Reaching for the STARs

Linking RNA Binding Proteins to Diseases
  • Stéphane Richard
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 693)

Abstract

The prototype STAR (Signal Transduction and Activation of RNA) protein is Sam68, the Src-associated substrate during mitosis of 68 kDa. Sam68, like all other STAR proteins, belongs to the large class of heteronuclear ribonucleoprotein particle K (hnRNP K) homology (KH) domain family of RNA-binding proteins. The KH domain is an evolutionarily conserved RNA binding domain that consists of 70–100 amino acids. The KH domain is one of the most prevalent RNA binding domains that directly contacts single-stranded RNA with a signature topology. Sam68 contains a single KH domain that harbors additional conserved N- and C-terminal sequences also required for RNA binding specificity and dimerization. Sam68 frequently contains post-translational modifications including serine/threonine, tyrosine phosphorylation, lysine acetylation, arginine methylation and sumoylation. The phosphorylation of Sam68 or its association with SH3 domain containing proteins has been shown to influence its RNA binding activity. Hence Sam68 behaves as a STAR protein, whereby extracellular signals influence its ability to regulate RNA metabolism. Studies in mice have revealed physiological roles linking Sam68 to osteoporosis, cancer, infertility and ataxia. The role of Sam68, a closely related family member quaking (QKI), the KH domain and their links with human disease will be discussed in the present chapter.

Keywords

Osteoporosis Tyrosine Arginine Androgen Deuterium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Di Fruscio M, Chen T, Richard S. Two novel Sam68-like mammalian proteins SLM-1 and SLM-2: SLM-1 is a Src substrate during mitosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96:2710–2715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Venables JP, Vernet C, Chew SL et al. T-STAR/ETOILE: a novel relative of Sam68 that interacts with an RNA-binding protein implicated in spermatogenesis. Hum Mol Genetics 1999; 8:959–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wong G, Muller O, Clark R et al. Molecular cloning and nucleic acid binding properties of the GAP-associated tyrosine phosphoprotein p62. Cell 1992; 69(3):551–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vogel LB, Fujita DJ. p70 phosphorylation and binding to p56lck is an early event in interleukin-2 induced onset of cell cycle progression in T-lymphocytes. J Biol Chem 1995; 270:2506–2511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fumagalli S, Totty NF, Hsuan JJ et al. A target for Src in mitosis. Nature 1994; 368:871–874.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor SJ, Shalloway D. An RNA-binding protein associated with src through its SH2 and SH3 domains in mitosis. Nature 1994; 368:867–871.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richard S, Yu D, Blumer KJ et al. Association of p62, a multi-functional SH2-and SH3-binding protein, with src-family tyrosine kinases, Grb2 and phospholipase Cγ-1. Mol Cell Biol 1995; 15:186–197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weng A, Thomas SM, Rickles RJ et al. Identification of Src, Fyn and Lyn SH3-binding proteins: Implications for a function of SH3 domains. Mol Cell Biol 1994; 14:4509–4521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lock P, Fumagalli S, Polakis P et al. The human p62 cDNA encodes Sam68 and not the RasGAP-associated p62 protein. Cell 1996; 84(1):23–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lukong KE, Richard S. Sam68, the KH domain-containing superSTAR. Biochim Biophys Acta 2003; 1653:73–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huot ME, Brown CM, Lamarche-Vane N et al. An adaptor role for cytoplasmic Sam68 in modulating Src activity during cell polarization. Mol Cell Biol 2009; 29:1933–1943.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lukong KE, Larocque D, Tyner AL et al. Tyrosine phosphorylation of sam68 by breast tumor kinase regulates intranuclear localization and cell cycle progression. J Biol Chem 2005; 280:38639–38647.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paronetto MP, Achsel T, Massiello A et al. The RNA-binding protein Sam68 modulates the alternative splicing of Bcl-x. J Cell Biol 2007; 176:929–939.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanchez-Margalet V, Gonzalez-Yanes C, Najib S et al. The expression of Sam68, a protein involved in insulin signal transduction, is enhanced by insulin stimulation. Cell Mol Life Sci 2003; 60(4):751–758.