(Hu/Mo) has protein kinase activity and is expressed in the testis. Chk1 accumulates in late zygotene and pachytene spermatocytes and is present along synapsed meiotic chromosomes. Chk1 localizes along the unsynapsed axes of X and Y chromosomes in pachytene spermatocytes. The association of Chk1 with meiotic chromosomes and levels of Chk1 protein depend upon a functional Atm gene product, but Chk1 is not dependent upon p53 for meiosis I functions. Mapping of CHK1 to human chromosomes indicates that the gene is located at 11q22-23, a region marked by frequent deletions and loss of heterozygosity in human tumors. The Atm-dependent presence of Chk1 in mouse cells and along meiotic chromosomes, and the late pachynema co-localization of Atr and Chk1 on the unsynapsed axes of the paired X and Y chromosomes, suggest that Chk1 acts as an integrator for Atm and Atr signals and may be involved in monitoring the processing of meiotic recombination. Furthermore, mapping of the CHK1 gene to a region of frequent loss of heterozygosity in human tumors at 11q22-23 indicates that the CHK1 gene is a candidate tumor suppressor gene.
    Current Biology 01/1998; 7(12):977-86. · 9.49 Impact Factor