Four Genetic Factors

The closest neighboring gene to mine is named growth factor independent 1B transcription repressor (GFI1B), and it codes for Zinc finger protein Gfi-1b.

Central region-C possess DNA-binding domain (DBD) which is said to be the most conserved region and possess similarity in their structure. DBD contains an important short motif known as P-box which is responsible for direct DNA interaction and detection of specificity for DNA-binding. DBD also possess additional sequences that are required for the homo or heterodimerization of nuclear receptors. A pair of zinc fingers present in domain C is critically responsible for DNA specific contacts and interaction. Domain D is the less conserved domain among nuclear receptors which acts as a flexible hinge in between two domains such as C (DBD) and E (LBD) domains. In addition, domain D possesses the nuclear localization signal (NLS) that regulates the sub cellular distribution of nuclear receptors. The E region contains ligand-binding domain (LBD) is

In order to test the hypothesis that the WRKY75 transcription factor directly regulates FLS2 expression, electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA), the CRISPR/Cas9 and microarray techniques can be implemented. Firstly, an EMSA will be conducted to determine whether WKRY75 is a transcriptional factor that regulates and binds to pFLS2. The DNA probe that will be used is the pFLS2 double-stranded DNA sequence, which contains the regulatory element. WRKY75 will be determined as a binding protein if we observe band shift, as electrophoresis separates molecules based on charge and size; therefore, DNA attached to a protein will take longer to migrate through the gel. If WRKY75 is determined to be a transcriptional factor of pFLS2, we can implement the CRISPR/Cas9 technique.

The forkhead box transcription factors (FOX) are important for different stages of cell growth and differentiation, and for longevity. They are important downstream effectors of the IIS. The IIS pathway and its genes are conserved throughout evolution as shown in figure 1 for C. elegans and mammals. Based on sequence conservation, the FOX proteins are divided into subclasses FOXA – FOXS (Kaestner et al., 2000). daf-16 of C. elegans belongs to the subclass FoxO.

Research Outcome: ‘To what extent do familial factors contribute to the development of anxiety disorders?’

Previously, two nodes in the transcriptional network maintaining pluripotency were identified by Chen et al. 2008. Interestingly however, Zfp322a did not preferentially interact with either the c-Myc or Sox2/Oct4 transcription factor clusters. Zfp322a’s 10 C2H2 zinc finger domains bind the major groove of DNA (Lodish et al. 2013), and may give Zpf322a the ability to bind a diverse array of DNA sequences.  In support of this hypothesis, no DNA consensus sequence for Zfp322a binding was identified. Zfp322a co-localized equally with all 12 of the transcription factors tested. Coupled with Zfp322a’s dynamic ability to concomitantly repress differentiation, these observations suggest a more profound role for Zpf322a. From the genome-wide analysis of Zfp322a regulation the authors concluded that Zfp322a is an integral component in the pluripotency regulatory network.

As Hardison describe in genomic towards(...)in animals the fact that TF binding require of TFBS clusters motivated one of the most powerful approach: motif-based prediction.

An introduction of Transcription factor binding variability which has been taken into account transforms itself in a sort of motif match related to mutation and enable the researchers to investigate and makes it possible to analyze TFBS related hurdles and

Gene expression can be modulated by multiple intermediate steps, including transcription, post-transcriptional modifications, RNA splicing, translation, and post-translational modifications; transcription being the first step and a key mechanism for regulating gene expression. Transcriptional control is mediated through promoters and regulatory elements, which are all essential for spatiotemporally correct gene expression. Genome organization has been undoubtedly linked with regulation of gene expression through global analyses of mammalian genomes. Previous hypotheses suggested that genome is arranged as independently regulated chromosomal domains flanked by boundary elements (i.e. insulators). This might be true in compact genomes of organisms such as yeasts (e.g. S. cerevisiae 12.1 Mb), where an uninterrupted genomic segment (i.e. regulatory expression unit) is formed comprising of a particular gene and its regulatory elements. Nevertheless, in more complex genomes such as those of humans (H. sapiens 3.2 Gb) and mouse (M. musculus 2.7 Gb) the situation is substantially more complex, where genes and their regulatory elements can be dispersed over many hundreds of kilobases. These observations concur with current hypotheses, where cis-regulatory elements including Locus Control Regions (LCRs), enhancers, silencers, and insulators, may be dispersed over tens to thousands of kilobases. Furthermore, cis-regulatory elements of one gene are commonly embedded within a neighbour

Transcriptional repression is an important process in many biological pathways. These include development, maintaining homeostasis and regulating physiological processes. In order to control the multitude of pathways, there are a number of repressive mechanisms that are elicited by a diverse set of proteins. These proteins can be broadly classified based on their functional properties. For example, some repressors function at cis-regulatory elements to directly interfere with transcriptional machinery (Fig. 1b). Other repressors alter the chromatin structure surrounding a gene (Fig. 1a), which in turn represses transcription in a less direct fashion. Transcriptional repressors can also be defined by whether they bind DNA directly or bind DNA bound transcription factors to modulate their function (Fig. 1c, d). Proteins that use the later mechanism are termed co-repressors [1]. The Groucho/Tup1 (Gro/Tup1) class is a conserved family of co-repressors found in a range of eukaryotic organisms, established by the metazoan protein Groucho.

