The rnf168 paralog rnf169 defines a new class of ubiquitylated histone reader involved in the response to dna damage
eLife, ISSN: 2050-084X, Vol: 6
2017
- 42Citations
- 88Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations42
- Citation Indexes42
- 42
- CrossRef40
- Captures88
- Readers88
- 88
Article Description
Site-specific histone ubiquitylation plays a central role in orchestrating the response to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). DSBs elicit a cascade of events controlled by the ubiquitin ligase RNF168, which promotes the accumulation of repair factors such as 53BP1 and BRCA1 on the chromatin flanking the break site. RNF168 also promotes its own accumulation, and that of its paralog RNF169, but how they recognize ubiquitylated chromatin is unknown. Using methyl-TROSY solution NMR spectroscopy and molecular dynamics simulations, we present an atomic resolution model of human RNF169 binding to a ubiquitylated nucleosome, and validate it by electron cryomicroscopy. We establish that RNF169 binds to ubiquitylated H2A-Lys13/Lys15 in a manner that involves its canonical ubiquitin-binding helix and a pair of arginine-rich motifs that interact with the nucleosome acidic patch. This three-pronged interaction mechanism is distinct from that by which 53BP1 binds to ubiquitylated H2A-Lys15 highlighting the diversity in site-specific recognition of ubiquitylated nucleosomes.
Bibliographic Details
10.7554/elife.23872; 10.7554/elife.23872.007; 10.7554/elife.23872.003; 10.7554/elife.23872.005; 10.7554/elife.23872.013; 10.7554/elife.23872.020; 10.7554/elife.23872.002; 10.7554/elife.23872.017; 10.7554/elife.23872.011; 10.7554/elife.23872.001; 10.7554/elife.23872.023; 10.7554/elife.23872.024; 10.7554/elife.23872.018
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85019456461&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28406400; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#fig3; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.007; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#fig1; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.003; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#fig2; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.005; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#fig5; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.013; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#fig8; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.020; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#digest; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.002; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#fig6; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.017; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#fig4; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.011; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#abstract; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.001; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#decision-letter; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.023; https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/23872/elife-23872-v2.pdf; https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/23872/elife-23872-v2.xml; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.024; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#author-response; https://elifesciences.org/articles/23872#fig7; http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872.018; https://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.23872
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know