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lang V, Mege D, Semichon M et al. A dual participation of ZAP-70 and scr protein tyrosine kinases is required for TCR-induced tyrosine phosphorylation of Sam68 in Jurkat T-cells. Eur J Immunol 1997; 27(12):3360–3367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jabado N, Jauliac S, Pallier A et al. Sam68 association with p120GAP in CD4+ T-cells is dependent on CD4 molecule expression. J Immunol 1998; 161:2798–2803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin-Romero C, Sanchez-Margalet V. Human leptin activates PI3K and MAPK pathways in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells: possible role of Sam68. Cell Immunol 2001; 212:83–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Medema JP, Pronk GJ, de Vries-Smits AM et al. Insulin-induced tyrosine phosphorylation of a M(r) 70,000 protein revealed by association with the Src homology 2 (SH2) and SH3 domains of p120GAP and Grb2. Cell Growth Differ 1996; 7(4):543–550.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanchez-Margalet V, Najib S. Sam68 is a docking protein linking GAP and PI3K in insulin receptor signaling. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2001; 183(1–2):113–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Di Fruscio M, Chen T, Bonyadi S et al. The identification of two Drosophila K homology domain proteins. Kep1 and SAM are members of the Sam68 family of GSG domain proteins. J Biol Chem. Nov 13 1998; 273(46):30122–30130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen T, Damaj BB, Herrera C et al. Self-association of the single-KH-domain family members Sam68, GRP33, GLD-1 and Qk1: role of the KH domain. Mol Cell Biol 1997; 17(10):5707–5718.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glisovic T, Bachorik JL, Yong J et al. RNA-binding proteins and post-transcriptional gene regulation. FEBS Lett 2008; 582:1977–1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lukong KE, Chang KW, Khandjian EW et al. RNA-binding proteins in human genetic disease. Trends Genet 2008; 24:416–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Valverde R, Edwards L, Regan L. Structure and function of KH domains. FEBS J 2008; 275:2712–2726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    García-Mayoral MF, Díaz-Moreno I, Hollingworth D et al. The sequence selectivity of KSRP explains its flexibility in the recognition of the RNA targets. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36:5290–529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen T, Richard S. Structure-function analysis of Qk1: a lethal point mutation in mouse quaking prevents homodimerization. Mol Cell Biol 1998; 18(8):4863–4871.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin Q, Taylor SJ, Shalloway D. Specificity and determinants of Sam68 RNA binding. Implications for the biological function of K homology domains. J Biol Chem 1997; 272(43):27274–27280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Galarneau A, Richard S. The STAR RNA binding proteins GLD-1, QKI, SAM68 and SLM-2 bind bipartite RNA motifs. BMC Mol Biol 2009; 10:47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Galarneau A, Richard S. Target RNA motif and target mRNAs of the Quaking STAR protein. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2005; 12:691–698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arning S, Gruter P, Bilbe G et al. Mammalian splicing factor SF1 is encoded by variant cDNAs and binds to RNA. RNA 1996; 2:794–810.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berglund JA, Chua K, Abovich N et al. The splicing factor BBP interacts specifically with the pre-mRNA branch-point sequence UACUAC. Cell 1997; 89:781–787.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ryder SP, Frater LA, et al. RNA target specificity of the STAR/GSG domain post-transcriptional regulatory protein GLD-1. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2004; 11:20–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Itoh M, Haga I, Li Q-H et al. Identification of cellular mRNA targets for RNA-binding protein Sam68. Nucl. Acids Res 2002; 30:5452–5464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tremblay GA, Richard S. mRNAs associated with the Sam68 RNA binding protein. RNA Biology 2006; 3:1–4.