SerpinB2 (aka plasminogen activator type 2) is well described as an extracellular inhibitor of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA). However, the majority of SerpinB2 is retained intracellularly, and many uPA-independent activities have been reported for SerpinB2 suggesting an alternate function. This thesis explores the role of SerpinB2 in epithelial tumour cell lines, highlights the problems associated with various expression systems and argues that SerpinB2 has no role in growth or apoptosis of tumour cells. A potential role for immune modulation and angiogenesis is suggested in in vivo models. Previous research using SerpinB2 transfected, clonally selected tumour cell lines suggested that SerpinB2 regulates the retinoblastoma tumour suppressor protein (Rb) by binding and protecting Rb from degradation. Despite the use of two techniques under numerous conditions and positive controls, no significant interaction between SerpinB2 and Rb was found. SerpinB2 was reported to bind Rb through a PENF homology motif located within the SerpinB2 C-D interhelical loop region. The PENF homology motif was postulated to represent the motif responsible for binding to the C-pocket of Rb. Epstein Barr Virus nuclear antigen 6 (EBNA6) is a known Rb binding protein, which contains two predicted PENF homology motifs. However, mutation of the two PENF homology motifs within EBNA6 did not reduce Rb binding. Furthermore, the SerpinB2 PENF homology motif is actually not well conserved between SerpinB2 proteins from multiple species, whereas other regions of the SerpinB2 C-D loop show a high level of conservation. These data do not support a role for SerpinB2 and the PENF homology motif in Rb binding. SerpinB2 has been proposed to have a role in regulating growth and apoptosis. To further investigate this proposed phenotype of SerpinB2, SerpinB2 was expressed in a range of epithelial tumour lines using transient transfection. No change in growth, apoptosis or Rb levels were found. After ≈2-3 month antibiotic selection for the SerpinB2-expressing plasmid, SerpinB2 protein was lost without the loss of the transgene, indicating selective pressure against long-term SerpinB2 protein expression. To further investigate long-term SerpinB2 expression adenovirus and lentivirus vectors were used. Infection of tumour cell lines with adenovirus vectors expressing SerpinB2 resulted in reduced cell growth, characterised by increased p53 (but not Rb) levels and G2 arrest or apoptosis. When SerpinB2 expressing lentivirus vectors were used to transduce the same tumour cell lines, high levels of long-term expression of functional SerpinB2 was achieved. However, SerpinB2-expressing cell lines showed no differences in growth, proliferation, Rb levels, or apoptosis induced by a range of agents. Growth and apoptosis observed with adenovirus SerpinB2 had all the characteristics of adenovirus-associated toxicity, which has been reported previously for specific proteins. These experiments highlighted the problems associated with SerpinB2 expression systems and suggest that SerpinB2 expression per se is not toxic nor has a role in regulating Rb, growth and apoptosis. Screening of a number of tumour cell lines identified the HPV16 transformed cervical cancer line as expressing high levels of SerpinB2. SerpinB2 was located both extracellularly and intracellularly with a cytoplasmic and nuclear distribution. A high molecular weight SerpinB2 species was identified in CaSki cells and was shown to be the N-linked glycosylated species. Sequencing showed the protein to be Type A SerpinB2 and the protein was shown to form an inhibitory complex with uPA. An abundant low molecular weight SerpinB2 species was also identified in CaSki cell supernatants and appeared to be a proteolytic fragment of SerpinB2. Treatment of CaSki with PMA, TNFα and IFNγ increased SerpinB2 levels. Lentiviral based shRNA failed to significantly down regulate SerpinB2 expression and increasing SerpinB2 levels with lentiviral expression did not change growth, apoptosis, Rb levels or E7 transcription. Lentiviral expression of SerpinB2 in (normally SerpinB2 negative) HPV16 transformed SiHa cells, also failed to show changes in Rb levels or E7 transcription. CaSki thus express wild-type and functional SerpinB2, but no evidence could found that SerpinB2 effects HPV16 E7 transcription or Rb levels. The data presented identifies CaSki as valuable source of biologically functional SerpinB2. SerpinB2 expression in breast cancer cells has been associated with positive prognosis. Tubo, a SerpinB2-negative murine breast carcinoma cell line, was transduced with lentivirus expressing SerpinB2 and grown subcutaneously in BALB/c mice. SerpinB2 expressing tumours appeared red and were larger than control tumours. Furthermore, SerpinB2 expressing tumours had a ≈2 fold higher density of blood vessels when compared to Tubo and Tubo expressing EGFP. Mice carrying tumours expressing SerpinB2 also showed reduced anti-tumour IgG2 responses. These data suggest that a role for SerpinB2 in regulating angiogenesis and antitumour immunity. In conclusion, this thesis challenges the notion that SerpinB2 regulates Rb, cell cycle, and apoptosis and suggests a potential role for SerpinB2 in tumour angiogenesis and immunity.

