JVI Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DePolo, N J
Right arrow Articles by Villarreal, L P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by DePolo, N J
Right arrow Articles by Villarreal, L P

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Virol. 1991 June; 65(6): 2921-2928

E1A represses wild-type and F9-selected polyomavirus DNA replication by a mechanism not requiring depression of large tumor antigen transcription.

N J DePolo and L P Villarreal

Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California, Irvine 92717.

ABSTRACT

Polyomavirus (Py) DNA replication may be regulated to a low-level replication state in specific target cells in mice as well as in certain undifferentiated murine cell lines, such as embryocarcinoma (EC) cells. To investigate possible mechanisms by which such control may occur, we have examined the effects of E1A on Py DNA replication. Adenovirus E1A proteins repress transcriptional activation of various enhancers, including those of Py, and can stimulate DNA replication in quiescent cells, but E1A effects on Py DNA replication were unknown. We found that constitutive E1A expression in NIH 3T3 cells depressed Py DNA replication very strongly. Two F9 EC cell-selected Py enhancer variants, PyF441 and PyF101, were also examined because undifferentiated EC cells are hypothesized to have an E1A-like activity responsible for the Py restriction, and these variants activate Py DNA replication in cis in undifferentiated F9 cells. Both variants were repressed by E1A, indicating that E1A activity in 3T3 cells is not equivalent to undifferentiated F9 cell E1A-like activity. We also examined transient inducible E1A expression in cells supplying Py large tumor antigen (T-Ag). Py DNA replication was again repressed, and the inhibition increased with E1A induction. Analysis of T-Ag mRNA levels indicated that E1A repression of Py DNA replication was not an indirect result of depression of T-Ag transcription. This suggests that E1A may repress Py DNA replication by a more direct mechanism, possibly by blocking enhancer activation of DNA replication in a manner uncoupled with enhancer transcriptional control.


J Virol. 1991 June; 65(6): 2921-2928







Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Mol. Cell. Biol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1991 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.