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paronetto MP, Messina V, Bianchi E et al. Sam68 regulates translation of target mRNAs in male germ cells, necessary for mouse spermatogenesis. J Cell Biol 2009; 185:235–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grange J, Belly A, Dupas S et al. Specific interaction between Sam68 and neuronal mRNAs: Implication for the activity-dependent biosynthesis of elongation factor eEF1A. J Neurosci Res 2009; 87:12–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Matter N, Herrlich P, Konig H. Signal-dependent regulation of splicing via phosphorylation of Sam68. Nature 2002; 420:691–695.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Batsche E, Yaniv M, Muchardt C. The human SWI/SNF subunit Brm is a regulator of alternative splicing. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2006; 13:22–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cheng C, Sharp PA. Regulation of CD44 alternative splicing by SRm160 and its potential role in tumor cell invasion. Mol Cell Biol 2006; 26(1):362–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rajan P, Gaughan L, Dalgliesh C et al. The RNA-binding and adaptor protein Sam68 modulates signal-dependent splicing and transcriptional activity of the androgen receptor. J Pathol 2008; 215:67–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maroni P, Citterio L, Piccoletti R et al. Sam68 and ERKs regulate leptin-induced expression of OB-Rb mRNA in C2C12 myotubes. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2009; 309:26–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chawla G, Lin CH, Han A et al. Sam68 regulates a set of alternatively spliced exons during neurogenesis. Mol Cell Biol 2008; 29:201–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Moritz S, Lehmann S, Faissner A et al. An induction gene trap screen in neural stem cells reveals an instructive function of the niche and identifies the splicing regulator sam68 as a tenascin-C-regulated target gene. Stem Cells 2008; 26:2321–2331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wu J, Zhou L, Tonissen K et al. The quaking I-5 (QKI-5) has a novel nuclear localization signal and shuttles between the nucleus and the cytoplasm. J Biol Chem 1999; 274:29202–29210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chen T, Boisvert FM, Bazett-Jones DP et al. A role for the GSG domain in localizing Sam68 to novel nuclear structures in cancer cell lines. Mol Biol Cell 1999; 10(9):3015–3033.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Spector DL. Nuclear domains. J Cell Sci 2001; 114:2891–2893.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Huot ME, Vogel G, Richard S. Identification of a Sam68 ribonucleoprotein complex regulated by epidermal growth factor. J Biol Chem 2009; [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hartmann AM, Nayler O, Schwaiger FW et al. The interaction and colocalization of Sam68 with the splicing-associated factor YT521-B in nuclear dots is regulated by the Src family kinase p59fyn. Mol Biol Cell 1999; 10:3909–3926.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Denegri M, Chiodi I, Corioni M et al. Stress-induced nuclear bodies are sites of accumulation of pre-mRNA processing factors. Mol Biol Cell 2001; 12:3502–3514.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grange J, Boyer V, Fabian-Fine R et al. Somatodendritic localization and mRNA association of the splicing regulatory protein Sam68 in the hippocampus and cortex. J Neurosci Res 2004; 75:654–666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Paronetto MP, Zalfa F, Botti F et al. The nuclear RNA-binding protein Sam68 translocates to the cytoplasm and associates with the polysomes in mouse spermatocytes. Mol Biol Cell 2006; 17:14–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    de Hoog CL, Foster LJ, Mann M. RNA and RNA binding proteins participate in early stages of cell spreading through spreading initiation centers. Cell 2004; 117:649–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mili S, Moissoglu K, Macara IG. Genome-wide screen reveals APC-associated RNAs enriched in cell protrusions. Nature 2008; 453:115–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    McBride AE, Schlegel A, Kirkegaard K. Human protein Sam68 relocalization and interaction with poliovirus RNA polymerase in infected cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93:2296–2301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gilbert C, Barabe F, Rollet-Labelle E et al. Evidence for a role for SAM68 in the responses of human neutrophils to ligation of CD32 and to monosodium urate crystals. J Immunol 2001; 166:4664–4671.