SerpinB2 (aka plasminogen activator type 2) is well described as an extracellular inhibitor of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA). However, the majority of SerpinB2 is retained intracellularly, and many uPA-independent activities have been reported for SerpinB2 suggesting an alternate function. This thesis explores the role of SerpinB2 in epithelial tumour cell lines, highlights the problems associated with various expression systems and argues that SerpinB2 has no role in growth or apoptosis of tumour cells. A potential role for immune modulation and angiogenesis is suggested in in vivo models. Previous research using SerpinB2 transfected, clonally selected tumour cell lines suggested that SerpinB2 regulates the retinoblastoma tumour suppressor protein (Rb) by binding and protecting Rb from degradation. Despite the use of two techniques under numerous conditions and positive controls, no significant interaction between SerpinB2 and Rb was found. SerpinB2 was reported to bind Rb through a PENF homology motif located within the SerpinB2 C-D interhelical loop region. The PENF homology motif was postulated to represent the motif responsible for binding to the C-pocket of Rb. Epstein Barr Virus nuclear antigen 6 (EBNA6) is a known Rb binding protein, which contains two predicted PENF homology motifs. However, mutation of the two PENF homology motifs within EBNA6 did not reduce Rb binding. Furthermore, the SerpinB2 PENF homology motif is actually not well conserved between SerpinB2 proteins from multiple species, whereas other regions of the SerpinB2 C-D loop show a high level of conservation. These data do not support a role for SerpinB2 and the PENF homology motif in Rb binding. SerpinB2 has been proposed to have a role in regulating growth and apoptosis. To further investigate this proposed phenotype of SerpinB2, SerpinB2 was expressed in a range of epithelial tumour lines using transient transfection. No change in growth, apoptosis or Rb levels were found. After ≈2-3 month antibiotic selection for the SerpinB2-expressing plasmid, SerpinB2 protein was lost without the loss of the transgene, indicating selective pressure against long-term SerpinB2 protein expression. To further investigate long-term SerpinB2 expression adenovirus and lentivirus vectors were used. Infection of tumour cell lines with adenovirus vectors expressing SerpinB2 resulted in reduced cell growth, characterised by increased p53 (but not Rb) levels and G2 arrest or apoptosis. When SerpinB2 expressing lentivirus vectors were used to transduce the same tumour cell lines, high levels of long-term expression of functional SerpinB2 was achieved. However, SerpinB2-expressing cell lines showed no differences in growth, proliferation, Rb levels, or apoptosis induced by a range of agents. Growth and apoptosis observed with adenovirus SerpinB2 had all the characteristics of adenovirus-associated toxicity, which has been reported previously for specific proteins. These experiments highlighted the problems associated with SerpinB2 expression systems and suggest that SerpinB2 expression per se is not toxic nor has a role in regulating Rb, growth and apoptosis. Screening of a number of tumour cell lines identified the HPV16 transformed cervical cancer line as expressing high levels of SerpinB2. SerpinB2 was located both extracellularly and intracellularly with a cytoplasmic and nuclear distribution. A high molecular weight SerpinB2 species was identified in CaSki cells and was shown to be the N-linked glycosylated species. Sequencing showed the protein to be Type A SerpinB2 and the protein was shown to form an inhibitory complex with uPA. An abundant low molecular weight SerpinB2 species was also identified in CaSki cell supernatants and appeared to be a proteolytic fragment of SerpinB2. Treatment of CaSki with PMA, TNFα and IFNγ increased SerpinB2 levels. Lentiviral based shRNA failed to significantly down regulate SerpinB2 expression and increasing SerpinB2 levels with lentiviral expression did not change growth, apoptosis, Rb levels or E7 transcription. Lentiviral expression of SerpinB2 in (normally SerpinB2 negative) HPV16 transformed SiHa cells, also failed to show changes in Rb levels or E7 transcription. CaSki thus express wild-type and functional SerpinB2, but no evidence could found that SerpinB2 effects HPV16 E7 transcription or Rb levels. The