Identification and Functional Characterization of a Ku-binding Motif in Aprataxin Polynucleotide Kinase/Phosphatase-like Factor (APLF)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aprataxin polynucleotide kinase/phosphatase-like factor (APLF) facilitates nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and associates with the core NHEJ components XRCC4-DNA ligase IV and Ku. The APLF forkhead-associated (FHA) domain directs interactions with XRCC4, but the APLF-Ku interaction has not been well characterized. Here we describe an evolutionarily conserved amino acid motif within APLF that is required for mediating the physical interaction between APLF and Ku. This APLF Ku-binding motif possesses a similarity to regions identified in other NHEJ factors, WRN and XLF, which also direct interactions with Ku. Indeed, peptides derived from the Ku-binding region of APLF, WRN, or XLF were sufficient to reconstitute the interaction with Ku in vitro. Although APLF is localized predominantly to the nucleus, it does not possess a nuclear localization signal (NLS). Interestingly, the disruption of the APLF-Ku interaction by substituting key residues in the APLF Ku-binding motif was associated with increased relocalization of APLF to the cytoplasm and reduced association with XRCC4, which was rescued by the introduction of an NLS onto APLF. When human cells stably depleted of APLF were reconstituted with APLF Ku-binding mutants, or with an APLF FHA mutant that is known to disrupt interactions with XRCC4, APLF-dependent NHEJ and the retention of APLF at sites of laser-generated DNA damage were impaired. These data suggest functional requirements for Ku and XRCC4 in APLF-dependent NHEJ and a unique role for Ku as a factor required to facilitate the nuclear retention of APLF.Background: APLF interacts with Ku and facilitates nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ).Results: APLF possesses a Ku-binding motif, and disruption of the APLF-Ku interaction impairs both NHEJ and the nuclear retention of APLF.Conclusion: The APLF-Ku interaction is functionally important in DNA repair and may be important for APLF stability.Significance: The APLF Ku-binding motif appears to represent a general Ku-binding motif. Aprataxin polynucleotide kinase/phosphatase-like factor (APLF) facilitates nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and associates with the core NHEJ components XRCC4-DNA ligase IV and Ku. The APLF forkhead-associated (FHA) domain directs interactions with XRCC4, but the APLF-Ku interaction has not been well characterized. Here we describe an evolutionarily conserved amino acid motif within APLF that is required for mediating the physical interaction between APLF and Ku. This APLF Ku-binding motif possesses a similarity to regions identified in other NHEJ factors, WRN and XLF, which also direct interactions with Ku. Indeed, peptides derived from the Ku-binding region of APLF, WRN, or XLF were sufficient to reconstitute the interaction with Ku in vitro. Although APLF is localized predominantly to the nucleus, it does not possess a nuclear localization signal (NLS). Interestingly, the disruption of the APLF-Ku interaction by substituting key residues in the APLF Ku-binding motif was associated with increased relocalization of APLF to the cytoplasm and reduced association with XRCC4, which was rescued by the introduction of an NLS onto APLF. When human cells stably depleted of APLF were reconstituted with APLF Ku-binding mutants, or with an APLF FHA mutant that is known to disrupt interactions with XRCC4, APLF-dependent NHEJ and the retention of APLF at sites of laser-generated DNA damage were impaired. These data suggest functional requirements for Ku and XRCC4 in APLF-dependent NHEJ and a unique role for Ku as a factor required to facilitate the nuclear retention of APLF. Background: APLF interacts with Ku and facilitates nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ). Results: APLF possesses a Ku-binding motif, and disruption of the APLF-Ku interaction impairs both NHEJ and the nuclear retention of APLF. Conclusion: The APLF-Ku interaction is functionally important in DNA repair and may be important for APLF stability. Significance: The APLF Ku-binding motif appears to represent a general Ku-binding motif.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».