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Henao-Mejia J, Liu Y, Park IW et al. Suppression of HIV-1 Nef translation by Sam68 mutant-induced stress granules and nef mRNA sequestration. Mol Cell 2009; 33:87–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Soros V, Valderamma H, Richard S et al. Inhibition of HIV-1 Rev function by a dominant negative mutant of Sam68 through sequestration of unspliced RNA at perinuclear bundles. J Virology 2001; 75:8203–8215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Reddy TR, Xu W, Mau JK et al. Inhibition of HIV replication by dominant negative mutants of Sam68, a functional homolog of HIV-1 Rev. Nat Med 1999; 5(6):635–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Suhasini M, Reddy TR. Cellular proteins and HIV-1 Rev function. Curr HIV Res 2009; 7:91–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cochrane A. Inhibition of HIV-1 gene expression by Sam68 Delta C: multiple targets but a common mechanism? Retrovirology 2009; 6:22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lazer G, Pe’er L, Schapira V et al. The association of Sam68 with Vav1 contributes to tumorigenesis. Cell Signal 2007; 19:2479–2486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bedford MT, Frankel A, Yaffe MB et al. Arginine methylation inhibits the binding of proline-rich ligands to Src homology 3, but not WW, domains. J Biol Chem 2000; 275:16030–16036.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Najib S, Martin-Romero C, Gonzalez-Yanes C et al. Role of Sam68 as an adaptor protein in signal transduction. Cell Mol Life Sci 2005; 62(1):36–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Cheung N, Chan LC, Thompson A et al. Protein arginine-methyltransferase-dependent oncogenesis. Nat Cell Biol 2007; 9:1208–1215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Babic I, Jakymiw A, Fujita DJ. The RNA binding protein Sam68 is acetylated in tumor cell lines and its acetylation correlates with enhanced RNA binding activity. Oncogene 2004; 23:3781–3789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Babic I, Cherry E, Fujita DJ. SUMO modification of Sam68 enhances its ability to repress cyclin D1 expression and inhibits its ability to induce apoptosis. Oncogene 2006; 25:4955–4964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Darnell JC, Jensen KB, Jin P et al. Fragile X mental retardation protein targets G quartet mRNAs important for neuronal function. Cell 2001; 107:489–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bedford MT, Richard S. Arginine methylation an emerging regulator of protein function. Mol Cell 2005; 18:263–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Côté J, Boisvert FM, Boulanger MC et al. Sam68 RNA binding protein is an in vivo substrate for protein arginine N-methyltransferase 1. Mol Biol Cell 2003; 14(1):274–287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rappsilber J, Friesen WJ, Paushkin S et al. Detection of Arginine Dimethylated Peptides by Parallel Precursor Ion Scanning Mass Spectrometry in Positive Ion Mode. Anal Chem 2003; 75(13):3107–3114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Richard S, Torabi N, Franco GV et al. Ablation of the Sam68 RNA binding protein protects mice from age-related bone loss. 2005; 1:e74.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Richard S, Vogel G, Huot ME et al. Sam68 haploinsufficiency delays onset of mammary tumorigenesis and metastasis. Oncogene 2008; 27:548–556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lukong KE, Richard S. Motor coordination defects in mice deficient for the Sam68 RNA-binding protein. Behav Brain Res 2008; 189:357–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Soriano P, Montgomery C, Geske R et al. Targeted Disruption of the c-src Proto-Oncogene Leads to Osteopetrosis in Mice. Cell 1991; 64:693–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Miyazaki T, Tanaka S, Sanjay A et al. The role of c-Src kinase in the regulation of osteoclast function. Mod Rheumatol 2006; 16:68–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Coyle JH, Guzik BW, Bor YC et al. Sam68 enhances the cytoplasmic utilization of intron-containing RNA and is functionally regulated by the nuclear kinase Sik/BRK. Mol. Cell Biol 2003; 23:92–103.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Andrechek ER, Muller WJ. Tyrosine kinase signalling in breast cancer: tyrosine kinase-mediated signal transduction in transgenic mouse models of human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2000; 2:211–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chenard CA, Richard S. New implications for the QUAKING RNA binding protein in human disease. J Neurosci Res 2008; 86:233–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hogan EL, Greenfield S. Animal models of genetic disorders of myelin. Myelin 1984:489–534.