Methionine Deprivation Regulates the Translation of Functionally-Distinct c-Myc Proteins
Part of the
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology
book series (AEMB, volume 354)
Numerous studies have demonstrated a critical role for the c-myc gene in the control of cellular growth. Alterations of the c-myc gene have been found associated with many different types of tumors in several species, including humans. The increased synthesis of one of the major forms of c-Myc protein, c-Myc 1, upon methionine deprivation provides a link between the regulation of oncogenes and the nutritional status of the cell. While deregulation or overexpression of the other major form, c-Myc 2, has been shown to cause tumorigenesis, the synthesis of c-Myc 1 protein is lost in many tumors. This suggests that the c-Myc 1 protein is necessary to keep the c-Myc 2 protein “in check” and prevent certain cells from becoming tumorigenic. Indeed, we have shown that overproduction of c-Myc 1 can inhibit cell growth. We have also shown that c-Myc 1 and 2 proteins have a differential molecular function in the regulation of transcription through a new binding site for Myc/Max heterodimers. We have also recently identified new translational forms of the c-Myc protein which we term Δ-c-Myc. These proteins arise from translational initiation at downstream start sites which yield N-terminally-truncated c-Myc proteins. Since these proteins lack a significant portion of the transactivation domain of c-Myc, they behave as dominant-negative inhibitors of the full-length c-Myc 1 and 2 proteins. The synthesis of Δ-c-Myc proteins is also regulated during cell growth and is repressed by methionine deprivation. Therefore, the synthesis of c-Myc 1 and Δ-c-Myc proteins are reciprocally regulated by methionine availability. We have also found some tumor cell lines which synthesize high levels of the Δ-c-Myc proteins. Taken together, our data suggest that c-Myc function is dependent on the levels of these different translational forms of c-Myc protein which are regulated by the nutritional status of the cell during growth.
Numerous reports have demonstrated a fundamental and diverse role for the myc gene in cellular events, including proliferation, differentiation and apoptosis (Cole 1986; Spencer and Groudine 1991; Askew et al. 1991; Evan et al. 1992). This is dramatically illustrated by the frequent occurrence of a variety of tumors in many species having alterations of myc genes and the transduction of c-myc sequences by retroviruses (Spencer and Groudine 1991). The diverse biological activity of myc is demonstrated by its ability to contribute to cellular proliferation (Spencer and Groudine 1991), inhibit terminal differentiation (Cole 1986), and promote apoptosis (Evan et al. 1992). Despite intensive study, however, the mechanism by which Myc proteins perform such diverse cellular roles is unknown (Luscher and Eisenman 1990).
A distinctive feature of the myc gene is that it encodes multiple N-terminally-distinct proteins. Alternative translational forms of the Myc protein exist for all species of c-Myc examined thus far (Hann and Eisenman 1984; Hann et al, 1988), as well as for N-Myc (Ramsay et al. 1986) and L-Myc proteins (Dosaka-Akita et al. 1991). The c-Myc 1 and 2 proteins have been found in all vertebrate species examined (Hann et al. 1988). In mammalian and avian cells, c-Myc 1 protein arises from an upstream non-AUG translational start site and thus contains an N-terminal extension of 14 amino acids compared to c-Myc 2 protein (Hann et al. 1988). Recently we have found that human, murine and avian cells also express smaller-sized c-Myc proteins to the full-length c-Myc 1 and 2 proteins (Spotts and Hann unpublished). These smaller-sized proteins, which we term Δ-c-Myc proteins, arise from translational initiation at a doublet of AUG codons downstream of the initiation sites for c-Myc 1 and 2 yielding proteins lacking the first 100 amino acids of c-Myc 2. Figure 1 diagrams the initiation of the different c-Myc proteins.
KeywordsLong Terminal Repeat Rous Sarcoma Virus Amino Acid Deprivation Translational Form Leaky Scanning
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
J. Abastado, P.F. Miller, and A.G. Hinnebusch, A quantitative model for translational control of the GCN4 gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The New Biologist
3: 511–524 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
B., Amati, M.W. Brooks, N. Levy, T. Littlewood, G. Evan, and H Land, Oncogenic activity of the c-Myc protein requires dimerization with Max. Cell
72: 233–245 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
C. Amin, A. Wagner, and N. Hay, Sequence-specific transactivation by myc and repression by max. Mol.Biol.Cell.
13: 383–390 (1993).Google Scholar
D. Askew, R. Ashmun, B. Simmons, and J. Cleveland, Constitutive c-myc expression in an IL-3-dependent myeloid cell line suppresses cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. Oncogene
6: 1915–1922 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
D.E. Ayer, L. Kretzner, and R.N. Eisenman, Mad: A heterodimeric partner for Max that antagonizes myc transcriptional activity. Cell
72: 211–222 (1993).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
H.L. Beckmann, L.K. Su, and T. Kadesch, TFE3: Ahelix-loop-helix protein that activates transcription through the immunoglobulin enhancer 43 motif. Genes and Dey
. 4: 167–179 (1990).Google Scholar
J. Bigler, W. Hokanson, and R.N. Eisenman, Thyroid hormone receptor transcriptional activity is potentially autoregulated by truncated forms of the receptor. Mol. Cell. Biol. 12: 2406–417 (1992).PubMedGoogle Scholar
T.K. Blackwell, L. Kretzner, E.M. Blackwood, R.N. Eisenman, and H. Weintraub, Sequence-specific DNA binding by the c-myc protein. Science
250: 1149–1151 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
T.K. Blackwell, J. Huang, A. Ma, L. Kretzner, F. Alt, R.N. Eisenman, and H. Weintraub, Binding of Myc proteins to canonical and non-canonical DNA sequences. Mol. Cell. Biol.
