Steric Mechanism of Auto-Inhibitory Regulation of Specific and Non-Specific DNA Binding by the ETS Transcriptional Repressor ETV6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA binding by the ETS transcriptional repressor ETV6 (or TEL) is auto-inhibited ~50-fold due to an α-helix that sterically blocks its ETS domain binding interface. Using NMR spectroscopy, we demonstrate that this marginally stable helix is unfolded, and not displaced to a non-inhibitory position, when ETV6 is bound to DNA containing a consensus (5')GGAA(3') recognition site. Although significantly lower in affinity, binding to non-specific DNA is auto-inhibited ~5-fold and is also accompanied by helix unfolding. Based on NMR chemical shift perturbations, both specific and non-specific DNA are bound via the same canonical ETS domain interface. However, spectral perturbations are smaller for the non-specific complex, suggesting weaker and less well-defined interactions than in the specific complex. In parallel, the crystal structure of ETV6 bound to a specific DNA duplex was determined. The structure of this complex reveals that a non-conserved histidine residue in the ETS domain recognition helix helps establish the specificity of ETV6 for DNA-binding sites containing (5')GGAA(3')versus(5')GGAT(3'). These studies provide a unified steric mechanism for attenuating ETV6 binding to both specific and non-specific DNA and expand the repertoire of characterized auto-inhibitory strategies utilized to regulate ETS factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".