Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26757817›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2016

Transcription Factors and DNA Repair Enzymes Compete for Damaged Promoter Sites.

Stephen P G Moore, Joshua Kruchten, Kimberly J Toomire, Phyllis R Strauss

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 8-Oxoguanine: A Lesion, an Epigenetic Mark, or a Molecular Signal?International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Individuals with intellectual disability have an increased burden ofmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ligand-induced gene activation is associated with oxidative genome damage whose repair is required for transcription.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen P G MooreFrom the Department of Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Joshua KruchtenFrom the Department of Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Kimberly J ToomireFrom the Department of Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Phyllis R StraussFrom the Department of Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. Electronic address: p.strauss@neu.edu.
Northeastern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcriptional regulation is a tightly regulated, vital process. The transcription factor cyclic AMP-response element-binding protein 1 (CREB1) controls ∼25% of the mammalian transcriptome by binding the CREB1 binding site consensus sequence (CRE) sequence (TGACGTCA). DNA lesions within CRE modulate CREB1 binding negatively and positively. Because appropriate DNA lesions also interact with base excision repair proteins, we investigated whether CREB1 and repair glycosylases compete with each other. We incubated 39-mer CRE-containing double-stranded oligonucleotides with recombinant CREB1 alone or with UNG2 or OGG1, followed by EMSA. The CpG islet within CRE was modified to contain a G/U or 8-oxoG (°G)/C mispair. OGG1 and CREB1 reversibly competed for CRE containing an °G/C pair. Also, OGG1 blocked CREB1 from dimerizing by 69%, even when total CREB1 binding was reduced only by 20-30%. In contrast, bound CREB1 completely prevented access to G/U-containing CRE by UNG2 and, therefore, to base excision repair, whereas UNG2 exposure prevented CREB1 binding. CREB1 dimerization was unaffected by UNG2 when CREB1 bound to CRE, but was greatly reduced by prior UNG2 exposure. To explore physiological relevance, we microinjected zebrafish embryos with the same oligonucleotides, as a sink for endogenous CREB1. As predicted, microinjection with unmodified or lesion-containing CRE, but not scrambled CRE or scrambled CRE with a G/U mispair, resulted in increased embryo death. However, only the G/U mispair in native CRE resulted in substantial developmental abnormalities, thus confirming the danger of unrepaired G/U mispairs in promoters. In summary, CREB1 and DNA glycosylases compete for damaged CRE in vitro and in vivo, thus blocking DNA repair and resulting in transcriptional misregulation leading to abnormal development.

Indexed as

DNA DamagePromoter Regions, GeneticAnimalsBase SequenceConsensus SequenceCyclic AMP Response Element-Binding ProteinDNA GlycosylasesDNA RepairHumansProtein MultimerizationRecombinant ProteinsZebrafishCREB1 protein, humanCyclic AMP Response Element-Binding ProteinDNA GlycosylasesRecombinant Proteins8-Oxoguanine (8-oxoG)8-Oxoguanine glycosylase (OGG1)cAMP-response element-binding protein (CREB)CREB1 transcription factordevelopmentDNA base excision repairDNA damage repairDNA repairembryoglycosylase/transcription factor competitionG/U mispairtranscriptionuracil DNA glycosylasezebrafish

Identifiers

PMID26757817
PMCPMC4786688
OpenAlexW2237137237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.