data presented identifies CaSki as valuable source of biologically functional SerpinB2. SerpinB2 expression in breast cancer cells has been associated with positive prognosis. Tubo, a SerpinB2-negative murine breast carcinoma cell line, was transduced with lentivirus expressing SerpinB2 and grown subcutaneously in BALB/c mice. SerpinB2 expressing tumours appeared red and were larger than control tumours. Furthermore, SerpinB2 expressing tumours had a ≈2 fold higher density of blood vessels when compared to Tubo and Tubo expressing EGFP. Mice carrying tumours expressing SerpinB2 also showed reduced anti-tumour IgG2 responses. These data suggest that a role for SerpinB2 in regulating angiogenesis and antitumour immunity. In conclusion, this thesis challenges the notion that SerpinB2 regulates Rb, cell cycle, and apoptosis and suggests a potential role for SerpinB2 in tumour angiogenesis and immunity.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-99).

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD (Biochemistry) / Human Retinoblastoma Binding Protein 6 (RBBP6) is a 200 kDa protein that has been implicated in a number of crucial cellular processes. It forms part of the mRNA 3'-end processing complex in both humans and yeast, and it contains an RS-like domain and interacts with core splicing proteins, suggesting multiple roles in mRNA processing. Through its RING finger domain it has been implicated in catalysing ubiquitination of the tumour suppressor p53, the oncogene Y-Box Binding Protein 1 (YB-1) and the DNA replication-associated protein zBTB38. It is one of only a few proteins known to bind to both p53 and pRb. At the N-terminus of the protein is the DWNN domain, an ubiquitin-like domain which is found only in this protein family. Four protein isoforms of RBBP6 have been identified in humans, all of which contain the DWNN domain: isoform 1 contains 1972 residues, isoform 2 contains 1758 residues and isoform 4 contains 952 residues. Isoform 3, which contains the first 101 residues of the full length protein (isoform 1), including the DWNN domain, followed by an unique 17-amino acid tail, is reported to be expressed independently of the other isoforms and to be down-regulated in a number of cancers.

Tese (doutorado) - Universidade de São Paulo, Instituto de Biociencias, 1988 / Made available in DSpace on 2013-12-05T20:01:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 1988

Tumorigenesis is a multifaceted set of events consisting of the deregulation of several cell-autonomous and tissue microenvironmental processes that ultimately leads to the acquisition of malignant disease. Transforming growth factor beta (TGFß) and its family members are regulatory cytokines that function to ensure proper organismal development and the maintenance of homeostasis by controlling cellular differentiation, proliferation, adhesion, and survival, as well as by modulating components of the cellular microenvironment and immune system. The pleiotropic control by TGFß of these cell intrinsic and extrinsic factors is intimately linked to the prevention of tumor formation, the specifics of which are dependent on the various cellular and/or molecular signaling contexts that exist for TGFß. The diverse roles and the various levels of signal control for TGFß lend themselves to certain characteristics that are more advantageous for cancers to usurp in order to promote tumorigenesis, while other anti-tumorigenic roles for TGFß are more beneficial to tumor development if they are circumvented or disabled. Transforming growth factor ß1 (TGF-ß1) exerts its anti-tumor effects in large part by potently inhibiting cell cycle progression at any point in G1 phase to control the proliferation of a variety of cell lineages. Loss of sensitivity to TGF-ß1-induced cell cycle arrest is a crucial event during early tumorigenesis. Indeed, cancer cells of almost all tumor types display insensitivity to TGF-ß1 inhibition. As such, the pursuit of the molecular details underlying the TGF-ß1 growth arrest pathway is important for our understanding of cell cycle regulation, and significantly, how disruption of these mechanisms contributes to TGF-ß1 insensitivity and tumorigenesis. TGF-ß1 inhibition of the cell cycle in G1 phase has been shown to involve two main transcriptionally based molecular events, including the induction of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitors and the suppression of the c-Myc protein. Both mechanisms contribute to the maintenance of the retinoblastoma (Rb) protein in its hypophosphorylated and antiproliferative form, thus preventing progression through the cell cycle. However, this type of regulation does not offer answers to all of the questions regarding TGF-ß1 arrest. While these transcriptional mechanisms provide explanations for TGF-ß1 arrest throughout most of G1, inhibition late in G1 by TGF-ß1 however, does not require any acute regulation of transcription. In addition, the chance to utilize canonical TGF-ß1 arrest mechanisms at this time has already passed (i.e. Rb is already hyperphosphorylated by late-G1). Previous work from our group shows instead that late-G1 TGF-ß1 cell cycle arrest requires an intact direct interaction between the N-terminus of Rb (RbN) and the C terminus of Mcm7, a subunit of the Cdc45-MCM-GINS (CMG) replicative helicase. Our studies show that TGF-ß1 exposure in late-G1 prevents the disassociation of Rb with fully assembled helicases, which remain inactive. In addition, it was found that early-G1 treatment with TGF-ß1 also targets CMG components, namely MCM protein accumulation (and therefore hexamer formation) in G1 is blocked. However, the residue(s) of RbN involved as well as the molecular mechanisms Rb utilizes for late-G1 TGF-ß1 arrest are not described, nor is it evident from this work if TGF-ß1 affects other genes involved in CMG assembly and/or activation. In the following study we explore these unanswered questions for TGF-ß1 growth arrest as a means to understand novel aspects of cell cycle regulation that must be abrogated during tumorigenesis. Our hypothesis is that CMG helicase control on some level is critical for all TGF-ß1-induced inhibition of cell cycle progression throughout the entire G1 phase. In Chapter 2 herein we have investigated the details and mechanistic implications of the Rb/RbN inhibitory-interaction with the CMG helicase that is required for late-G1 TGF-ß1 arrest. We show that N-terminal exons of Rb that are lost in partially penetrant hereditary retinoblastomas inhibit DNA replication and elongation using a bipartite mechanism. Specifically, Rb exon 7 is necessary and sufficient to inhibit CMG helicase activation, while an independent loop domain within RbN that forms a projection blocks DNA polymerase α (Pol-α) and Ctf4 recruitment without affecting polymerases δ and ε or the CMG helicase. Individual disruption of exon 7 or the projection in RbN or Rb, as occurs in inherited cancers, partially impairs the ability of Rb/RbN to inhibit DNA replication and block G1-S cell cycle transit. Importantly, their combined loss abolishes these functions of Rb. Thus, TGF-ß1 cell cycle arrest in late-G1 requires the growth suppressive role of Rb in which replicative complexes are blocked directly via independent and additive N-terminal domains. TGF-ß1-induced arrest in late-G1 also requires the presence of Smad3 and Smad4, suggesting that a novel transcription-independent role may exist for Smad signaling proteins in blocking cell cycle transit directly in Rb-CMG inhibitory complexes. TGF-ß1 is thought to require a functional Rb protein to inhibit the cell cycle at any point in G1 phase. Intriguingly, while cells lacking Rb (and the inhibitory N-terminal domains) lose sensitivity to TGF-ß1 arrest in late-G1, these same cells remain sensitive to TGF-ß1 inhibition in early-G1. This Rb-independent TGF-ß1 growth arrest also occurs in the absence of c-Myc and MCM suppression, as well as without CyclinE-Cdk2 inhibition, but requires Smad3 and Smad4 respectively. Here (Chapter 3) we have identified the mechanism by which TGF-ß1 achieves Smad-dependent G1 arrest in the absence of these common mediators. TGF-ß1 inhibits the assembly of CMG replicative helicases by suppressing the recruitment of the MCM complex to chromatin. Accordingly, the entire heterohexamer fails to load onto DNA. Cdc6 phosphorylation in its amino terminus is known to be required for Cdt1-dependent loading of the MCM complex. We show that in Rb-lacking cells early-G1 TGF-ß1 treatment blocks the phosphorylation of Cdc6 at serine 54, without affecting total Cdc6 protein levels, to prevent MCM heterohexamer formation on DNA. Consistent with TGF-ß1 signals targeting this recruitment and loading step, Cdt1 overexpression promotes