In Vitro Ubiquitination and Deubiquitination Assays of Nucleosomal Histones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ubiquitination is a post-translational modification that plays important roles in various signaling pathways and is notably involved in the coordination of chromatin function and DNA-associated processes. This modification involves a sequential action of several enzymes including E1 ubiquitin-activating, E2 ubiquitin-conjugating and E3 ubiquitin-ligase and is reversed by deubiquitinases (DUBs). Ubiquitination induces degradation of proteins or alteration of protein function including modulation of enzymatic activity, protein-protein interaction and subcellular localization. A critical step in demonstrating protein ubiquitination or deubiquitination is to perform in vitro reactions with purified components. Effective ubiquitination and deubiquitination reactions could be greatly impacted by the different components used, enzyme co-factors, buffer conditions, and the nature of the substrate. Here, we provide step-by-step protocols for conducting ubiquitination and deubiquitination reactions. We illustrate these reactions using minimal components of the mouse Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 (PRC1), BMI1, and RING1B, an E3 ubiquitin ligase that monoubiquitinates histone H2A on lysine 119. Deubiquitination of nucleosomal H2A is performed using a minimal Polycomb Repressive Deubiquitinase (PR-DUB) complex formed by the human deubiquitinase BAP1 and the DEUBiquitinase ADaptor (DEUBAD) domain of its co-factor ASXL2. These ubiquitination/deubiquitination assays can be conducted in the context of either recombinant nucleosomes reconstituted with bacteria-purified proteins or native nucleosomes purified from mammalian cells. We highlight the intricacies that can have a significant impact on these reactions and we propose that the general principles of these protocols can be swiftly adapted to other E3 ubiquitin ligases and deubiquitinases.
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".