Biomedical subjects

Julie Wells

Publications and source records attributed to Julie Wells.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

An X chromosome gene, WTX, is commonly inactivated in Wilms tumor.

Wilms tumor is a pediatric kidney cancer associated with inactivation of the WT1 tumor-suppressor gene in 5 to 10% of cases. Using a high-resolution screen for DNA copy-number alterations in Wilms tumor, we identified somatic deletions targeting a previously uncharacterized gene on the X chromosome. This gene, which we call WTX, is inactivated in approximately one-third of Wilms tumors (15 of 51 tumors). Tumors with mutations in WTX lack WT1 mutations, and both genes share a restricted temporal and spatial expression pattern in normal renal precursors. In contrast to biallelic inactivation of autosomal tumor-suppressor genes, WTX is inactivated by a monoallelic "single-hit" event targeting the single X chromosome in tumors from males and the active X chromosome in tumors from females.

Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing↗

PubMed2006

Strain-dependent perinatal lethality of Ovol1-deficient mice and identification of Ovol2 as a downstream target of Ovol1 in skin epidermis.

Ovol1 encodes a zinc finger transcriptional repressor that is downstream of the LEF1/beta-catenin complex, nuclear effectors of canonical Wnt signaling. Previous gene knockout studies performed in a 129SvxC57BL/6 mixed genetic background revealed that Ovol1-deficient mice survive to adulthood but display multiple tissue defects. In this study, we describe a C57BL/6 strain-specific reduction in perinatal survival of Ovol1 mutant mice. The perinatal lethality is accompanied by kidney epithelial cysts of embryonic onset and delayed skin barrier acquisition. Genetic analysis suggests a partial functional compensation by Ovol2 for the loss of Ovol1. The expression of Ovol2 was up-regulated in Ovol1-deficient epidermis, and Ovol1 represses the activity of Ovol2 promoter in a DNA binding-dependent manner. Collectively, these studies uncover novel functions of Ovol1 in mouse development and identify Ovol2 as a downstream target of Ovol1.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Prostate cancer screening attitudes and continuing education needs of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: In May 2003, a survey questionnaire was distributed to all licensed primary care physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador. The objective was to examine the attitudes, self-reported practices, and continuing medical education (CME) preferences of primary care physicians as they pertain to prostate cancer screening. METHODS: Data was obtained from 485 primary care physicians using self-reports of prostate cancer screening practices, attitudes towards prostate cancer screening, and CME preferences. Respondents' characteristics were also collected (eg, gender, years of experience). RESULTS: A majority of respondents screen asymptomatic male patients for prostate cancer. Screening behaviour was related to high volume practice settings, fee-for-service and increased with patient age. Most common reasons for screening were family history, age of patient, and patient request. Majority of physicians agreed that prostate screening should be routinely performed on all men beginning at age 50, however half of physicians believe there is lack of evidence to support digital rectal examination (DRE) and one-third of physicians do not believe the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nor DRE are accurate screening tests. Areas of greatest interest for CME included topics related to prostate cancer screening effectiveness, strategies for prevention, sexual dysfunction, available treatments and their side effects, and management options. CONCLUSION: Physicians are supportive of the value of screening, however the reliability of and evidence to support DRE and PSA as prostate cancer screening tests are in question. CME which addresses issues surrounding prostate screening and areas related to patient education and counselling are of greatest need.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed2004

SUMO-1 modification of the Wilms' tumor suppressor WT1.

SUMO-1 conjugation modulates numerous cellular functions, including the subnuclear localization of its target proteins. The WT1 tumor suppressor encodes a four-zinc finger protein with distinct splicing isoforms. WT1(-KTS), encoding uninterrupted zinc fingers, functions as a transcription factor and has a diffusely nuclear distribution; WT1(+KTS), with an insertion of three amino acids (KTS) between zinc fingers three and four, localizes to discrete nuclear speckles, the function of which is unknown. Because the SUMO-1 E2-conjugating enzyme, Ubc9, interacts with WT1, we tested whether sumoylation modulates the cellular localization of WT1. We find here that both WT1 isoforms are directly sumoylated on lysine residues 73 and 177. Although RNA interference-mediated Ubc9 depletion effectively suppresses WT1 nuclear speckles, a SUMO-1-deficient WT1(+KTS)(K73, 177R) double mutant retains localization to speckles. Thus, direct sumoylation of WT1 is not responsible for its cellular localization, and other sumoylated proteins may target WT1 to these nuclear structures. Identification of other components of WT1-associated speckles is likely to provide clues to their function.