S-phase entry in the presence of TGF-ß1, circumventing the need for Cdc6 phosphorylation. Importantly, Cdt1 requires an intact C-terminal MCM-binding domain in order to overcome this TGF-ß1-induced cell cycle arrest mechanism. These data indicate that early-G1 TGF-ß1 arrest can occur by perturbing Cdc6 phosphorylation to block Cdt1-mediated MCM recruitment and loading, leading to inhibition of CMG assembly and S-phase entry despite the lack of Rb and normal c-Myc and CyclinE-Cdk2 activities. We conclude that the main event governing TGF-ß1-induced cell cycle arrest at any point in G1 is the inhibition of the assembly and/or activation of the replicative CMG helicase. However, TGF-ß1 growth arrest has a temporal dependence on the presence of the Rb protein. In normal cells containing Rb, the accumulation of MCM subunit proteins is blocked by TGF-ß1 in early-G1 and accordingly MCM heterohexamers are unable to form. However, if cells are allowed to transit to late-G1 when MCM complexes have already assembled on origins, but before functional CMG helicases have formed at G1-S, exposure to TGF-ß1 signaling prevents CMG activation via interactions with critical inhibitory domains within RbN. Cells lacking Rb (and these residues) are not sensitive to TGF-ß1 in late-G1. Surprisingly, these cells remain sensitive to TGF-ß1 early in G1 phase despite a lack of c-Myc/MCM protein suppression and CyclinE-Cdk2 inhibition. In these cells the recruitment and loading of the MCM complex is blocked to facilitate a TGF-ß1-mediated G1 arrest. It is only when this mechanism is overcome by Cdt1 overexpression that TGF-ß1 is unable to elicit cell cycle arrest in these cells. These data provide molecular explanations for studies reporting instances of TGF-ß1 arrest without canonical effectors, such as Rb, c-Myc loss, or CDK inhibitors. Additionally, this work argues for the development of novel cancer therapeutics targeting CMG helicase assembly or activation, the regulation of which is likely lost in a variety of TGF-ß1-insensitive and/or Rb-deficient malignancies. Indeed, reintroduction of these tumor suppressive pathways has shown efficacy in blocking growth of tumors or cancer cells lacking the same mechanisms. Our studies of Rb/RbN inhibition of DNA replication also provide proof of principle for this type of therapy, as well as the framework for how the CMG might be targeted by exploring further and perhaps mimicking Rb exon7-mediated CMG inhibition biochemically.

Masters of Science / Retinoblastoma Binding Protein 6 (RBBP6) is a RING finger-containing protein which plays a critical role in the 3'-end processing of mRNA transcripts. It is a constituent of the human pre-mRNA processing complex but also interacts directly with core splicing-associated proteins. RBBP6 also interacts with both major tumour suppressor proteins p53 and pRb and is known to play a critical role in suppression of p53 during development, in cooperation with MDM2. Through its RING finger it interacts with the C-terminus of the oncogenic protein Y-Box Binding Protein 1 (YB-1) both in vitro and in vivo, catalysing its ubiquitination and degradation in the proteasome. YB-1 is closely associated with tumour progression, poor patient prognosis and chemotherapeutic resistance, making it a promising target for therapeutic intervention. Unpublished data from our laboratory suggests that RBBP6 is able to poly-ubiquitinate YB-1 in vitro, using UbcH1 as the ubiquitin- conjugating enzyme (E2). This study aims to identify RBBP6 RING protein-protein interactions involved in the down regulation of YB-1 by RBBP6. These interactions include the C-terminal fragment of YB-1 (substrate), MDM2 (E3) and UbcH1 (E2). The C-terminal fragment of YB-1, denoted YB-1₂₂₀₋₃₂₄, was successfully cloned and expressed in bacteria and demonstrated to interact directly with the RBBP6 RING finger domain in in vitro affinity pull down assays. This is in good agreement with our unpublished data that RBBP6 is able to ubiquitinate full length YB-1 as well as the YB-1₂₂₀₋₃₂₄ fragment. UbcH1 was successfully expressed and shown to interact directly with RBBP6 RING in in vitro affinity pull down assays. This is also in agreement with our data showing that RBBP6 is able to ubiquitinate YB-1 using UbcH1 as E2. ¹⁵N-labelled samples of RBBP6 RING was successfully expressed in bacteria and used to investigate the putative