![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
|
|
|
|
|
||
A more recent version of this article appeared on August 1, 2005
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submitted on December 10, 2004
Revised on May 23, 2005
Accepted on June 3, 2005
Department of Molecular Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9148
Monitoring Editor: Orna Cohen-Fix
Genetic studies in yeast and Drosophila have uncovered a conserved acetyltransferase involved in sister-chromatid cohesion. Here we described the two human orthologues, previously named as EFO1/ESCO1 and EFO2/ESCO2. Similar to their yeast (Eco1/Ctf7 and Eso1) and fly (deco) counterparts, both proteins feature a conserved C-terminal domain consisting of a H2C2 zinc finger motif and an acetyltransferase domain that is able to catalyze auto-acetylation reaction in vitro. However, no similarity can be detected outside of the conserved domain. RNAi depletion experiment revealed that EFO1/ESCO1 and EFO2/ESCO2 were not redundant and both were required for proper sister-chromatid cohesion. The difference between EFO1 and EFO2 is also reflected in their cell cycle regulation. In mitosis, EFO1 is phosphorylated while as EFO2 is degraded. Furthermore, both proteins associate with chromosomes and the chromosome binding depends on the diverse N-terminal domains. We propose that EFO1 and EFO2 are targeted to different chromosome structures to help establish or maintain sister-chromatid cohesion.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H Vega, A H Trainer, M Gordillo, M Crosier, H Kayserili, F Skovby, M L G. Uzielli, R E Schnur, S Manouvrier, E Blair, et al. Phenotypic variability in 49 cases of ESCO2 mutations, including novel missense and codon deletion in the acetyltransferase domain, correlates with ESCO2 expression and establishes the clinical criteria for Roberts syndrome J. Med. Genet., January 1, 2010; 47(1): 30 - 37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Dai, A. V. Kateneva, and J. M. G. Higgins Studies of haspin-depleted cells reveal that spindle-pole integrity in mitosis requires chromosome cohesion J. Cell Sci., November 15, 2009; 122(22): 4168 - 4176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J.-M. Peters, A. Tedeschi, and J. Schmitz The cohesin complex and its roles in chromosome biology Genes & Dev., November 15, 2008; 22(22): 3089 - 3114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Brands and R. V. Skibbens Sister Chromatid Cohesion Role for CDC28-CDK in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genetics, September 1, 2008; 180(1): 7 - 16. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Gordillo, H. Vega, A. H. Trainer, F. Hou, N. Sakai, R. Luque, H. Kayserili, S. Basaran, F. Skovby, R. C. M. Hennekam, et al. The molecular mechanism underlying Roberts syndrome involves loss of ESCO2 acetyltransferase activity Hum. Mol. Genet., July 15, 2008; 17(14): 2172 - 2180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. V. Skibbens, M. Maradeo, and L. Eastman Fork it over: the cohesion establishment factor Ctf7p and DNA replication J. Cell Sci., August 1, 2007; 120(15): 2471 - 2477. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Hou, C.-W. Chu, X. Kong, K. Yokomori, and H. Zou The acetyltransferase activity of San stabilizes the mitotic cohesin at the centromeres in a shugoshin-independent manner J. Cell Biol., May 21, 2007; 177(4): 587 - 597. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