13: 5216–5224 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
E.M. Blackwood, and R.N. Eisenman, Max: A helix-loop-helix zipper protein that forms a sequence-specific DNA-binding complex with myc. Science
251: 1211–1217 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
E. Blackwood, T. Lugo, L. Kretzner, M. King, A. Street, O. Witte, and R.N. Eisenman, Functional analysis of the AUG- and CUG-initiated forms of the c-Myc protein. Mol. Biol. Cell
, 5: 597–609 (1994)PubMedGoogle Scholar
Z. Cao, R. Umek, and S. McKnight, Regulated expression of three C/EBP isoforms during adipose conversion of 3T3-LI cells. Genes Dey
. 5: 1538–1552 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
C.S. Carr, and P.A. Sharp, A helix-loop-helix protein related to immunoglobulin E box-binding proteins. Mol. Cell. Biol.
10: 4384–4388 (1990).Google Scholar
M.D. Cole, The myc oncogene:its role in transformation and differentiation. Ann. Rev. Genet.
20: 361–384 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
P. Descombes, and U. Schibler, A liver-enriched transcriptional activator protein, LAP, and a transcriptional inhibitory protein, LIP, are translated from the same mRNA. Cell
67: 569–579 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
T.F. Donahue, A.M. Cigan, E.K. Pabich, and B.C. Valavicius, Mutations at a Zn(II) finger motif in the yeast eIF-2f3 gene alter ribosomal start-site selection during the scanning process. Cell
54: 621–632 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
H. Dosaka-Akita, R.K. Rosenberg, J.D. Minna, and M.J. Birrer, A complex pattern of translational initiation and phosphorylation in L-Myc proteins. Oncogene
6: 371–378 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
G. Evan, A.H. Wyllie, C. Gilbert, T. Littlewood, H. Land, M. Brooks, C. Waters, L. Penn, and D. Hancock, Induction of apoptosis in fibroblasts by c-myc protein. Cell
69: 119–128 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.S. Foulkes, and P. Sassone-Corsi, More is better: activators and repressors from the same gene. Cell
68: 411–414 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
S.O. Freytag, and T.J. Geddes, Reciprocal regulation of adipogenesis by myc and C/EBPa. Science
256: 379–382 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
P.D. Gregor, M. Sawadogo, and R.G. Roeder, The adenovirus major late transcription factor USF is a member of the helix-loop-helix group of regulatory and binds to DNA as a dimer. Genes and Dey
. 4: 1730–1740 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
W. Gu, K. Cechova, V. Tassi, and R. Dalla-Favera, Opposite regulation of gene transcription and cell proliferation by c-Myc and Max. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
90: 2935–2939 (1993).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
W. Gu, K. Bhatia, I. Magrath, C. Dang, and R. Dalla-Favera, Binding and suppression of the Myc transcriptional activation domain by p107. Science
264: 251–254 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
S.R. Hann, M. Dixit, R. Sears, and L. Sealy, The alternatively-initiated c-Myc proteins differentially regulate transcription through a noncanonical DNA binding site. Genes and Dey
. 8: 2441–2452 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
S.R. Hann, and R.N. Eisenman, Proteins encoded by the human c-myc oncogene: differential expression in neoplastic cells. Mol. Cell. Biol.
4: 2486–2497 (1984).PubMedGoogle Scholar
S.R. Hann, M.W. King, D.L. Bentley, C.W. Anderson, and R.N. Eisenman, A non-AUG translational initiation in c-myc exon I generates an N-terminally distinct protein whose synthesis is disrupted in Burkitt’s lymphomas. Cell
34: 185–195 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
S.R. Hann, K. Sloan-Brown, and G. Spotts, Translational activation of the non-AUG-initiated c-myc
I protein at high cell densities due to methionine deprivation. Genes and Dey
. 6: 1229–1240 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
G. Hateboer, H. Timmers, A. Rustgi, M. Billaud, L. Van ‘T Veer, and R. Bernards, TATA-binding protein and the retinoblastoma gene product bind to overlapping epitopes on c-Myc and adenovirus E la protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
90: 8489–8493 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
J.W.B Hershey, Translational control in mammalian cells. Ann. Rev. Biochem.
60: 717–755 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Y.F. Hu, B. Luscher, A. Admon, N. Mermod, and R. Tjian, Transcription factor AP-4 contains multiple dimerization domains that regulate dimer specificity. Genes and Dey
. 4: 1741–1752 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
G.J. Kato, J. Barrett, M. Villa-Garcia, and C.V. Dang, An amino-terminal c-myc domain required for neoplastic transformation activates transcription. Mol. Cell. Biol.