interaction with UbcH1 in NMR-based chemical shift perturbation assays. However no interaction was observed, possibly because the sample of UbcH1 was subsequently found using mass spectrometery to be partially degraded. GST-tagged RBBP6 RING was able to precipitate MDM2 from HeLa lysate. This extends previous reports that full length RBBP6 and MDM2 interact directly and play a role in the suppression of p53 during development. The result was validated by showing that GST-MDM2 was able to precipitate RBBP6 RING in in vitro. This study includes a side project which involved the cloning and expression of DWNN-GG. GST-HADWNN-GG was successfully cloned and expressed in bacteria. An HA tag was included immediately upstream of DWNN-GG for immunodetection using anti-HA antibodies; the construct was designed in such as way that it could be re-used to generate HA-tagged versions of existing constructs cloned into pGEX-6P-2. The above findings lay the foundation for future structural and functional studies of the involvement of RBBP6 in regulation of the cancer-related proteins p53 and YB-1, which may have far-reaching consequences in the fight against cancer. / National Research Foundation (NRF)

>Magister Scientiae - MSc / Retinoblastoma Binding Protein 6 (RBBP6) is a 200 KDa multi-domain protein that has been shown to play a role in mRNA processing, cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. RBBP6 interacts with tumour suppressor proteins such as p53 and pRb and has been shown cooperate with Murine Double Minute 2 (MDM2) protein in catalyzing ubiquitination and suppression of p53. Unpublished data from our laboratory has suggested that RBBP6 and MDM2 interact with each other through their RING finger domains. RBBP6 has also been shown to have its own E3 ubiquitin ligase activity, catalyzing ubiquitination of Y-Box Binding Protein 1 (YB-1) in vitro and in vivo. YB- 1 is a multifunctional oncogenic protein that is generally associated with poor prognosis in cancer, tumourigenesis, metastasis and chemotherapeutic resistance. Unpublished data from our laboratory shows that RBBP6 catalyzes poly-ubiquitination of YB-1, using Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme H1 (UbcH1) as E2 ubiquitin conjugating enzyme. / 2022-02-25

Protein phosphorylation is a reversible post-translation modification that is essential in cell signaling. It is estimated that a third of all cellular proteins are phosphorylated (reviewed in Ficarro et al., 2002), with more than 98% of those phosphorylation events occurring on serine and threonine residues (Olsen et al., 2006). Kinases are the necessary enzymes for phosphorylation and protein phosphatases dynamically reverse this action. While the mechanisms of substrate recognition for kinases have been well-characterized to date, the same is not true for phosphatases that play an equally important role in opposing kinase function and determining global phosphorylation levels in cells. This dichotomy has also translated into the clinic, where there has been a persistently narrow research focus on the development of small-molecule kinase inhibitors for use as chemotherapeutic agents, without an equal effort being placed into the generation of the analogous phosphatase activators (reviewed in Westermarck, 2018). Members of the phosphoprotein phosphatase (PPP) family of serine/threonine phosphatases are responsible for the majority of dephosphorylation in eukaryotic cells, with protein phosphatase 1 (PP1) and protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) accounting for more than 90% of the total phosphatase activity (Moorhead et al., 2007; Virshup and Shenolikar, 2009). Structurally, PP2A is a trimeric holoenzyme consisting of a scaffold (A) subunit, a regulatory (B) subunit, and a catalytic (C) subunit. B55α is a ubiquitous regulatory subunit that is reported to target many substrates with critical functions in processes including cell division. A long-standing question that has persisted in the field of cellular signaling is as to how the most abundant serine/threonine PP2A holoenzyme, PP2A/B55α, specifically recognizes substrates and presents them to the enzyme active site for subsequent dephosphorylation. Such critical data have only recently become well understood for the B56 family of ‘B’ regulatory subunits, where an LxxIxE short linear motif (or SLiM) has been identified in a subset