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hardy RJ. Molecular defects of the dysmyelinating mutant quaking. J Neurosci Res 1998; 51:417–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ebersole TA, Chen Q, Justice MJ et al. The quaking gene unites signal transduction and RNA binding in the developing nervous system. Nature Genetics 1996; 12:260–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Pilotte J, Larocque D, Richard S. Nuclear translocation controlled by alternatively spliced isoforms inactivates the QUAKING apoptotic inducer. Genes & Dev 2001; 15:845–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hardy RJ, Loushin CL, Friedrich Jr. VL et al. Neural cell type-specific expression of QKI proteins is altered in the quaking viable mutant mice. J Neuroscience 1996; 16:7941–7949.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Li Z, Takakura N, Oike Y et al. Defective smooth muscle development in qkI-deficient mice. Dev Growth Differ 2003; 45(5–6):449–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Justice MJ, Bode VC. Three ENU-induced alleles of the murine quaking locus are recessive embryonic lethal mutations. Genet Res 1988; 51:95–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Cox RD, Hugill A, Shedlovsky A et al. Contrasting effects of ENU induced embryonic lethal mutations of the quaking gene. Genomics 1999; 57:333–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Noveroske JK, Hardy R, Dapper JD et al. A new ENU-induced allele of mouse quaking causes severe CNS dysmyelination. Mamm Genome 2005; 16:672–682.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Zhao L, Tian D, Xia M et al. Rescuing qkV dysmyelination by a single isoform of the selective RNA-binding protein QKI. J Neurosci 2006; 26:11278–11286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Larocque D, Galarneau A, Liu HN et al. Protection of the p27KIP1 mRNA by quaking RNA binding proteins promotes oligodendrocyte differentiation. Nat Neurosci 2005; 8:27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Larocque D, Fragoso G, Huang J et al. The QKI-6 and QKI-7 RNA binding proteins block proliferation and promote Schwann cell myelination. PLoS ONE 2009; 4:e5867.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Besson A, Dowdy SF, Roberts JM. CDK inhibitors: cell cycle regulators and beyond. Dev Cell 2008; 14:159–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Friessen AJ, Miskimins WK, Miskimins R. Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27kip1 is expressed at high levels in cells that express a myelinating phenotype. J Neurosci Res 1997; 50(3):373–382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Dyer MA, Cepko CL. p27Kip1 and p57Kip2 regulate proliferation in distinct retinal progenitor cell populations. J Neurosci 2001; 21(12):4259–4271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Durand B, Gao FB, Raff M. Accumulation of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27/Kip1 and the timing of oligodendrocyte differentiation. EMBO J 1997; 16(2):306–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Casaccia-Bonnefil P, Hardy RJ, Teng KK et al. Loss of p27Kip1 function results in increased proliferative capacity of oligodendrocyte progenitors but unaltered timing of differentiation. Development 1999; 126(18):4027–4037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Li Z, Zhang Y, Li D et al. Destabilization and mislocalization of the myelin basic protein mRNAs in quaking dysmyelination lacking the Qk1 RNA-binding proteins. J Neurosci 2000; 20:4944–4953.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Larocque D, Pilotte J, Chen T et al. Nuclear retention of MBP mRNAs in the Quaking viable mice. Neuron 2002; 36:815–829.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Vidal C, Cachia A, Xuereb-Anastasi A. Effects of a synonymous variant in exon 9 of the CD44 gene on pre-mRNA splicing in a family with osteoporosis. Bone 2009; 45:736–742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Xia XY, Cui YX, Huang YF et al. A novel RNA-splicing mutation in COL1A1 gene causing osteogenesis imperfecta type I in a Chinese family. Clin Chim Acta 2008; 398:148–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Stewart DG, Davis KL. Possible contributions of myelin and oligodendrocyte dysfunction to schizophrenia. Int Rev Neurobiol 2004; 59:381–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Haroutunian V, Katsel P, Dracheva S et al. The human homolog of the QKI gene affected in the severe dysmyelination “quaking” mouse phenotype: downregulated in multiple brain regions in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:1834–1837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Aberg K, Saetre P, Jareborg N et al. Human QKI, a potential regulator of mRNA expression of human oligodendrocyte-related genes involved in schizophrenia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103:7482–7487.