Table of Contents
ISRN Virology
Volume 2014, Article ID 989160, 14 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/989160
Research Article

The Mre11 Cellular Protein Is Modified by Conjugation of Both SUMO-1 and SUMO-2/3 during Adenovirus Infection

1Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Avenida Universidad 1001, 62209 Cuernavaca, MOR, Mexico
2Heinrich Pette Institute, Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Martinistrasse 52, 20251 Hamburg, Germany
3European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Meyerhofstrasse 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany

Received 18 January 2014; Accepted 9 March 2014; Published 7 April 2014

Academic Editors: M. Magnani and D. A. Ornelles

Copyright © 2014 Elizabeth Castillo-Villanueva et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. Boyer, K. Rohleder, and G. Ketner, “Adenovirus E4 34k and E4 11k inhibit double strand break repair and are physically associated with the cellular DNA-dependent protein kinase,” Virology, vol. 263, no. 2, pp. 307–312, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. P. Blanchette, Y. C. Chi, Q. Yan et al., “Both BC-box motifs of adenovirus protein E4orf6 are required to efficiently assemble an E3 ligase complex that degrades p53,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 24, no. 21, pp. 9619–9629, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. J. N. Harada, A. Shevchenko, A. Shevchenko, D. C. Pallas, and A. J. Berk, “Analysis of the adenovirus E1B-55K-anchored proteome reveals its link to ubiquitination machinery,” Journal of Virology, vol. 76, no. 18, pp. 9194–9206, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. J. L. Woo and A. J. Berk, “Adenovirus ubiquitin-protein ligase stimulates viral late mRNA nuclear export,” Journal of Virology, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 575–587, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. T. H. Stracker, C. T. Carson, and M. D. Weilzman, “Adenovirus oncoproteins inactivate the Mre11-Rad50-NBs1 DNA repair complex,” Nature, vol. 418, no. 6895, pp. 348–352, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. S. Schreiner, P. Wimmer, and T. Dobner, “Adenovirus degradation of cellular proteins,” Future Microbiology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 211–225, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. N. I. Orazio, C. M. Naeger, J. Karlseder, and M. D. Weitzman, “The adenovirus E1b55K/E4orf6 complex induces degradation of the bloom helicase during infection,” Journal of Virology, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 1887–1892, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. Y. Liu, A. Shevchenko, A. Shevchenko, and A. J. Berk, “Adenovirus exploits the cellular aggresome response to accelerate inactivation of the MRN complex,” Journal of Virology, vol. 79, no. 22, pp. 14004–14016, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. F. Dallaire, P. Blanchette, P. Groitl, T. Dobner, and P. E. Branton, “Identification of integrin α3 as a new substrate of the adenovirus E4orf6/E1B 55-kilodalton E3 ubiquitin ligase complex,” Journal of Virology, vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 5329–5338, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. N. A. Forrester, G. G. Sedgwick, A. Thomas et al., “Serotype-specific inactivation of the cellular DNA damage response during adenovirus infection,” Journal of Virology, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 2201–2211, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. S. Schreiner, C. Bürck, M. Glass et al., “Control of human adenovirus type 5 gene expression by cellular Daxx/ATRX chromatin-associated complexes,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 3532–3550, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  12. A. Gupta, S. Jha, D. A. Engel, D. A. Ornelles, and A. Dutta, “Tip60 degradation by adenovirus relieves transcriptional repression of viral transcriptional activator EIA,” Oncogene, vol. 32, no. 42, pp. 5017–5025, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  13. P. Blanchette, K. Kindsmüller, P. Groitl et al., “Control of mRNA export by adenovirus E4orf6 and E1B55K proteins during productive infection requires E4orf6 ubiquitin ligase activity,” Journal of Virology, vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 2642–2651, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. R. A. Schwartz, S. S. Lakdawala, H. D. Eshleman, M. R. Russell, C. T. Carson, and M. D. Weitzman, “Distinct requirements of adenovirus E1b55K protein for degradation of cellular substrates,” Journal of Virology, vol. 82, no. 18, pp. 9043–9055, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. R. Gonzalez, W. Huang, R. Finnen, C. Bragg, and S. J. Flint, “Adenovirus E1B 55-kilodalton protein is required for both regulation of mRNA export and efficient entry into the late phase of infection in normal human fibroblasts,” Journal of Virology, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 964–974, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. F. M. Cardoso, S. E. M. Kato, W. Huang, S. J. Flint, and R. A. Gonzalez, “An early function of the adenoviral E1B 55 kDa protein is required for the nuclear relocalization of the cellular p53 protein in adenovirus-infected normal human cells,” Virology, vol. 378, no. 2, pp. 339–346, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. G. Teodoro and P. E. Branton, “Regulation of p53-dependent apoptosis, transcriptional repression, and cell transformation by phosphorylation of the 55-kilodalton E1B protein of human adenovirus type 5,” Journal of Virology, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 3620–3627, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. P. R. Yew and A. J. Berk, “Inhibition of p53 transactivation required for transformation by adenovirus early 1B protein,” Nature, vol. 357, no. 6373, pp. 82–85, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M. D. Weitzman and D. A. Ornelles, “Inactivating intracellular antiviral responses during adenovirus infection,” Oncogene, vol. 24, no. 52, pp. 7686–7696, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. M. D. Weiden and H. S. Ginsberg, “Deletion of the E4 region of the genome produces adenovirus DNA concatemers,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 153–157, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. S. S. Lakdawala, R. A. Schwartz, K. Ferenchak et al., “Differential requirements of the C terminus of Nbs1 in suppressing adenovirus DNA replication and promoting concatemer formation,” Journal of Virology, vol. 82, no. 17, pp. 8362–8372, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. J. D. Evans and P. Hearing, “Distinct roles of the adenovirus E4 ORF3 protein in viral DNA replication and inhibition of genome concatenation,” Journal of Virology, vol. 77, no. 9, pp. 5295–5304, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. D. Evans and P. Hearing, “Relocalization of the Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 complex by the adenovirus E4 ORF3 protein is required for viral replication,” Journal of Virology, vol. 79, no. 10, pp. 6207–6215, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. K. A. Karen, P. J. Hoey, C. S. H. Young, and P. Hearing, “Temporal regulation of the Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 complex during adenovirus infection,” Journal of Virology, vol. 83, no. 9, pp. 4565–4573, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. V. Doucas, A. M. Ishov, A. Romo et al., “Adenovirus replication is coupled with the dynamic properties of the PML nuclear structure,” Genes and Development, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 196–207, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. K. N. Leppard and R. D. Everett, “The adenovirus type 5 E1b 55K and E4 Orf3 proteins associate in infected cells and affect ND10 components,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 80, part 4, pp. 997–1008, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. F. D. Araujo, T. H. Stracker, C. T. Carson, D. V. Lee, and M. D. Weitzman, “Adenovirus type 5 E4orf3 protein targets the Mre11 complex to cytoplasmic aggresomes,” Journal of Virology, vol. 79, no. 17, pp. 11382–11391, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. A. Hoppe, S. J. Beech, J. Dimmock, and K. N. Leppard, “Interaction of the adenovirus type 5 E4 Orf3 protein with promyelocytic leukemia protein isoform II is required for ND10 disruption,” Journal of Virology, vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 3042–3049, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. K. N. Leppard, E. Emmott, M. S. Cortese, and T. Rich, “Adenovirus type 5 E4 Orf3 protein targets promyelocytic leukaemia (PML) protein nuclear domains for disruption via a sequence in PML isoform II that is predicted as a protein interaction site by bioinformatic analysis,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 90, part 1, pp. 95–104, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. J.-S. Seeler and A. Dejean, “Sumo: of branched proteins and nuclear bodies,” Oncogene, vol. 20, no. 49, pp. 7243–7249, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. R. Bernardi and P. P. Pandolfi, “Structure, dynamics and functions of promyelocytic leukaemia nuclear bodies,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1006–1016, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. V. Lallemand-Breitenbach and H. de Thé, “PML nuclear bodies,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 2, no. 5, Article ID a000661, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. M. Lang, T. Jegou, I. Chung et al., “Three-dimensional organization of promyelocytic leukemia nuclear bodies,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 123, part 3, pp. 392–400, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. S. Zhong, P. Salomoni, and P. P. Pandolfi, “The transcription role of PML and the nuclear body,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. E85–E90, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. P. Brand, T. Lenser, and P. Hemmerich, “Assembly dynamics of PML nuclear bodies in living cells,” PMC Biophysics, vol. 3, no. 1, article 3, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. E. van Damme, K. Laukens, T. H. Dang, and X. van Ostade, “A manually curated network of the pml nuclear body interactome reveals an important role for PML-NBs in SUMOylation dynamics,” International Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 51–67, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. P. Heun, “SUMOrganization of the nucleus,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 350–355, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. B. Liu and K. Shuai, “Regulation of the sumoylation system in gene expression,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 288–293, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. R. Jürgen Dohmen, “SUMO protein modification,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta—Molecular Cell Research, vol. 1695, no. 1—3, pp. 113–131, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. A. M. Andreou and N. Tavernarakis, “SUMOylation and cell signalling,” Biotechnology Journal, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 1740–1752, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. Z. Hannoun, S. Greenhough, E. Jaffray, R. T. Hay, and D. C. Hay, “Post-translational modification by SUMO,” Toxicology, vol. 278, no. 3, pp. 288–293, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. J. Schimmel, K. M. Larsen, I. Matic et al., “The ubiquitin-proteasome system is a key component of the SUMO-2/3 cycle,” Molecular and Cellular Proteomics, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 2107–2122, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. M. H. Tatham, E. Jaffray, O. A. Vaughan et al., “Polymeric chains of SUMO-2 and SUMO-3 are conjugated to protein substrates by SAE1/SAE2 and Ubc9,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 38, pp. 35368–35374, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. I. Matic, M. van Hagen, J. Schimmel et al., “In vivo identification of human small ubiquitin-like modifier polymerization sites by high accuracy mass spectrometry and an in vitro to in vivo strategy,” Molecular and Cellular Proteomics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 132–144, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. A. C. O. Vertegaal, “Small ubiquitin-related modifiers in chains,” Biochemical Society Transactions, vol. 35, part 6, pp. 1422–1423, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. T. Hunter and H. Sun, “Crosstalk between the SUMO and ubiquitin pathways,” Ernst Schering Foundation symposium proceedings, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. A. Denuc and G. Marfany, “SUMO and ubiquitin paths converge,” Biochemical Society Transactions, vol. 38, part 1, pp. 34–39, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. G. J. K. Praefcke, K. Hofmann, and R. J. Dohmen, “SUMO playing tag with ubiquitin,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 23–31, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. P. Wimmer, P. Blanchette, S. Schreiner et al., “Cross-talk between phosphorylation and SUMOylation regulates transforming activities of an adenoviral oncoprotein,” Oncogene, vol. 32, no. 13, pp. 1626–1637, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  50. P. Wimmer, S. Schreiner, and T. Dobner, “Human pathogens and the host cell sumoylation system,” Journal of Virology, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 642–654, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. C. Endter, J. Kzhyshkowska, R. Stauber, and T. Dobner, “SUMO-1 modification required for transformation by adenovirus type 5 early region 1B 55-kDa oncoprotein,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 20, pp. 11312–11317, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. K. J. Lethbridge, G. E. Scott, and K. N. Leppard, “Nuclear matrix localization and SUMO-1 modification of adenovirus type 5 E1b 55K protein are controlled by E4 Orf6 protein,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 84, part 2, pp. 259–268, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. K. Kindsmüller, P. Groitl, B. Härtl, P. Blanchette, J. Hauber, and T. Dobner, “Intranuclear targeting and nuclear export of the adenovirus E1B-55K protein are regulated by SUMO1 conjugation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 16, pp. 6684–6689, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. S. Muller and T. Dobner, “The adenovirus E1B-55K oncoprotein induces SUMO modification of p53,” Cell Cycle, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 754–758, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. M. A. Pennella, Y. Liu, J. L. Woo, C. A. Kim, and A. J. Berk, “Adenovirus E1B 55-kilodalton protein is a p53-SUMO1 E3 ligase that represses p53 and stimulates its nuclear export through interactions with promyelocytic leukemia nuclear bodies,” Journal of Virology, vol. 84, no. 23, pp. 12210–12225, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. S. Y. Sohn and P. Hearing, “Adenovirus regulates sumoylation of Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 components through a paralog-specific mechanism,” Journal of Virology, vol. 86, no. 18, pp. 9656–9665, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  57. P. R. Yew, C. C. Kao, and A. J. Berk, “Dissection of functional domains in the adenovirus 2 early 1B 55K polypeptide by suppressor-linked insertional mutagenesis,” Virology, vol. 179, no. 2, pp. 795–805, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. T. Harrison, F. Graham, and J. Williams, “Host range mutants of adenovirus type 5 defective for growth in HeLa cells,” Virology, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 319–329, 1977. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. B. Härtl, T. Zeller, P. Blanchette, E. Kremmer, and T. Dobner, “Adenovirus type 5 early region 1B 55-kDa oncoprotein can promote cell transformation by a mechanism independent from blocking p53-activated transcription,” Oncogene, vol. 27, no. 26, pp. 3673–3684, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. A. J. Bett, V. Krougliak, and F. L. Graham, “DNA sequence of the deletion/insertion in early region 3 of Ad5 dl309,” Virus Research, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 75–82, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. J. F. Williams, “Oncogenic transformation of hamster embryo cells in vitro by adenovirus type 5,” Nature, vol. 243, no. 5403, pp. 162–163, 1973. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. K. Kindsmüller, S. Schreiner, F. Leinenkugel, P. Groitl, E. Kremmer, and T. Dobner, “A 49-kilodalton isoform of the adenovirus type 5 early region 1B 55-kilodalton protein is sufficient to support virus replication,” Journal of Virology, vol. 83, no. 18, pp. 9045–9056, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. P. Groitl and T. Dobner, “Construction of adenovirus type 5 early region 1 and 4 virus mutants,” Methods in molecular medicine, vol. 130, pp. 29–39, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. P. Sarnow, P. Hearing, and C. W. Anderson, “Adenovirus early region 1B 58,000-dalton tumor antigen is physically associated with an early region 4 25,000-dalton protein in productively infected cells,” Journal of Virology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 692–700, 1984. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. C. C. Kao, P. R. Yew, and A. J. Berk, “Domains required for in vitro association between the cellular p53 and the adenovirus 2 E1 B 55K proteins,” Virology, vol. 179, no. 2, pp. 806–814, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. M. J. Marton, S. B. Baim, D. A. Ornelles, and T. Shenk, “The adenovirus E4 17-kilodalton protein complexes with the cellular transcription factor E2F, altering its DNA-binding properties and stimulating E1A-independent accumulation of E2 mRNA,” Journal of Virology, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 2345–2359, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. M. Nevels, B. Täuber, E. Kremmer, T. Spruss, H. Wolf, and T. Dobner, “Transforming potential of the adenovirus type 5 E4orf3 protein,” Journal of Virology, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 1591–1600, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. R. A. Gonzalez and S. J. Flint, “Effects of mutations in the adenoviral E1B 55-kilodalton protein coding sequence on viral late mRNA metabolism,” Journal of Virology, vol. 76, no. 9, pp. 4507–4519, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. U. K. Laemmli, “Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4,” Nature, vol. 227, no. 5259, pp. 680–685, 1970. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. M. Nevels, B. Täuber, T. Spruss, H. Wolf, and T. Dobner, “‘Hit-and-run’ transformation by adenovirus oncogenes,” Journal of Virology, vol. 75, no. 7, pp. 3089–3094, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. T. H. Stracker, D. V. Lee, C. T. Carson, F. D. Araujo, D. A. Ornelles, and M. D. Weitzman, “Serotype-specific reorganization of the Mre11 complex by adenoviral E4orf3 proteins,” Journal of Virology, vol. 79, no. 11, pp. 6664–6673, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. S. Rubenwolf, H. Schütt, M. Nevels, H. Wolf, and T. Dobner, “Structural analysis of the adenovirus type 5 E1B 55-kilodalton-E4orf6 protein complex,” Journal of Virology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 1115–1123, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. P. Wimmer, S. Schreiner, R. D. Everett, H. Sirma, P. Groitl, and T. Dobner, “SUMO modification of E1B-55K oncoprotein regulates isoform-specific binding to the tumour suppressor protein PML,” Oncogene, vol. 29, no. 40, pp. 5511–5522, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. P. Blanchette, P. Wimmer, F. Dallaire, C. Y. Cheng, and P. E. Branton, “Aggresome formation by the adenoviral protein E1B55K is not conserved among adenovirus species and is not required for efficient degradation of nuclear substrates,” Journal of Virology, vol. 87, no. 9, pp. 4872–4881, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  75. S. Schreiner, P. Wimmer, P. Groitl et al., “Adenovirus type 5 early region 1B 55K oncoprotein-dependent degradation of cellular factor Daxx is required for efficient transformation of primary rodent cells,” Journal of Virology, vol. 85, no. 17, pp. 8752–8765, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. M. Schmid, K. Kindsmüller, P. Wimmer, P. Groitl, R. A. Gonzalez, and T. Dobner, “The E3 ubiquitin ligase activity associated with the adenoviral E1B-55K-E4orf6 complex does not require CRM1-dependent export,” Journal of Virology, vol. 85, no. 14, pp. 7081–7094, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. C. Oberle