SUMOylation of the ING1b tumor suppressor regulates gene transcription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The INhibitor of Growth (ING) proteins are encoded as multiple isoforms in five ING genes (ING1 -5) and act as type II tumor suppressors. They are growth inhibitory when overexpressed and are frequently mislocalized or downregulated in several forms of cancer. ING1 and ING2 are stoichiometric members of histone deacetylase complexes, whereas ING3-5 are stoichiometric components of different histone acetyltransferase complexes. The INGs target these complexes to histone marks, thus acting as epigenetic regulators. ING proteins affect angiogenesis, apoptosis, DNA repair, metastasis and senescence, but how the proteins themselves are regulated is not yet clear. Here, we find a small ubiquitin-like modification (SUMOylation) of the ING1b protein and identify lysine 193 (K193) as the preferred ING1b SUMO acceptor site. We also show that PIAS4 is the E3 SUMO ligase responsible for ING1b SUMOylation on K193. Sequence alignment reveals that the SUMO consensus site on ING1b contains a phosphorylation-dependent SUMOylation motif (PDSM) and our data indicate that the SUMOylation on K193 is enhanced by the S199D phosphomimic mutant. Using an ING1b protein mutated at the major SUMOylation site (ING1b E195A), we further demonstrate that ING1b SUMOylation regulates the binding of ING1b to the ISG15 and DGCR8 promoters, consequently regulating ISG15 and DGCR8 transcription. These results suggest a role for ING1b SUMOylation in the regulation of gene transcription.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".