Active Transport, Cell Nucleus↗

PubMed2003

Identification of novel pRb binding sites using CpG microarrays suggests that E2F recruits pRb to specific genomic sites during S phase.

The retinoblastoma (Rb) tumor suppressor protein is an important regulator of cell proliferation and differentiation. Many studies have shown that pRb can negatively regulate the activity of the E2F family of transcription factors during G(0) and G(1) phases of the cell cycle, perhaps by serving as a bridge between the E2Fs and transcriptional repressors such as histone deacetylases and methylases. However, pRb has also been shown to localize to discrete DNA foci during S phase, a time at which pRb is thought to be dissociated from E2F. Numerous other DNA binding proteins have been shown to interact with pRb, suggesting that pRb may control progression through S phase by binding to sites in the genome distinct from E2F target gene promoters. To test this hypothesis, we have identified novel pRb binding sites within the human genome using an unbiased approach which relies upon a combination of chromatin immunoprecipitation and CpG microarray analysis. To provide the greatest opportunity of finding distinct sets of pRb binding sites, we examined pRb binding in chromatin obtained from human Raji cells synchronized in either G(0)/G(1) phase or S phase. These experiments have allowed us to identify a large set of new genomic binding sites for the pRb protein. We found that some sites are occupied by pRb only during G(0)/G(1) phase, as would be predicted from previous models of pRb function. We also identified sites to which pRb bound only during S phase and other sites which were bound constitutively by pRb. Surprisingly, we found that E2F1 was present at most of the CpG islands bound by pRb, independent of the phase of the cell cycle. Thus, although pRb has the potential to interact with numerous transcription factors, our data suggest that the majority of DNA-bound pRb is recruited to E2F target promoters during both G(0)/G(1) and S phases.

Binding Sites↗

PubMed2002

The identification of E2F1-specific target genes.

The E2F family of transcriptional regulators consists of six different members. Analysis of E2F-regulated promoters by using cultured cells suggests that E2Fs may have redundant functions. However, animal studies have shown that loss of individual E2Fs can have distinct biological consequences. Such seemingly conflicting results could be due to a difference in E2F-mediated regulation in cell culture vs. animals. Alternatively, there may be genes that are specifically regulated by an individual E2F which have not yet been identified. To investigate this possibility further, we have analyzed gene expression in E2F1 nullizygous mice. We found that loss of E2F1 did not cause changes in expression of known E2F target genes, suggesting that perhaps E2F1-specific promoters are distinct from known E2F target promoters. Therefore, we used oligonucleotide microarrays to identify mRNAs whose expression is altered on loss of E2F1. We demonstrate by chromatin immunoprecipitation that several of the promoters that drive expression of the deregulated mRNAs selectively recruit E2F1, but not other E2Fs, and this recruitment is via an element distinct from a consensus E2F binding site. To our knowledge, these are as yet undocumented examples of promoters being occupied in asynchronously growing cells by a single E2F family member. Interestingly, the E2F1-specific target genes that we identified encode proteins having functions quite different from the function of known E2F target genes. Thus, whereas E2F1 may share redundant functions in cell growth control with other E2F family members, it may also play an important biological role distinct from the other E2Fs.

Animals↗

PubMed2002

Characterizing transcription factor binding sites using formaldehyde crosslinking and immunoprecipitation.

In their article, A.S. Weinmann and P.J. Farnham (2002, Methods 26) described new techniques for isolating in vivo binding sites for any DNA-binding protein. In this article, we describe complementary methods for detailed in vivo characterizations of such identified protein-DNA interactions. First, we describe how formaldehyde crosslinking and chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP), in conjunction with transient transfections or the use of cell lines containing stably integrated constructs or episomes, can be employed to identify which specific nucleotides of a region of DNA are required for recruitment of a particular transcription factor. In contrast to in vivo footprinting, this method not only specifies which nucleotides are bound, but also identifies the protein(s) involved in binding. Next, we discuss the use of the ChIP assay to study how binding of a transcription factor is altered by passage through the cell cycle, by overexpression or deletion of another factor, or during tumorigenesis. Finally, a look toward the future suggests that the ChIP assay may be combined with Western blot analysis or mass spectrometry to identify additional proteins that interact with a transcription factor of interest.

Animals↗