of protein targets and shown via crystal structure analysis to dock into a 100% conserved binding pocket on the B56 surface (Hertz et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016a; Wang et al., 2016b; Wu et al., 2017). Here, we show how B55α recruits p107, a pRB-related tumor suppressor and B55α substrate. Using molecular and cellular approaches, we identified a conserved region 1 (R1, residues 615-626) encompassing the strongest p107 binding site. This enabled us to identify an “HxRVxxV619-625” SLiM in p107 as necessary for B55α binding and dephosphorylation of the proximal pSer-615 in vitro and in cells. Numerous additional PP2A/B55α substrates, including TAU, contain a related SLiM C-terminal from a proximal phosphosite, allowing us to propose a consensus SLiM sequence, “p[ST]-P-x(5-10)-[RK]-V-x-x-[VI]-R”. In support of this, mutation of conserved SLiM residues in TAU dramatically inhibits dephosphorylation by PP2A/B55α, validating its generality. Moreover, a data-guided computational model details the interaction of residues from the conserved p107 SLiM, the B55α groove, and phosphosite presentation to the PP2A/C active site. Altogether, these data provide key insights into PP2A/B55α mechanisms of substrate recruitment and active site engagement, and also facilitate identification and validation of new substrates, a key step towards understanding the role of PP2A/B55α in many key cellular processes. As a parallel continuation of our efforts to identify novel B55α substrates/regulators, we generated mutant B55α constructs that occlude PP2A/A-C dimer engagement but retain substrate binding to the β-propeller structure (allowing us to interrogate direct interactors). Our preliminary AP-MS data led to the identification of several proteins that bound better to our “monomeric B55α” mutant compared to wild-type B55α in the context of the PP2A/B55α heterotrimer, including the centrosomal proteins HAUS6 and CEP170 (two substrates previously validated in a phosphoproteomic screen by our lab), suggesting that these mutants trap substrates as they cannot be dephosphorylated by PP2A/C. These analyses also identified an enrichment of T-complex protein 1 subunits in the “monomeric B55α” mutant elutions, further supporting the notion that these mutants may function as dominant negatives. Several additional proteins of interest were identified in the two independent rounds of mass spectrometry, including subunits of the DNA-directed RNA polymerases I, II, and IV, as well as the double-strand break repair protein MRE11, which can be followed up as potential novel B55α substrates. These studies can contribute to significant advances in our understanding of the network of proteins that B55α interacts with, and thus the signaling pathways that can be modulated by PP2A/B55α complexes in cells. Moreover, these advances can also provide translational benefits as has been demonstrated through the study of PP2A activators termed SMAPs, which demonstrate selective stabilization of PP2A/B56α complexes in cells that result in selective dephosphorylation of substrates including the oncogenic target c-MYC. / Biomedical Sciences

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / DNA is subject to various types of damage that can impair cellular function or cause cell death. DNA damage blocks normal cellular processes such as replication and transcription and can have catastrophic consequences for the cell and for the organism. It has long been thought that the G1/S cell cycle checkpoint allows time for DNA repair by delaying S-phase entry. The p53 tumor suppressor pathway regulates the G1/S checkpoint by regulating the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21Waf1/Cip1, but p53 also regulates the nucleotide excision DNA repair protein XPC. Here, using p53-null cell lines we show that additional mechanisms stabilize XPC protein and promote NER in concert with the G1/S checkpoint. At least one mechanism to stabilize and destabilize XPC involves ubiquitin-mediated degradation of XPC, as the ubiquitin ligase inhibitor MG-132 blocked XPC degradation. The retinoblastoma protein, RB, in its unphosphorylated form actually stabilized XPC and promoted NER as measured by host-cell reactivation experiments. The data suggest that XPC protein and XPC-mediated NER is tightly linked to the G1/S checkpoint even in cells lacking functional p53.