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Aberg K, Saetre P, Lindholm E et al. Human QKI, a new candidate gene for schizophrenia involved in myelination. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2006; 141B:84–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Huang K, Tang W, Xu Z et al. No association found between the promoter variations of QKI and schizophrenia in the Chinese population. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2009; 33:33–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    McCullumsmith RE, Gupta D, Beneyto M et al. Expression of transcripts for myelination-related genes in the anterior cingulate cortex in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2007; 90:15–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Suzuki K, Zagoren JC. Variations of Schmidt-Lanterman incisures in Quaking mouse. Brain Res 1976; 106(1):146–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Lim DA, Suarez-Farinas M, Naef F et al. In vivo transcriptional profile analysis reveals RNA splicing and chromatin remodeling as prominent processes for adult neurogenesis. Mol Cell Neurosci 2006; 31(1):131–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Cooper TA, Wan L, Dreyfuss G. RNA and disease. Cell 2009; 136:777–793.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Derry JJ, Richard S, Carvajal HV et al. Sik (BRK) phosphorylates Sam68 in the nucleus and negatively regulates its RNA binding activity. Mol Cell Biol 2000; 20:6114–6126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Barker KT, Jackson LE, Crompton MR. BRK tyrosine kinase expression in a high proportion of human breast carcinomas. Oncogene 1997; 15:799–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Serfas MS, Tyner AL. Brk, Srm, Frk and Src42A form a distinct family of intracellular Src-like tyrosine kinases. Oncol Res 2003; 13:409–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Aubele M, Auer G, Walch AK et al. PTK (protein tyrosine kinase)-6 and HER2 and 4, but not HER1 and 3 predict long-term survival in breast carcinomas. Br J Cancer 2007; 96:801–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Aubele M, Walch AK, Ludyga N et al. Prognostic value of protein tyrosine kinase 6 (PTK6) for long-term survival of breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2008; 99:1089–1095.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Busa R, Paronetto MP, Farini D et al. The RNA-binding protein Sam68 contributes to proliferation and survival of human prostate cancer cells. Oncogene 2007; 26(30):4372–4382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Zhang Z, Li J, Zheng H et al. Expression and Cytoplasmic Localization of SAM68 Is a Significant and Independent Prognostic Marker for Renal Cell Carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009; [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Sanai N, Berger MS. Glioma extent of resection and its impact on patient outcome. Neurosurgery 2008; 62:753–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Mulholland PJ, Fiegler H, Mazzanti C et al. Genomic profiling identifies discrete deletions associated with translocations in glioblastoma multiforme. Cell Cycle 2006; 5:783–791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Ichimura K, Mungall AJ, Fiegler H et al. Small regions of overlapping deletions on 6q26 in human astrocytic tumours identified using chromosome 6 tile path array-CGH. Oncogene 2006; 25:1261–1271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Yin D, Ogawa S, Kawamata N et al. High-resolution genomic copy number profiling of glioblastoma multiforme by single nucleotide polymorphism DNA microarray. Mol Cancer Res 2009; 7:665–677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Li ZZ, Kondo T, Murata T et al. Expression of Hqk encoding a KH RNA binding protein is altered in human glioma. Jpn J Cancer Res 2002; 93(2):167–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane Richard
    • 1
  1. 1.Segal Cancer CentreLady Davis InstituteMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations