nd equal amounts of protein were separated in SDS PAGE and Tyr701 phosphorylation was analyzed by selleckchem EPZ-5676 using phospho Tyr701 STAT1 specific antibody. The pSTAT1 anti body detected the Tyr701 phosphorylation of STAT1 E705Q, while the STAT1 Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries E705A showed only a weak signal and the antibody failed to detect IFN stimulated STAT1 K703R. The differ ence is likely to be caused by the altered amino acid sequence within or in the proximity of the epitope for the pSTAT1 antibody since another pSTAT1 antibody readily detected also K703R and E705A mutants after pervanadate stimulation. The SUMO deficient STAT1 mutant E705Q was chosen for further DNA binding studies. In order to study the DNA binding properties of STAT1, we performed oligoprecipitation experiments using two biotinylated oligos, one containing STAT1 binding site from Gbp 1 promoter and another with STAT1 binding site from Irf 1 gene promoter.

U3A cells were transfected either with HA tagged STAT1 WT or STAT1 E705Q or STAT1 Y701F mutants together with His tagged SUMO 1. Cells were left unstimulated or treated with IFN and osmotic shock to induce STAT1 Tyr701 phosphorylation and STAT1 sumoylation, re spectively. STAT1 WT and the STAT1 mutants were oligoprecipitated from the whole cell lysates and the phosphorylation Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries of STAT1 was detected with anti pSTAT1 antibody. Sumoylation deficient STAT1 E705Q showed increased binding to both oligos when compared to STAT1 WT. In the lysates the E705Q mutant was slightly less tyro sine phosphorylated than STAT1 WT, indicating that the increased DNA binding of STAT1 E705Q is not a consequence of its altered Tyr701 phosphorylation.

Restaining the membranes from Figure 3A with anti HA antibody also showed that more STAT1 E705Q was bound to DNA when com Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries pared to STAT1 WT. The result was verified by quantitating the intensities of the oligoprecipitated STAT1 bands that were normalized against total amount of input STAT1 or against the amount of Tyr701 phosphorylated STAT1. Furthermore, overexpression of SUMO 1 hindered STAT1 WT binding to Irf 1 oligo in U3A cells, providing further proof that sumoylation inhibits STAT1 DNA binding. Of note, additional oligoprecipitation experiments were carried out with larger protein amounts that would allow detection of sumoylated STAT1. In this experi mental setting, sumoylation was not detected in the DNA bound fraction of STAT1, Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries while SUMO 1 conjuga tion was readily observed in equal amount of cellular STAT1.

These results suggest that sumoylated STAT1 does not bind to DNA Batimastat or that the DNA binding of sumoylated STAT1 under is sig nificantly diminished. Promoter bound STAT1 dimer is known to inter act with histone acetyl transferase CREB binding pro tein and acetylation of histones is essential for STAT1 mediated transcriptional activation. Next, we wanted to investigate whether the enhanced DNA binding of sumoylation deficient STAT1 has functional consequences at the promoter level. To this end, we per formed chromatin immunoprecipitation