Sumoylation of MITF and Its Related Family Members TFE3 and TFEB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MITF and its related family members TFE3 and TFEB heterodimerize with each other, recognize the same DNA sequences, and are subject to many of the same post-translational modifications. We show that lysine residues within conserved small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) consensus sites in these family members are subject to SUMO modification. Mutation of these sites significantly affects the transcriptional activity of MITF but does not alter dimerization, DNA binding, stability, or nuclear localization. Mutagenesis reducing the number of MITF binding sites in the promoter of TRPM1 from three to one eliminated the difference in transcriptional activity between the MITF mutants. Among other MITF target gene promoter constructs, differences in transcriptional activity between wild type and non-sumoylatable MITF were only seen in promoters with multiple MITF binding sites. These data support a synergy control model in which the functional consequences of MITF sumoylation depend on promoter context. Sumoylation, thus, provides a possible mechanism for altering the effects of MITF by affecting the target genes that it activates.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".