10: 5914–5920 (1990).PubMedGoogle Scholar
M. Kozak, Point mutations define a sequence flanking the AUG initiator codon that modulates translation by eukaryotic ribosomes. Cell
44: 283–292 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
M. Kozak, Context effects and inefficient initiation at non-AUG codons in eukaryotic cell-free translation systems. Mol. Cell. Biol.
9: 5073–5080 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
M. Kozak, Regulation of translation in eukaryotic systems. Ann. Rev. Cell Biol.
8: 197–225 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L. Kretzner, E.M. Blackwood, and R.N. Eisenman, Myc and Max proteins possess distinct transcriptional activities. Nature
359: 426–429 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
B. Lewin, Oncogenic conversion by regulatory changes in transcription factors. Cell
64: 303–312 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
B. Luscher, and R.N. Eiseman New light on myc and myb. Part I. myc. Genes and Dey
. 4: 2025–2035 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
S. Maheswaran, H. Lee, and G. Sonenshein, Intracellular association of the protein product of the c-myc oncogene with the TATA-binding protein. Mol. Cell. Biol.
14: 1147–1152 (1994).PubMedGoogle Scholar
T.P. Makela, P.J. Koskinen, I. Vastrik, and K. Alitalo, Alternative forms of Max as enhancers or suppressors of Myc-Ras cotransformation. Science
256: 373–376 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
D.S. Peabody, Translation initiation at non-AUG triplets in mammalian cells. J. Biol. Chem.
264: 5031–5035 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
H. Persson, L. Hennighausen, R. Taub, W. DeGrado, and P. Leder, Antibodies to human c-myc gene product: evidence of an evolutionarily conserved protein induced during cell proliferation. Science
225: 687–693 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
G.C. Prendergast, and E.B. Ziff, Methylation-sensitive sequence-specific DNA binding by the c-myc basic region. Science
251: 186–189 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
M. Ramirez, R.C. Wek, and A.G. Hinnenbusch, Ribosome association of GCN2 protein kinase, a translational activator of the GCN4 gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol.
11: 3027–3036 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
G. Ramsay, L. Stanton, M. Schwab, and J.M. Bishop, The human proto-oncogene N-myc encodes nuclear proteins that bind DNA. Mol. Cell. Biol.
6: 4450–4457 (1986).PubMedGoogle Scholar
L.M. Resar, C. Dolde, J.F. Barrett, C.V. and Dang, B-Myc inhibits neoplastic transformation and transcriptional activation by c-Myc. Mol. Cell. Biol.
13: 1130–1136 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
A. Roy, C. Carruthers, T. Gutjahr, and R.G. Roeder, Direct role for Myc in transcription initiation mediated by interactions with TFII-I. Nature
365: 359–361 (1993).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
L. Sealy, and R. Chalkley, At least two nuclear proteins bind specifically to the Rous sarcoma virus long terminal repeat enhancer. Mol. Cell. Biol.
7: 787–798 (1987).Google Scholar
R.C. Sears, and L. Sealy, Characterization of nuclear proteins that bind the EFH enhancer sequence in the Rous sarcoma virus LTR. J. 1 iron.
66: 6338–6352 (1992).Google Scholar
A. Shrivastava, S. Saleque, G.V. Kalpana, S. Artandi, S.P. Goff, and K. Calame, Inhibition of transcriptional regulator Yin-Yang-1 association with c-Myc. Science
262: 24796–24804 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
C.A. Spencer, and M. Groudine, Control of c-myc regulation in normal and neoplastic cells. Adv. Cancer Res.
56: 1–48 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
J. Stone, T. DeLange, G. Ramsay, E. Jakobovits, J.M. Bishop, H. Varmus, and W. Lee, Definition of regions of human c-myc that are involved in transformation and nuclear localization. Mol. Cell. Biol.
7: 1967–1709 (1987).Google Scholar
D. Tzamarias, I. Roussou, and G. Thireos, Coupling of GCN4 mRNA translational activation with decreased rates of polypeptide chain initiation. Cell
57: 947–954 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
R.M. Umek, A.D. Friedman, and S.L. McKnight, CCAAT/enhancer binding protein: a component of a differentiation switch. Science
251: 288–292 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
R.C. Wek, B.M. Jackson, and A.G. Hinnebusch, Juxtaposition of domains homologous to protein kinases and histidyl-tRNA synthetases in GCN2 protein suggests a mechanism for coupling GCN4 expression to amino acid availability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
86: 4579–4583 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.P. Williams, A.G. Hinnebusch, and T.F. Donahue, Mutations in the structural genes for eukaryotic initiation factors 2a and 2ß of Saccharomyces cerevisiae disrupt translational control of GCN4 mRNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
86: 7515–751 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
A.S. Zervos, J. Gyuris, and R. Brent, Mxi1, a protein that specifically interacts with Max to bind Myc/Max recognition sites. Cell
72: 223–232 (1993).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995