During the development of multicellular organisms, the fate of a cell is often determined by the influence of neighboring cells or tissues. The molecular mechanisms by which such inductive signals cause changes in the genetic program of the responding cell remain largely unknown. In the early stages of the response, signals from the cell surface must lead to modifications in the activity of one or more pre-existing transcription factors, which then set in motion the appropriate cascade of gene activation. Post-translational activation of transcription factors has been demonstrated in a number of cases, including steroid hormone receptors (Glineur et al. 1990), the yeast heat shock response factor (Sorger and Pelham 1988), and the mammalian factor AP-1 (Angel et al. 1987; Lee et al. 1987). The activation of transcription factors in response to inductive signals during development has proved more difficult to demonstrate, largely because the critical transcription factors have not been identified. Cell identities in the developing eye of Drosophila are determined by induction, and mutations in several genes that encode putative transcription factors have been shown to disrupt normal eye development (Tomlinson 1988; Banerjee and Zipursky 1990). Here, it is shown that one of these genes, glass, encodes a site-specific DNA-binding protein and that glass function, in its broadest sense, is regulated at the protein level. The glass gene is required for the normal development of

The concept and definition of a gene, once considered concrete and established for decades, has recently come into question. Within approximately the past ten years, the research of numerous scientists has yielded results and observations inconsistent with what was considered a gene. Investigation of gene structure and function demonstrate that the concept of the gene needs reevaluation, particularly its qualification criteria (Marks and Lyles, 2005, cited in Portin 2009). Five major facts strongly support the necessity to refine the definition of a gene. First, there are no clear-cut boundaries of transcriptional units, and their complexity is apparent. Additionally, there is evidence to support pervasive genomic transcription from

Grainyhead (Grh) genes are conserved in metazoans. They encode a family of transcription factors with a unique, unusually large, DNA-binding and dimerization domain, and an isoleucine-rich activation domain(Attardi and Tjian, 1993; Gustavsson et al., 2008; Moussian and Uv, 2005; Ting et al., 2003b; Uv et al., 1994; Venkatesan et al., 2003; Wilanowski et al., 2002). Grh factors were first identified in Drosophila (Bray et al., 1989; Bray and Kafatos, 1991; Dynlacht et al., 1989; Johnson et al., 1989) and since then, they were also found in animals as diverse as nematodes and humans. Grh proteins have not yet been detected in unicellular organisms. Phylogenetic analysis subdivides this gene family into two main classes, the Grh-like sub-family and the CP2 sub-family, depending whether the family members are more related to the Drosophila grh, or to another Drosophila gene, CP2 (Ting et al., 2003b; Venkatesan et al., 2003; Wilanowski et al., 2002). The fly and worm genomes each contain a single grh gene. Mammals, both mice and humans, have evolved three Grh homologues: Grh-like-1 (Grhl-1, or Mammalian Grainyhead (MGR)/TFCP2L2), Grhl-2 (Brother-of-MGR (BOM)/TFCP2L3) and Grhl-3 (Sister-of-MGR (SOM)/ TFCP2L4). This group of genes encodes proteins with highly homologous DNA-binding and dimerization domains. They all show restricted expression pattern during embryogenesis and play important roles in organogenesis and epidermal

The discovery of genome-wide transcription and the large number of non-protein-coding RNAs produced by what is now termed “pervasive genomic transcription”, has left scientists with more questions than answers and presents challenges to the core assumptions that were once the solid foundations of modern molecular biology and genetics, furthering complexity of genomics. The function of these non-protein-coding RNAs has not been fully evaluated and the methods of doing so are still in question; however, there is evidence suggesting overall functionality of non-coding transcription rather than simply “background noise” and insignificant. Evidence includes dynamic expression profiles during differentiation, patterns of chromatin

This has been known from decades that the small segment of human genome is formed of protein sequences while some of the non coded DNA indicates biological functions. Along with the coding of genomes, they are also consisted of sequence which is transcript into RNA like tRNA, rRNA .New challenges of these sequences in the non protein are most prevalent. They are known to identify the functional area in the human genome which is studied by (ENCODE) project. The characteristics which are acting upon the regulatory variations amongst the human beings is elusive due to the difficulty in explaining the functional DNA.Genomic scale maps are combine with Regulatory DNA from 138 cells along with the genomic sequences. This is an initiative to