ETV4 and AP1 transcription factors form multivalent interactions with three sites on the MED25 activator-interacting domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The recruitment of transcriptional cofactors by sequence-specific transcription factors challenges the basis of high affinity and selective interactions. Extending previous studies that the N-terminal activation domain (AD) of ETV5 interacts with Mediator subunit 25 (MED25), we establish that similar, aromatic-rich motifs located both in the AD and in the DNA-binding domain (DBD) of the related ETS factor ETV4 interact with MED25. These ETV4 regions bind MED25 independently, display distinct kinetics, and combine to contribute to a high-affinity interaction of full-length ETV4 with MED25. Within the ETS family, high-affinity interactions with MED25 are specific for the ETV1/4/5 subfamily as other ETS factors display weaker or no detectable binding. The AD binds to a single site on MED25 and the DBD interacts with three MED25 sites, allowing for simultaneous binding of both domains in full-length ETV4. MED25 also stimulates the in vitro DNA binding activity of ETV4 by relieving autoinhibition. ETV1/4/5 factors are often overexpressed in prostate cancer and genome-wide studies in a prostate cancer cell line indicate that ETV4 and MED25 occupy enhancers that are enriched for ETS-binding sequences and are both functionally important for the transcription of genes regulated by these enhancers. AP1-binding sequences were observed in MED25-occupied regions and JUN/FOS also contact MED25; FOS strongly binds to the same MED25 site as ETV4 AD and JUN interacts with the other two MED25 sites. In summary, we describe features of the multivalent ETV4- and AP1-MED25 interactions, thereby implicating these factors in the recruitment of MED25 to transcriptional control elements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".