and C. Blattner, “Regulation of the DNA damage response to DSBs by post-translational modifications,” Current Genomics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 184–198, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. C. H. Eskiw, G. Dellaire, and D. P. Bazett-Jones, “Chromatin contributes to structural integrity of promyelocytic leukemia bodies through a SUMO-1-independent mechanism,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 279, no. 10, pp. 9577–9585, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. G. Dellaire, R. W. Ching, K. Ahmed et al., “Promyelocytic leukemia nuclear bodies behave as DNA damage sensors whose response to DNA double-strand breaks is regulated by NBS1 and the kinases ATM, Chk2, and ATR,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 55–66, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. S. Bergink and S. Jentsch, “Principles of ubiquitin and SUMO modifications in DNA repair,” Nature, vol. 458, no. 7237, pp. 461–467, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. M. P. Stokes, J. Rush, J. MacNeill et al., “Profiling of UV-induced ATM/ATR signaling pathways,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 50, pp. 19855–19860, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. M. di Virgilio, C. Y. Ying, and J. Gautier, “PIKK-dependent phosphorylation of Mre11 induces MRN complex inactivation by disassembly from chromatin,” DNA Repair, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 1311–1320, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. H. Takemura, V. A. Rao, O. Sordet et al., “Defective Mre11-dependent activation of Chk2 by ataxia telangiectasia mutated in colorectal carcinoma cells in response to replication-dependent DNA double strand breaks,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 281, no. 41, pp. 30814–30823, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. P. Langerak and P. Russell, “Regulatory networks integrating cell cycle control with DNA damage checkpoints and double-strand break repair,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 366, no. 1584, pp. 3562–3571, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. F.-M. Boisvert, U. Déry, J.-Y. Masson, and S. Richard, “Arginine methylation of MRE11 by PRMT1 is required for DNA damage checkpoint control,” Genes and Development, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 671–676, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. F.-M. Boisvert, M. J. Hendzel, J.-Y. Masson, and S. Richard, “Methylation of MRE11 regulates its nuclear compartmentalization,” Cell Cycle, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 981–989, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. G. J. Williams, S. P. Lees-Miller, and J. A. Tainer, “Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 conformations and the control of sensing, signaling, and effector responses at DNA double-strand breaks,” DNA Repair, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 1299–1306, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. G. Dellaire, R. Kepkay, and D. P. Bazett-Jones, “High resolution imaging of changes in the structure and spatial organization of chromatin, γ-H2A.X and the MRN complex within etoposide-induced DNA repair foci,” Cell Cycle, vol. 8, no. 22, pp. 3750–3769, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. C. A. Cremona, P. Sarangi, Y. Yang, L. E. Hang, S. Rahman, and X. Zhao, “Extensive DNA damage-induced sumoylation contributes to replication and repair and acts in addition to the Mec1 checkpoint,” Molecular Cell, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 422–432, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. Y. Xue, F. Zhou, C. Fu, Y. Xu, and X. Yao, “SUMOsp: a web server for sumoylation site prediction,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 34, pp. W254–W257, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  91. A. J. Berk, “Recent lessons in gene expression, cell cycle control, and cell biology from adenovirus,” Oncogene, vol. 24, no. 52, pp. 7673–7685, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. C. Y. Cheng, T. Gilson, P. Wimmer et al., “The role of E1B55K in E4orf6/E1B55K E3 ligase complexes formed by different human adenovirus serotypes,” Journal of Virology, vol. 87, no. 11, pp. 6232–6245, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  93. S. Schreiner, P. Wimmer, H. Sirma et al., “Proteasome-dependent degradation of Daxx by the viral E1B-55K protein in human adenovirus-infected cells,” Journal of Virology, vol. 84, no. 14, pp. 7029–7038, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. N. A. Forrester, R. N. Patel, T. Speiseder et al., “Adenovirus E4orf3 targets transcriptional intermediary factor 1 for proteasome-dependent degradation during infection,” Journal of Virology, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 3167–3179, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. A. F. Yousef, G. J. Fonseca, P. Pelka et al., “Identification of a molecular recognition feature in the E1A oncoprotein that binds the SUMO conjugase UBC9 and likely interferes with polySUMOylation,” Oncogene, vol. 29, no. 33, pp. 4693–4704, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus